But edible. If it's a choice between no tuna and this tuna, I'll deal. I won't eat it raw though.

I wish we'd put the navy to better use than as platforms for cruise missile attacks on mud huts and park them off the breeding grounds. Then fire on any fishing boat. Do that for a couple decades and I bet the fish populations would come back sharpish.

Another comment had the same subject. I want to make a couple points though:

1. Suppose you're the CEO of an investment bank ca 1970, etc, and have a bunch of well meaning investor trader guys. They do ok. 8%, 10%, that's good. Reliable. The company they own goes public, and the shareholders demand management do *anything* they can to drive short term results. All shareholders en masse can see, by and large, is the short term.

2. Now imagine some clever fellow gets hired who can, by speculating, pile up 11% gains/year. It only makes sense to find more like him, right? Given the focus of shareholders (also know as the people who own your business, as CEO, and vote on whether you continue in your job) on short term results, can you expect to hold out for keeping the boring, dependable guys? Does it make sense that you, as a CEO of a big competitive company, are the type of person to voluntarily choose discipline and long-term stability over short term piles of cash? When you're already old and approaching retirement?

3. Now imagine some even more clever guys come in and say "we can, over time, use lobbying money to influence the regulatory environment and make even more mone".. could you possibly resist, if you're the CEO described above? Even assuming you know you're making a fatal long-term choice, does that matter from your point of view?

I make a practice of never assuming conspiracy where simple human laziness, greed or stupidity suffices. In this case only greed is required. Given we're talking about the financial industry, where greed is the absolute primary survival trait, it was completely inevitable that this would happen.

I lay the responsibility at the feet of the voters. We need to fight for campaign finance and lobby reform, to begin to address this problem at the source.

Though it makes sense (to the companies) to use the "buy back stock instead of paying dividends to reduce SEC oversight" approach, I agree with you. Stocks that pay dividends regularly are vastly more appealing to me. It provides insurance against sudden price drops.. if a stock starts yielding 40%, not only will I buy more, so will lots of people. Nothing saves a dividend-free stock from freefall unless the company happens to be ready (and willing) with a wad of cash in hand to drive the price back up. Not to mention you get paid to go long.

And as long as their models include logical amusement like "Housing prices fall? That's unpossible!".. I think we'll do just fine.

Now, the real question you didn't ask: Can computers outcompete people who don't want to think? Of course. So Mom and Pop are right out, until they get a copy of the intelligent investor and read it a few times, that is.

I can see wanting more money, even though you make 300k/year. For some, there is no such thing as enough. But as a former professional gambler, and given the guy had other, legal options, I can only think "Dumb move, buddy."

that the people who have gone into full-scale meltdown over the last year or so are still the serious adults we're supposed to listen to when it comes to terror and the erosion of our civil liberties.

I mean, after McCain had his heart attack and all. Chew on that.

is to avoid responsibility by spreading it around. Good management technique in a competitive environment. Utterly dishonorable and disastrous for our reputation in the world and for our civil rights, also yes.

after having been all over the place: the South, the Midwest, the East, Asia, etc. Prop13 has had some fairly ridiculous side effects, this much is beyond debate. I don't think Kamiya really has this problem nailed though-- many, many people living in this state are new arrivals, who were here long after Prop13 was enacted. We don't bear much responsibility for that law.. repealing it has never been considered politically realistic. I've heard the words "third rail" used a lot in conjunction with 13.

We're just the ones who have to pay the bill. And now we don't even get to go to the parks anymore. Meh. Washington State is starting to look real good.

detass:

While some of those detass were the result of "rogue" interrogators and agents, many were caused by the methods ...

While some of those deaths were the result of "rogue" interrogators and agents, many were caused by the methods ...

The downside of raw milk is you have to know where your milk is coming from. It has to be fresh, and it has to be clean. But you can buy raw milk cheese all over Europe and it's not like people are dropping dead from eating raw milk cheese -- in fact, studies show people who drink raw milk are a lot healthier than people who don't.

Link to the studies?

FWIW I eat raw milk cheese all the time (hard ones). The soft ones are scary, as the article admits. But if there are really significant benefits to drinking raw milk, I'll do some scouting at my local hippie farms :]

I hate it when I agree with you. It makes me feel dirty.