Market Effect

It simply baffles me. Every time the leader of a not so favorable nation makes a comment or performs a failed missile test…

...the stock market in the U.S. drops and the world market raises the price of a barrel of oil.

In a recent thread of mine it was well established by many who commented that the U.S. is the only 'superpower'.

What then do we call the amazing powers that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, and Kim Jong-il of North Korea have over the world?
All they have to do is speak or try to show off their weapons.
Ahmadinejad says that Israel should be wiped off the map and oil prices shoot up. I didn't know that Israel had oil.
Kim Jong-il shoots off a few rockets and the stock market drops. I didn't know N.Korea makes so many goods that directly affect what we purchase at Wal-mart. -Most of N.Korea's money is made by selling missiles and illegal drugs and counterfeiting U.S. money.

Considering the vast size of the world economy it amazes me that two people can have so much control.
What amazes me even more is that they are 'given' so much control.
Those who buy and trade in the markets really need to get back on their meds and stop overreacting so quickly every time something is said or done, good or bad.

There is not enough give and too much take by most of the influential nations in this world for major issues to be resolved.
As long as the leaders of nations cannot see that fixing problems would actually help their nations more than letting them continue... unless of course the main source of income for a nation is selling weapons or gasoline, nothing will be resolved.

So what is up with Kim Jong-il?
Does the man simply have mental problems? or maybe he has a hormone imbalance?
Does he really believe that the world should feed his people so that he has the money to continue to build up his arsenal?
Does he really believe that the U.S. wants to wipe his poor starving people off the map?
He does a fine job of 'playing' the world. He's not dumb.
He knows that other nations will not sit back and watch his people starve.
It's too bad that that may be the only real solution. How long would it be before his starving people stormed his palace?
I agree with a post from another thread: 'An act of war: North Korea' , though I beleive we have laws against that.?
"But, please don’t be so quick to forget the lesson of Viet Nam and Iraq. Take out Kim Jung Il, yes, if we can, covertly. ....."
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 4, 2006 06:23 PM

When it comes to Iran and it's leaders, cutting off the supply of gasoline is probably the answer.
Are we so afraid of the reaction in the markets that this is not possible?
If we knew it would work, couldn't we suck it up for 90 days or so? Maybe longer? (Of course we would HAVE TO be able to sustain this solution longer than Iran which I, for one, really doubt we could do because of the politics in our nation.)
It's unlikely Iran would stop selling their oil. It would only hurt them more.
Why is it that the leaders of Iran are so vehemently against gaining the trust of the world when it comes to their so-called Nuclear Energy program. Why is this such a blow to their collective egos?

Maybe it's because I am not a man but I cannot understand the need to beat the war drums or call out that 'my weapon is bigger than yours'.

I call for testing of testosterone levels for all those running for positions as leaders of all nations.

Posted by Dawn at July 5, 2006 12:11 PM
Comments
Comment #164969

Dawn- Very good! You have asked some questions that need answers. However, I fear that there will be no answers forthcoming because, if they are honest answers, we will get an inside look at the opportunism and greed that marks the traders in energy. Some analysts believe that up to $15.00 dollars per barrel of oil is fueled by rumor and fear. Take today for instance, North Korea pops off a few missiles and the price of oil goes over $75.00 a barrel and gasoline shoots up close to a dime. North Korea has no oil, so what makes their missile tests that important? Because the speculators say it does!

North Korea is not a threat to world peace. It could, however, cause a lot of trouble in it’s own backyard..that is until we send a carrier group over and annihilate it. As for your question about the mental state of Kim Jong Il, in the words of my favorite psychiatrist, “His elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top”, or, “His train is off the tracks” or, my favorite,”He is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.”

Posted by: John Back at July 5, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #164970

Comparing N Korea or Iran’s effect on the markets is interesting, because it really shows the butterfly effect of global politics. For instance, N Korea tests a nuke and the Dow sheds 53 points. Seems like an over-reaction, but is it? Remember, markets trade on what will happen, not what has happened. NK’s actions, coupled with Washington’s response, have made it slightly more likely that we will take some kind of action against them, be it military, economic, etc. So that raises a small red flag. The big question is how will China react? A lot of American companies (Google, for instance, down 1% today) have big stakes in China that are made a lot riskier by a less predictable future. So something as simple as a failed missile test costs investors here millions, maybe billions.

