Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
The Debate over Stem Cells
by Dr. Tommy Mitchell, AiG–U.S.
March 11, 2009
The scientific and ethical debate regarding the use of stem cells in medical research has been raging for over a decade. With President Obama reversing the previous administration’s limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, this debate can only intensify in the months and years upcoming.
What Is a Stem Cell?
At the heart of this debate is something called a stem cell. Simply put, stem cells are the types of cells from which all the different tissues of the body are derived. To understand this, just picture what happens when a sperm fertilizes an egg. There is initially one cell; that cell divides into two cells; those two become four; and so on. From these first few cells, over 200 different tissue types in the body are made. These initial cells are called stem cells, and they have the ability to change into the various tissues required as the embryo develops. This process of stem cells turning into more specialized tissue is called differentiation.
As stem cells mature, they become more specialized. As a result of this process, the number of different tissues into which a stem cell can transform becomes limited. That is, after a certain point a stem cell may no longer be able to give rise to nerve cells or skin cells but may be able to produce blood cells or pancreatic cells. This loss of ability to differentiate is one of the key arguments in the debate over stem cell research.
Embryonic Stem Cells and Adult Stem Cells
The two primary types of stem cells involved in this field of research are embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos (typically four to five days old). A ball of cells called a blastocyst is disrupted, and the embryonic cells are harvested. These cells grow rapidly and have the potential to transform into any cell type in the body.
Adult stem cells are found in virtually every tissue in the body. However, they are found in relatively small numbers in these tissues. Generally, they only make the cells specific to the area in which they are located. These cells grow less rapidly in laboratory culture than embryonic stem cells (but this is not the disadvantage it appears to be—embryonic stem cells can grow so rapidly that they can be difficult to control). Theoretically, adult stem cells have less potential to produce all the needed cell types required for adequate medical research.
Problems with Embryonic Stem Cells and Benefits of Adult Stem Cells
Proponents of embryonic stem cell research claim that these cells are superior to adult stem cells, and our research efforts should be concentrated in this arena. Are these claims of superiority valid?
First of all, in the last few years, researchers have succeeded in producing virtually every tissue type from adult stem cells. In fact, according to the National Institutes of Health, “A number of experiments have suggested that certain adult stem cell types are pluripotent.”1 So, it is apparent that the claim that embryonic stem cells can produce more tissue types is not true.
Also often overlooked is the problem of tissue rejection. When a patient gets an organ transplant there is always a concern the recipient’s body will reject the donated organ. The same concern exists in therapy with embryonic stem cells. These cells are, in fact, foreign to the recipient’s body and can cause rejection. This would not be the case with adult stem cell therapy, as the patient would be receiving his or her own cells back. These transformed cells would be recognized as “self” and should not induce rejection.
In some studies, embryonic stem cells have been found to produce tumors. This has not been a problem with adult stem cell therapy.
The claim of therapeutic benefit for embryonic stem cells is not borne out by the many years of research with adult stem cells. At present over 70 diseases have been treated with adult stem cell therapy. In fact, blood forming stem cells have been used in transplants for over 30 years.2 In contrast, the track record for the use of embryonic stem cells in clinical applications demonstrates no successes: “However, to date, no approved medical treatments have been derived from embryonic stem cell research.”3
Embryos Are Human Beings
The overriding objection to embryonic stem cell research is that in order to obtain these cells, a human life must be terminated. Embryonic stem cells are obtained by disrupting a blastocyst, which is what the embryo is called four to five days after fertilization. While there are many arguments claiming this is not immoral, one must ask the question, “Is it just to kill one person to save another?” Given the absence of success with embryonic stem cell research, perhaps the better question is, ”Is it just to kill one person in the hope of saving another?”
Life begins at conception (here defined as the moment the sperm and egg unite), and, thus, the embryo at day one is a precious human life. The origin of the stem cells we use for research is vitally important (my colleague, Dr. Georgia Purdom, has written an excellent article on the subject). It is curious that in our society some people are so concerned that we pursue this research to help the sick because it is the “humanitarian” thing to do, and yet they deny the humanity of those destroyed to do so.
I am certain that President Obama’s concern for the sick and dying is genuine. However, with this decision the defenseless unborn are put in harm’s way on only the faint promise of benefit. Research with adult stem cells is showing great potential. Would it not be better to use our present resources (as scarce as they are right now) on technology that has already shown such promise?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/11/debate-over-stem-cells
People are finally starting to see through the scam.
Poll: Many Believe Global Warming Overhyped
Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:58 PM
Skepticism about global warming among the American public is growing, with 41 percent of those polled now saying the danger over climate change is exaggerated, according to a Gallup poll. That figure represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.
As recently as 2006, more Americans thought that newspaper and TV reporters underestimated the seriousness of global warming than said it was exaggerated: 38 percent vs. 30 percent. Now, more Americans say the problem is exaggerated rather than underestimated, 41 percent vs. 28 percent.
