The Benghazi Unicorn is difficult to catch. But Trey will keep chasing it as long as it gets him face time on Fox.
Actually 1 source puts the current number of glaciers @ 177m. If U cherry pick that number & use your 130m number 4 the day Gore was born, U'll have a better headline 4 your post.
In '74 (self identified) conservatives were the political group that expressed the highest amount of trust in science. Now it is the group that is most distrustful. So what happened? My take is that the word "conservative" has been strongly associated w/ the R Party. Over the last 45 or so yrs, as the Party sold its soul for votes with its Southern Strategy, it has became the party of not so smart folks and the meaning of the word conservative has changed. In '74 Republicans watched Buckley's "Firing Line." Today they listen to Boortz's drivel and watch Fox.
"CBO and JCT currently estimate that the ACA’s coverage
provisions will result in net costs to the federal government
of $76 billion in 2015 and $1,350 billion over the
2016–2025 period. Compared with the projection from
last April, which spanned the 2015–2024 period, the current
projection represents a downward revision in the
net costs of those provisions of $101 billion over those
10 years, or a reduction of about 7 percent.2
And compared with the projection made by CBO and JCT in
March 2010, just before the ACA was enacted, the current
estimate represents a downward revision in the net costs
of those provisions of $139 billion—or 20 percent—for
the five-year period ending in 2019, the last
year of the 10-year budget window used in that original
The Budget & Economic Ourlook: 2015-2025, Appendix B
Turned out that snipers in our Phoenix Program in Vietnam were often just shooting whatever unlucky male happened to wander past and reporting it as a VC cadre kill. Shot lots of farmers and other rural males, not so many VC. However, I'm sure in Iraq it happened just like in the movies.
Perhaps the best predictor is people putting money where their mouths are? "Oddschecker" gives best British (where such betting is legal) odds of becoming President as: Clinton 11/8, Bush 6 (to 1), Rubio 12, Christie 16, Romney 18, Paul 20. Do the arithmetic. I believe Clinton's implied probability is a little higher than the sum of the probabilities of the leading R's. (Warren is at 20.)
Records go back to late 19th century. 10 warmest years (listed warmest 1st): 2014, 2010, 2005, 1998, 2013, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007. 10 warmest years out of last 130 all in the last 17? Could be random variation, I guess. But the odds are very high that it isn't & the risks are huge. Only a fool would bet that way.
Google "deaths, hospital errors, united states" & see how much better we're doing.
Back of envelope numbers (ck my arithmetic): Mkt cap is around $1,500mm. From Q3 '14 statement, non RE assets are booked @ around 995 (mostly cash & recent investments so book value shd be pretty close to mkt value) & liabilities @ around 334 (also BV shd be pretty close to MTM value). Leaves around 840 for implied mkt value of RE assets. (1) Can a somewhat specific case be made that the remaining RE is worth more? (What is left, the dead development over by Port St. Joe, around 180m acs of piney woods - some of it maybe well located to be in path of growth if there ever is any - and what else?) (2) Even if current RE values do justify the mkt cap, do you think mgt is gonna liquidate remaining RE rather than stay on the JOE teat & get paid while they try to develop it over the next 20 years or so? And what exactly is it in management's record that makes you think they are competent developers?
So how many people were killed by guns in the US last year? Adjusted for population size, how many would that have been in France? How many were actually killed in France?
Perhaps R governors are reacting to the example (experiment) of KS but the R Congress ain't wavering in the face of such evidence. It's going to require that the CBO use "dynamic scoring" on tax cut bills, aka, Voodoo Economics, Laffer Economics, Trickle Down Economics, Supply Side Economics, etc. When it fails with 1 label, they just stick on another & continue to spin the same foolishness.
Laffer's Fairy hasn't died in KS, she's alive & well in R spin. Those flint eyed deficit hawks have moved on from Kansas' failed experiment in voodoo economics. They are now focused on incorporating "dynamic scoring" into CBO analysis of federal tax cuts - but not spending bills, of course - so it can indicate the same revenue growth that KS was supposed to enjoy.
Is the Canadian company still interested in building it w/ current oil px? Does Canadian tar sand oil production make sense long term if px doesn't rise significantly?
Anyone who thinks Romney has credible shot can get betting odds of 25/1 from English betting shops. Just for comparison, Liz Warren's best odds are 20/1 & Hillary's best are 11/8.
Raising rates from zero too soon is probably the best way to assure the bleak future of deflation you speak of. Pretty much everyone w/ serious bets on economic recovery knows it. They know/assume, or at least hope, that the Fed knows it and recognizes that the risk in timing such rate increases are asymmetric.