Posted by: David S at July 5, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #164972

1) It’s just a single day’s movement.
2) Its not even that big of a movement.
3) The volume for today is very low.

I fail to see the reason this is such a big deal.

Posted by: Zeek at July 5, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #164977

David S pretty much summed it up. One of the downsides of a global economy is that insignificant backwaters to us may be important to our trading partners. North Korea’s instability creates problems for Japan, China, and South Korea, all major US trading partners. As far as Kim and that jackass from Iran whose name I’m not even going to attempt to spell, thier trains of thought are still boarding at the station.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 5, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #164981

Dawn,
There is no rational explanation. Isn’t it obvious that the problem lies with the oil specultors. They will use any problem, no matter how small, to raise the price of oil.

I don’t know how, but the solution is to bypass or eliminate the speculators. Why can’t the oil companies go directly to the suppliers?
Mike

Posted by: Mike at July 5, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #164984
I call for testing of testosterone levels for all those running for positions as leaders of all nations.

So you would rather have someone like Dan Quayle as President rather than GW?

Posted by: europheus at July 5, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #164985

Mike, the logic behind commodity trading is that it stabilizes the commodity (at least, that’s why the government allows it). There would probably be some serious ramifications of banning oil futures that would far outway any potential benefits.

Posted by: Zeek at July 5, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #164987

Commodities move on supply and demand, this from Yahoo News:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060705/bs_nm/markets_oil_dc_17

Notice that “U.S. Demand” is a good part of the article…

The Iran issue is on the supply side, and yes, there is a substantial risk premium in the price.

As far as the stock market, oil is a major factor, but given the recent volatility since May, this is normal. Gold and copper are also up, gold moreso on the North Korea instability than anything. Zeek is right, the market movements today are not a big deal.

Posted by: Greg at July 5, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #164989

The U.S. consumes 25% of petro fuel of the world. The U.S. does not have the ability or will to suffer sustained shortages longer than a country like Iran or N. Korea. Our economy is too large and too dependent upon transportation, and the effects in inflation terms would reach well beyond the actual time frame of the shortages, since such inflationary pressures hit the markets immediately but don’t permeate the retail prices until some time after shortages are incurred or ended.

Welcome to globalization and dependency upon the world to sustain ourselves. Some of us have been arguing for a long time that such dependency has consequences of enormous proportions, and Dawn brings up one of biggies.

One thing is logically clear: The choice, if there is one, is to become independent of the rest of the world, in which case we can play world cop to our heart’s content, or, failing independence, we must learn to play tough, but, nice, with the rest of the world observing rules of interaction which we can hold other nations to account on. In other words lead by example.

There is no middle ground here. We must either become independent or do unto others as we would have them do unto us, if we are to maintain a leadership role in a world that desperately needs ethical leadership.

If we torture, we give license to other nations to do the same. If we exercise preemptory invasion as a security measure, we give license to other nations to do the same. If we turn our backs on Kyoto and global warming, we cannot look to other nations to save the environment we all depend upon.

The proposition is simple. Living up to it is hard. Americans can divide themselves along party lines and let the most money choose our leadership, and allow special interests to replace brains, education, and knowledge in leadership roles, or we can choose candidates regardless of party who are best educated, best experienced, and most knowledgeable about how to manage this most basic of questions. Do we become independent of the world and act accordingly, or do we lead by example and demand others follow our lead?

The choice is the voter’s to make. A choice not well made in the recent past. It is not too late for Americans to assume their responsibility for the electing the best and brightest leaders. Leaders who will manage our complicated and sophisticated relationship with other nations in the world, toward our goal of a safer, more properous, and freer future. Or NOT!

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 5, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #165001

“So you would rather have someone like Dan Quayle as President rather than GW?”


Posted by: europheus at July 5, 2006 03:37 PM

That’s a bit of a stretch.
Quayle may take issue with you on that one. He does shave daily - doesn’t he?
My guess is that Hillary has more testosterone than Dan does. Oh. That was so not nice!