Those who identify themselves as Republicans have grown increasingly likely to believe media coverage of global warming is exaggerated. But this year’s Gallup survey marks a relatively sharp increase among independents as well. In just the past year, Republican doubters grew from 59 percent to 66 percent, and independents from 33 percent to 44 percent, while the rate among Democrats remained close to 20 percent, Gallup said.
Notably, Gallup added, “all of the past year's uptick in cynicism about the seriousness of global warming coverage occurred among Americans 30 and older. The views of 18- to 29-year-olds, the age group generally most concerned about global warming and most likely to say the problem is underestimated, didn't change.”
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/gallup_global_warming/2009/03/12/191476.html
Fund: GOP Can Still Stop Obama’s Radical Liberal Agenda
Thursday, March 12, 2009 2:53 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Obama “is going to double the public debt in less than five years,” says conservative author John Fund. “He is going to triple it in 10 years. This is a disaster if it passes.”
Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama’s fiscal policies will lead to “disaster” — but insists that Republicans still have a chance to defeat a good deal of his agenda.
Fund cited two examples from recent history when Republicans were able to stop a Democratic president and Congress from implementing a “radical liberal agenda.”
Newsmax TV’s Ashley Martella observed that conservatives face a “nightmare” these days with Obama’s tax-and-spend policy, and asked Fund what is the most egregious part of it.
“Potential nightmare — it only becomes real if it passes into law and is signed by the president. I think there is a real chance of stopping much of it,” said Fund, author of the book “Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.”
“He is going to double the public debt in less than five years. He is going to triple it in 10 years. This is a disaster if it passes.
“But there is a way out of this. In 1977, Jimmy Carter came in with a very ambitious liberal agenda. He campaigned as a moderate, but he governed from the left almost immediately because his congressional leadership and his special interests, especially the unions, demanded he govern from the left.
“The public reacted. He started losing special elections. In late ’77 the Democrats lost the Virginia governorship. After that Carter’s program basically ground to a halt.
“Then in ’78 there was a humiliating defeat in the midterm elections. Carter policies turned very badly — 12 percent inflation, 21 percent interest rates, 9 percent unemployment. And then of course came Ronald Reagan.
“In ’93, Clinton — [after] campaigning as a moderate — comes into office and immediately starts governing from the left. What happens? He starts losing special elections. Then the Republicans come back. They win the New Jersey governorship on a supply side tax-cutting platform. George Allen wins the Virginia governorship. Nothing of significance passed the Democratic Congress after November 1993 following those off-year election losses.
“Well here we go again, perhaps. On March 31 there is a special election in New York’s 20th congressional district. This is the vacancy created by Kirsten Gillibrand being appointed to Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat. A Democratic-held district. A district that voted for Obama.
“The Republican candidate, though, is very strong — minority leader of the state assembly Jim Tedisco. The Democratic candidate is a self-funded millionaire but he has all kinds of problems because he is a first-time, inexperienced candidate.
“The latest independent polls show the Republican 14 points ahead. If the Republicans win that seat on March 31 — perhaps they win it in a landslide — that will be the first public referendum on the Obama administration."
Fund also pointed to November gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey where potential Republican candidates are leading in the polls.
“If Republicans repeat their success of ’93 and win both the Virginia and New Jersey governorships, we may see an enormous amount of nervousness in the Democratic Congress about passing things like the cap-and-tax global warming tax, which violates Obama’s pledge that he wouldn’t raise taxes for anyone under $250,000,” Fund said. “This raises taxes for anyone who drives or turns on a light switch.”
Democrats have reason to be nervous because 46 of them sit in House districts that John McCain won, and 80 sit in districts that George W. Bush carried in 2004, Fund noted.
“They are nervous. They know that if Republicans start racking up special election victories like they did in ‘77 and ’93, they can see they might be heading toward a very bad year. They will be very loathe to take political risks.
“So the message here is, of course it’s a potential nightmare. There’s also a potential political opportunity because twice before we have defeated radical liberal Democratic agendas when they were pursued with a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president.”
Asked if he believes Republicans could take control of the House in 2010, Fund said that would not be necessary.
What’s important is that Republicans “scare the Democrats into recognizing that the political consequences of moving too far to the left will be very detrimental to them.”
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/john_fund_obama_gop/2009/03/12/191322.html
Sounds like this pastor is a little off on the work of the Holy Spirit.
Very strange. Still don't know what to make of it as it never seems to put any real upward pressure on the share price. More like pre-arranged buys. There's no way the average investor could put in a buy that large and have it go through all at once is there?
It's very obvious when reading God's word that life begins at conception. Psalm 139 spells it out along with other references. Embryonic stem cell research kills what God created! Period!!!
