Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (186347)	5/9/2006 12:45:56 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

MSNBC's David Shuster: Rove to be indicted within a couple of weeks! Olbermann Transcript: Olbermann: What are you gathering on these two main points. Is the decision by Mr. Fitzgerald coming soon, would it be an indictment? Shuster: Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted. And there are a couple of reasons why. First of all, you don't put somebody in front of a grand jury at the end of an investigation or for the fifth time, as Karl Rove testified a couple, a week and a half ago, unless you feel that's your only chance of avoiding indictment. So in other words, the burden starts with Karl Rove to stop the charges. Secondly, it's now been 13 days since Rove testified. After testifying for three and a half hours, prosecutors refused to give him any indication that he was clear. He has not gotten any indication since then. And the lawyers that I've spoken with outside of this case say that if Rove had gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard something by now. And then the third issue is something we've talked about before. And that is, in the Scooter Libby indictment, Karl Rove was identified as 'Official A.' It's the term that prosecutors use when they try to get around restrictions on naming somebody in an indictment. We've looked through the records of Patrick Fitzgerald from when he was prosecuting cases in New York and from when he's been US attorney in Chicago. And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified somebody as Official A, that person eventually gets indicted themselves, in every single investigation. Will Karl Rove defy history in this particular case? I suppose anything is possible when you are dealing with a White House official. But the lawyers that I've been speaking with who know this stuff say, don't bet on Karl Rove getting out of this. rawstory.com

To: geode00 who wrote (186347)	5/9/2006 4:22:46 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

50,000 frozen embryos must be quite valuable. It would depend on the value of the 5 year old child. I'd have to do a quick calculation based on all information available to deduce which had greater value. Would I save 50,000 SUVs or 1 x 5 year old child? It would depend on the quality of the SUVs. 50,000 x $40,000 = $200 million. That's a LOT of value. I think I'd have to save the SUVs unless the child was particularly good [such as a mini-me or junior Einstein]. Not many 5 year old children are worth $200 million. I suppose a frozen embryo is worth about $1000 [at the extorquerationate medical guild charges], so the embryos would be worth about $50 million. Again, I think I'd have to grab the refrigerator and call to the child to run for it if they can! But it would depend on the embryos. Not all embryos are created equal. Some would be negative value and should be destroyed. Mqurice PS: It's not just the value of the SUVs, it's the value they produce as well. They can produce a LOT of CO2 and maybe that would be just enough to avoid the next glaciation. These things are not linear and the straw that breaks the camel's back could tip us into freezing. I would NOT want to abandon the SUVs and be responsible for not just the loss of the SUVs, but also the initiation of a glaciation which could cost a LOT more than 1 x 5 year old child. I know this economic, engineering and environmental econometric analysis is too complex for most to understand, but hopefully you can grasp the basic ideas. We sophisticated international financial relativity theorists have trouble explaining our complex ideas to the layman [and lay-woman].