Posted by: dawn at July 5, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #165007

David
Simple truths clearly stated - and yet - why is so hard to get prople to see them - i have viewed your VOID web site - i understand the purpose - and the frustration - i also feel we may be better off starting all over but i also fear that the core of the right - fed by their “cultural issues” will turn out to vote for their incumbents - who have said the right things for them - and the rest of the voters will be split giving the the right their seats

Dawn
markets will be markets - they often act irratioally but the always revert to the mean - so speculators who buy high can get burned as well - while many are motivated by greed - they are not all millionaires - just to prove they are not always - or even most of the time - right

Posted by: Terlen at July 5, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #165008

Well said David R. Dawn, good post. the market flows where money is best treated . be it pig bellies or houses or energy or high tech. or oil.you know that. the key again is moderation, if the candle is burnt from both ends the overheated economy will fail. I also know some folks who trade on the downside of the market and seen a few lose some big dollars on that side of the equation during the first part of 2000.so the money is on both sides.we have no damn oil and they know it. and what have we done to adjust for it in the last thirty years, they just put on the blinders and march right to the edge of the cliff.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at July 5, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #165010

Zeek:

You are the one here that seems to have their pulse on the gravity of the issue. A market decline of less than 1% isn’t worth commenting on. You are right about the trading volume to.

It is pretty predictable.

Craig

P.S. I think a better article would have been about how commodity prices have rallied since the fed’s new language in their statement. Look at gold and oil!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 5, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #165014

Craig, i have always respected your Knowledge for economics. in your opinion how would the markets react to a real energy policy of sustainable energy like nuclear and biofuels and solar.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at July 5, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #165017

I can’t speak to the true nature of Iran’s uranium enrichment, but it is an economic necessity that they develop their energy infrastructure. Iran has a decent economy now, and if they start to put money into programs which will develop it further, they could become the jewel of the middle east that persia once was. Now, I don’t trust their government with nuclear weapons, but I would like to see them prosper economically.

Having a large Per Capita income is one of the best ways to gague the possibility of stable democracy developing in a country. It is not a certainty, but it is necessary for stability.

If we want a workable sollution, we need to take our attention off of Ahmadinejad, as he has no power, instead we should be dealing with the Ayatolla, since he has command of the armed forces and is the true ruler of Iran.

Posted by: iandanger at July 5, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #165022


In the mean time, the rich will keep on getting richer and the poor will continue to suck it up and do the best they can to provide for their families.

Posted by: jlw at July 5, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #165024

Rodney:

Craig, i have always respected your Knowledge for economics. in your opinion how would the markets react to a real energy policy of sustainable energy like nuclear and biofuels and solar.

Thank you for the compliment.

A real energy policy would be looked at very closely by economists to determine the effect on profitability. The markets are going to be concerned with how much the energy costs, and how much those costs produce in terms of output.

The markets are not republican or democrat. The really do not care.

The reason for those great concepts you mentioned sometimes is not for economic gain. Sometimes the market will react indirectly. Let me give you an example. With a clear plan to move away from dependency on the middle east, the market will figure in a reduced “fear premium” over time into stock prices.

There is also the issue of competance and confidence. If the clear plan meets it’s numbers and goals along the way so economist can trace and track progress, the markets will respond better due to confidence.

In short, if an energy policy is done well with real numbers instead of political crap, and there really are alternatives that compete with oil prices, (Not just the current price but prices when the reach another low point), then the markets would react very well over time.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 5, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #165045

Dawn, good post and the responses were informative.

Posted by: gergle at July 5, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #165057

David,

Since we are not going to be energy independent anytime in the near future we will be forced to deal with your alternative of playing nice with the rest of the world. Wonder how that works. How about if we compare China to the US in terms of human rights, economic aid to other countries and disaster relief aid. One would think that regardless of the screw up by the US the world should hold us in esteem and be calling for all sorts of embargos against the not so nice government of China. Not a chance. No matter how much we give it won’t be enough, no matter how many times we prevent German from becoming the national language of France they just won’t like us and no matter that except for the USA spending a fortune on defense for the past 50 years to play world policeman all of Europe (at a minumum) would have been overrun by by Communist dictators at some point. Any yet…I don’t hear the world complaining about China and their wonderful track record on human rights. No complaints about their lack of contributions to disaster relief efforts. No complaints about their military budget or why they could possible need such an enormous military. No complaints about their ever growing contribution to world pollution. Maybe if we become more like China the world will like us more.

