With a market in turmoil, investors can make big gains with smart trading. What better place to get smart trading information then from a complete amateur.
Motorola- (MOT) Trading at 10.00
Why you want to buy: With Motorola’s largest investor Carl Ichan planning to spin off the cell phone division of Motorola, Wall Street speculation will result in a short term increase of Motorola stock. Sell it within a month though, the speculation won’t go on forever.
JPMorgan Chase and Co.- (JPM) Trading at 44.18
Why you want to buy: With the federally-funded take over of BearSterns, JPMorgan is experienced major stock turbulence right now. When the dust settles in a month or so, the price will be up. Don’t let minor downslides in the financial sector scare you away from purchases like this, the instability will only help the major players like JPMorgan. I wouldn’t be surprised to see even more acquisitions. Some investors are scared away from JPM because
Agnico-Eagle Mines- (AEM) Trading at 71.10
Why you want to buy: With a bullish market and the turbulence in the financial sectors investors will be looking for solid investment opportunities. For many investors that will mean a commodities market. When you combine that with the steady climb of gold prices, you really can’t go wrong buying a mine company. I personally like AEM over other mines because of it’s realistic production goals. Companies that set unrealistic goals often experience a massive drop-off when the gold isn’t realized. That isn’t a possibility with AEM.
Rubicon Minerals Corp- (RBY) Trading at 1.19
Why you want to buy: The same logic I applied to AEM, I’m applying here. Commodities and commodities manufactures a good bet in the bull market. RBY is a high risk pick though, low prices always are and RBY’s lack of diversification makes it even worse. I personally see big gains, but you could also see some big losses.
Costco Wholesale Corp- (COST) Trading at 66.62
Why you want to buy: With a recession (or at least fears of recession) coming, people will be looking to save money anyway they can, and this includes buying in bulk to save money. Costco and its competitors will all see a rise, what puts COST above similar companies is size. With 4000 SKU’s, COST can out-price its competition and attract customers.
Caveat: The moment this drops below 58, sell it like your life depends on it. Wholesale chains are vulnerable to a price drop when they face warehouse pull-out. Like a run on a bank if you don’t get your money out fast, you won’t get it out at all without COST reaching 52.
The above information should be taken as advise. You should consider seriously the risks and possible monetary damages before investing. If you are making investment decisions based a blog run by someone you don't know, you have Dennis Kucinich style mental issues and probably shouldn't be investing period.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Nobody was fainting during this speech
The beauty of a speech is that you don't just give the answers, you provide your own questions. "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." So said Barack “Hope and Change Man” Obama, in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright. This was a predictable, if belated, admission. But the more important question is: which "controversial" remarks?
Wright's assertion from the pulpit that the U.S. government invented the HIV virus "as a means of genocide against people of color"? Wright's claim that America was morally responsible for 9/11 — "chickens coming home to roost" — because of, among other crimes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
(Obama says he missed church that day. Had he never heard about it?)
What about the charge that the U.S. government (of Franklin Roosevelt, mind you) knew about Pearl Harbor, but lied about it? Or that the government gives drugs to black people, presumably to enslave and imprison them?
Obama condemns such statements as wrong and divisive, then frames the next question: "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?"
But that is not the question. The question is, Why didn't he leave that church? Why didn't he leave — why doesn't he leave even today — a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "God damn America"?
Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction.
His defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence, and (b) white guilt.
(a) Moral equivalence. Sure, says Obama, there's Wright, but at the other "end of the spectrum" there's Geraldine Ferraro, opponents of affirmative action and his own white grandmother, "who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." But did she shout them in a crowded theater to incite, enrage and poison others?
"I can no more disown (Wright) than I can my white grandmother." What exactly was grandma's offense? Jesse Jackson himself once admitted to the fear he feels from the footsteps of black men on the street.
Harry Truman was known to use epithets for blacks and Jews in private, yet is revered for desegregating the armed forces and recognizing the first Jewish state since Jesus' time. He never spread racial hatred. Nor did good old grandma.
Yet Obama compares her to Wright.
Does he not see the moral difference between the occasional private expression of the prejudices of one's time and the use of a public stage to spread racial lies and race hatred?
(b) White guilt. Obama's purpose in the speech was to put Wright's outrages in context. By context, Obama means history. And by history, he means the history of white racism. Obama says, "We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country," and then proceeds to do precisely that. And what lies at the end of his recital of the long train of white racial assaults from slavery to employment discrimination? Jeremiah Wright, of course.
This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It's the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance.
That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt, while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination.
But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor.
Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign.
Then answer this, Senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness?
This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero.
It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well.
Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?
Wright's assertion from the pulpit that the U.S. government invented the HIV virus "as a means of genocide against people of color"? Wright's claim that America was morally responsible for 9/11 — "chickens coming home to roost" — because of, among other crimes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
(Obama says he missed church that day. Had he never heard about it?)
What about the charge that the U.S. government (of Franklin Roosevelt, mind you) knew about Pearl Harbor, but lied about it? Or that the government gives drugs to black people, presumably to enslave and imprison them?
Obama condemns such statements as wrong and divisive, then frames the next question: "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?"
But that is not the question. The question is, Why didn't he leave that church? Why didn't he leave — why doesn't he leave even today — a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "God damn America"?
Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction.
His defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence, and (b) white guilt.
(a) Moral equivalence. Sure, says Obama, there's Wright, but at the other "end of the spectrum" there's Geraldine Ferraro, opponents of affirmative action and his own white grandmother, "who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." But did she shout them in a crowded theater to incite, enrage and poison others?
"I can no more disown (Wright) than I can my white grandmother." What exactly was grandma's offense? Jesse Jackson himself once admitted to the fear he feels from the footsteps of black men on the street.
Harry Truman was known to use epithets for blacks and Jews in private, yet is revered for desegregating the armed forces and recognizing the first Jewish state since Jesus' time. He never spread racial hatred. Nor did good old grandma.
Yet Obama compares her to Wright.
Does he not see the moral difference between the occasional private expression of the prejudices of one's time and the use of a public stage to spread racial lies and race hatred?
(b) White guilt. Obama's purpose in the speech was to put Wright's outrages in context. By context, Obama means history. And by history, he means the history of white racism. Obama says, "We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country," and then proceeds to do precisely that. And what lies at the end of his recital of the long train of white racial assaults from slavery to employment discrimination? Jeremiah Wright, of course.
This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It's the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance.
That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt, while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination.
But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor.
Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign.
Then answer this, Senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness?
This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero.
It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well.
Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)