Posted by: Carnak at July 5, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #165068

Carnak, all I can say is that history contradicts your whole premise. America was the most beloved nations by the world’s people as late as 2001.

We have lost about half that number in the polls in just 5 years. But, it is not just global, but strategic as well. Carter, Bush 1, and Clinton all had the respect for American held fairly high by the people of the Middle East and Africa. That is has changed, dramatically.

America can lead by example and the world’s people can again love Americans, America, and what she stands for. In a world that is moving inexorably toward democracy, being in the good graces of the world’s people is a very smart and far reaching international political strategy.

This administration is incapable of that kind of foresight, with the exceptions of Powell and Condi Rice. Condi Rice’s move to the State Department was absolutely the smartest decision Bush has ever made save for listening to her and invading Afghanistan after 9/11. Too bad the Taliban are taking that country back again. But, that was Bush’s/Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s doing.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 5, 2006 8:38 PM
Comment #165110

“We have lost about half that number in the polls in just 5 years. But, it is not just global, but strategic as well. Carter, Bush 1, and Clinton all had the respect for American held fairly high by the people of the Middle East and Africa. That is has changed, dramatically.”
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 5, 2006 08:38 PM

My guess would be that alot of this is due to one statement: “You are either with us or against us.”

My questions to you are how and why did we have more respect previously and was it really respect?

Ignoring oppressive dictators because they have much needed oil is not, in my book, a plausable way to gain respect. (Yes. Even the current President Bush was photographed holding hands with a leader of one oppressive country.) Neither is claiming another leader, of a country that is backsliding, truly has a good heart.
These are no different than China and Russia sucking up and ignoring these issues to keep the oil flowing.
Not reacting to attacks against our people and our interests abroad did not gain respect from the likes of UBL, it showed them that we are weak.

Imagine how fast the story would leak if GW were to take care of the problems caused by Iran and N. Korea covertly.

That solution will have to wait until at least the next presidency.

We screwed ourselves by not weaning ourselves off our oil dependency over the past 30 years.
Makes me wonder exactly who our politicians have been looking out for because it hasn’t been ‘We the People’.
We need to get off oil so we can tell the oil rich nations to stick it.
Then when they want to blame us because they are poor at least we will be able to take part of the blame -honestly.

Posted by: dawn at July 5, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #165123

Dawn, it was not the war on terror that lost us the respect and admiration. It was the invasion of Iraq which did. Plain and simple, to vast numbers of people in the rest of the world this action appeared to be that of a bully who did, for no other reason than they could.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And to billions in the world, the nuanced and shifting reasons our administration gave for the invasion just don’t wash. The rest of the world looked to the U.S. for fair play and actions governed by readily understandable rules of ethics.

The world understood and supported the invasion of Afghanistan. The World through the U.N. said loud and clear, they did not understand the invasion of Iraq even before it occured. The writing was on the wall, and it had little to do with “Bring it on..” or “You are with us or against us”. Those were just words (of great arrogant and symbolic significance, but just words). The action of invading Iraq dwarfs those words in disppointment and a fall from grace by the United States.

I agree, we will have to wait for the next president, and demand of ourselves that we make a far better choice in leadership. But the clock is ticking, and our popular world support base is eroding with each passing month that we bullshit the world about a clear and present victory in Iraq. They know there can be no such thing, and the lie continually spewing from the White House just aggravates world opinion against us with each passing milestone of failure, dead, wounded, and atrocity in Iraq.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 5, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #165131

ALCON,

Great article and good responses. Very informative and suprisingly vitriol free.

David,

You’re pretty much on the mark about the US fall from grace in the world’s eyes, but I have to disagree about the impossibility of victory in Iraq. I also have to take this opportunity to ask a question. Before we invaded, Bush said that once the Iraqis stood up and took control of the situation, we would leave. He also said that the generals would decide troop levels.Murtha and others have been clamoring for us to withdraw. Last week, some ass leaked the possibility of a large withdrawl over the year. This was the commanding general, working with the Iraqi government, who came up with this. So why were so many people critical of Bush about this? I can understand, if not agree with, alot of the criticism, but why over this issue?

I think another factor may be involved with Europe’s disagreements over our actions. Europe has been subject to terrorist attacks, albiet on a smaller scale than 9/11, for decades from homegrown sources. Britain had the IRA, Italy the Red Brigades, etc. Because it was their own people, even when funded by the Soviet Union, whom they knew they couldn’t just attack as retribution, I think Europe got into the mode of treating terrorism as a police matter and may even have a bit of a fatalistic view of it as just something to have to live with.

America, on the other hand, has not had thatt same experience. We didn’t have much in the way of domestic terrorism compared to Europe in the 60s and 70s, and then almost nothing until the Oklahoma City bombing. Before 9/11, al Quaeda attacks were not on American soil. I think that the 9/11 attack, coupled with us being the only superpower, provoked a unique response. If France had been the target on 9/11 and lunatics flew highjacked planes into the Louve or Notre Dame Cathedral, or the Eiffel Tower, I think France would want to react strongly but would also know that they cannot project power globally without American help. I imagine their response would have been more covert, but just as direct, probably in the form of assasinations. Let’s not forget that it was France that sank the Rainbow Warrior. Of course, if France did want to go after Afghanistan, I don’t doubt for a second that we would have supported them.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 6, 2006 12:58 AM
Comment #165151

Dawn,

Considering the vast size of the world economy it amazes me that two people can have so much control.

They don’t. But the market speculators have.
Welcome to global capitalism.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 6, 2006 5:44 AM
Comment #165152

Dawn,

I call for testing of testosterone levels for all those running for positions as leaders of all nations.

Or, even cheaper, elect a woman as president.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 6, 2006 5:48 AM
Comment #165153

David S,

The big question is how will China react? A lot of American companies (Google, for instance, down 1% today) have big stakes in China that are made a lot riskier by a less predictable future. So something as simple as a failed missile test costs investors here millions, maybe billions.
It’s not just “a lot of American companies” interests in China, it’s about China today being the main bank funding US debt. If China side with NK against US, guess what will happen to dollar (and world economy) ?

I find the market reaction quite calm, considering this.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 6, 2006 5:54 AM
Comment #165155

All,

Nice thread, thanks Dawn and every posters.

1LT B,

I think that the 9/11 attack, coupled with us being the only superpower, provoked a unique response. If France had been the target on 9/11 and lunatics flew highjacked planes into the Louve or Notre Dame Cathedral, or the Eiffel Tower, I think France would want to react strongly but would also know that they cannot project power globally without American help. I imagine their response would have been more covert, but just as direct, probably in the form of assasinations. Let’s not forget that it was France that sank the Rainbow Warrior. Of course, if France did want to go after Afghanistan, I don’t doubt for a second that we would have supported them.

While I agree globally with your view, I think that France will not project power globally even if she could. Against terrorism it doesn’t work that good. We’ve learn badly since decade.

As you may know, the terrorists who did highjacked in 1994 an Air France plane were indeed targetting the Eiffel Tower…
That why after 9/11 french show so much compassion to your comparable but far more tragic terrorist attack. But that also why we never understood the flawed link with Iraq War made by the White House and oppose this war.

US lost its moral world leadership while showing too much of its mucle and too less of its intelligence (pun intended ;-) ).

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 6, 2006 6:23 AM
Comment #165175

Phillipe,

Good point and good pun. I think that America has become enamored of its military power and looks to it as a bit of a silver bullet. I tend to associate most of this with the first Gulf War, which went about perfectly and may have taught the wrong lessons. Against anyone dumb enough to run armored divisions against the US Army, we have no peer competitor. Our total air superiority coupled with our superior equipment and training pretty much makes engaging us division on division a losing prospect.

The flip side of this dominance in conventional war is that it tends to force your enemies to not play by your rules. The insurgents know they can’t take us in a straight fight, so the use IEDs etc. Not a bad tactic on thier part, though I don’t particuarly like it.

The most likely result of this is that by the time the US exits Iraq, it will have a battle hardened Army even better able to smash anybody but alot less desire to use it. The current war in Iraq has demonstrated 2 things. First, it demonstrated that no one can really take the US in a conventional battle. It will also be a lesson on how to turn weakness into a perverted strength through terror tactics.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 6, 2006 9:38 AM
Comment #165208

Dawn - You developed an interesting and cohesive topic that nearly colapsed at the end. Imagine the horror that a man would face in a public forum, if he casually suggested that female leaders act on hormones and that prior to a woman being qualified for a leadership role, she be subjected to hormonal testing.

I’m not offended, just concerned.

Posted by: DOC at July 6, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #165373

1LT B,

I think that America has become enamored of its military power and looks to it as a bit of a silver bullet. I tend to associate most of this with the first Gulf War, which went about perfectly and may have taught the wrong lessons.

Or at least these lessons wasn’t reevaluated good enough after Mogadishu battle.

The current war in Iraq has demonstrated 2 things. First, it demonstrated that no one can really take the US in a conventional battle. It will also be a lesson on how to turn weakness into a perverted strength through terror tactics.

Which lead to the claim that there’s no such “conventional battle” in reality, which I believe, and the rule of David vs Goliath still apply in more and more asymetrical warfares.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 7, 2006 4:21 AM
Comment #165374

1LT B said: “Before we invaded, Bush said that once the Iraqis stood up and took control of the situation, we would leave.”

You will have to show me a link and quote to prove that statement is true. My first recollection of a statement like this from Bush was in late 2005. Give me some evidence to the contrary, and I will happily agree.

Spending speaks far more loudly that words. Bush has been investing your and my tax dollars in permanent bases in Iraq for about 2 years now. I am a follow the money not not the mouth, kinda guy.

“He also said that the generals would decide troop levels.”

Yes, and the generals disagreed on those, and Bush/Cheney/Rummie made the final decision, NOT THE GENERALS.

“I think Europe got into the mode of treating terrorism as a police matter”

Quite appropriately so too, I might add. Dropping bombs on subdivisions of families in order to get a couple of terrorists is not the way to win the hearts and minds of the people, theirs or your own.

“We didn’t have much in the way of domestic terrorism compared to Europe in the 60s and 70s,”

Oh really? Any decent history book would contradict that statement. Ever hear of civil rights demonstrations, the Watts Riots, or how about the 1967 riots in Detroit, and later riots in Chicago, and a host of other cities that were set aflame and in which snipers from building tops were a real threat. Church bombings ring a bell? And the 3 little girls murdered by one?

How about the Black Panther march into the California Legislature, armed? Terrorist? Maybe not by today’s standards, but it sure scared the hell out of the legislators. HA!

And please, please let us not forget the KKK and the lynchings, shootings, and murders in the South. If that wasn’t terrorism, I don’t know what is.

Sorry, 1LT B, to be so blunt. But, your comments appear to either reflect very selective memory or they just don’t reflect a knowledge of the history of the 1960’s and 1970’s. I lived through those decades as a teen, and young man in my 20’s. I have very keen memories of the history of that time, and I was even caught up in the Detroit 1967 riots, detained by police, constantly harassed trying to get to work at night after curfew, and I watched my city set ablaze, and a sniper shot and killed where he lay on a freeway overpass, after taking pot shots at police and national guard vehicles travelling below.

Our nation has a broad history of terrorism, some of it by law enforcement officials for decades. Ask a black man raised in the south now in his 60’s or 70’s if America hasn’t seen terrorism until recently.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 7, 2006 4:42 AM
Comment #165402

DOC,

That’s ‘funny’.
Of course I was thinking just of male leaders, which is easy to do given that there are more of them….
Since there are hormonal imbalances that cause women to commit acts of violence I would agree that it would be feasible in some cases to test a woman also.
BUT. You are correct in assuming that there would be a major uproar over such a suggestion. AND. Many women (in the age range of national leaders)already have their hormone levels tested and kept in check - How many men do you know that have their hormones checked on a regular basis- if ever?

Posted by: dawn at July 7, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #358041

There are no hidden charges or costs on any of our other sites. Please do visit by clicking on replica designer handbags each banner. Join our active message boards too! And download our nifty tool bar for Christian dieters. I have yet to find a stylist who can replicate this in my area however I just discovered there is *ONE* dominican replica handbags salon in my area so I will definitely be giving it a try this weekend. I get tired of doing my blowouts every week myself, it be nice to have someone else do it. I also believe that my hair looks much healthier and shinier with the blowout process and I use louis vuitton outlet very little product!.

Posted by: replica designer handbags at December 4, 2012 2:52 AM
Post a comment