Stem cell decision exposes religious divides
By ERIC GORSKI, AP Religion Writer Eric Gorski,
The embryonic stem cell research debate is steeped with religious arguments, with some faith traditions convinced the research amounts to killing innocent life, others citing the moral imperative to alleviate suffering, and plenty of religious believers caught somewhere in between.
President Barack Obama's order Monday opening the door for federal taxpayer dollars to fund expanded embryonic stem cell research again brings those often colliding interests to the fore.
Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, called Obama's move "a sad victory of politics over science and ethics."
"This action is morally wrong because it encourages the destruction of innocent human life, treating vulnerable human beings as mere products to be harvested," Rigali, the archbishop of Philadelphia, said in a statement.
On the other side is the Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, a United Church of Christ minister and a professor at Chicago Theological Seminary.
"There is an ethical imperative to relieve suffering and promote healing," she said. "This is good policy for a religiously pluralistic society that cares about human suffering and the relief of human suffering."
Obama alluded to religion in announcing the changes, saying, "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."
Some religious traditions teach that because life begins at conception, any research that destroys a human embryo, as this research does, is tantamount to murder and is never justified. The Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention are among those that oppose the research.
Other more liberal traditions, including mainline Protestant and Jewish institutions, believe the promise to relieve suffering is paramount. In 2004, the governing body of the Episcopal Church said it would favor the research as long as it used embryos that otherwise would have been destroyed, that embryos were not created for research purposes, or were not bought and sold.
Under Jewish law, an embryo is genetic material that does not have the status of a person. According to the Talmud, the embryo is "simply water" in the first 40 days of gestation. Healing and preserving human life takes precedence over all the other commandments in Judaism.
Some groups and faiths are divided on the issue. Muslims disagree over — among other things — whether an embryo in the early stage of development has a soul. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Mormon church, has not taken a position.
The Rev. Joel Hunter, an evangelical pastor from Orlando, Fla., who serves on an Obama White House advisory panel, said he was encouraged by Monday's developments.
"The principle is still that it's not only understandable but in some ways moral to use embryonic stem cells that are destined for destruction for research for helping people," he said. "I think we have to tread very lightly and very carefully, and I think we have to be vigilant for years to come."
But most evangelicals criticized Obama's move. Gilbert Meilaender, a Christian ethicist at Valparaiso University and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, created by President George W. Bush, said Obama's decision was especially disappointing because scientists are advancing toward being able to produce cells that act like embryonic stem cells without destroying any human embryos.
Meilaender said that while there is no good solution for frozen embryos left in storage at fertility clinics, destroying them for stem cell research is not the answer.
"My own position is that having, as it were, produced and used them once in the use of someone else's project, for a reproductive purpose, that using it once for someone else's purpose is enough," said Meilaender, a member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
Catholic bishops have been outspoken in opposing embryonic stem cell research. Other Catholics, though, are more open to lifting the Bush-era restrictions, with caveats. The Rev. Tom Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, said restrictions should be put on embryonic stem cell research — including prohibition on their buying and selling, and using only embryos that otherwise would be destroyed.
"I'm trying to make an argument for some middle ground here," Reese said. "Hopefully down the line we can reach a point where we don't have to use embryonic stem cell research."
Polls show some believers are willing to buck their leaders on the issue. Fifty-nine percent of white, non-Hispanic Catholics and 58 percent of white mainline Protestants favor embryonic stem cell research, according to a poll released in July 2008 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Only 31 percent of white evangelical Protestants, however, favored the research.
Princeton University politics professor Robert George, a Catholic and another member of the Bush-era Council on Bioethics, said the moral argument over embryonic stem cell research is not rooted in religion but in ethics and equality. He said research shows that an embryo is a human being in its earliest form of development, so we have to ask ourselves whether all human life should be treated equally, with dignity and respect.
"I don't think the question has anything to do with religion or pulling out our microscope and trying to find souls," George said. "We live in a pluralistic society where some people believe there are no such things as souls. Does that mean we should not have moral objections to killing 17-year-old adolescents?"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_on_re/rel_stem_cells_religion
Stimulus Loophole Gives 300,000 Jobs to Illegals
Monday, March 9, 2009 6:09 PM
By: David A. Patten
An estimated 300,000 construction jobs paid for by the stimulus plan will go to illegal workers after leading Democrats removed a provision requiring verification of citizenship, a leading immigration expert tells Newsmax.
The House version of the $787 billion stimulus bill required verification of the legal residency of anyone put to work by its spending. But that provision was removed from the bill before members of Congress met to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill.
Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), tells Newsmax the verification provision was deleted by Democratic leaders even before the bill reached the conference committee, where differences between House and Senate legislation are normally ironed out.
“When it got to conference, the top people -- not just the conference members, but the top people: Reid, Pelosi, and Obama -- chose to kill the provision and not include it,” Camarota says. “This was a purposeful decision.”
The provision would have required that workers’ names to be vetted through the Internet-based E-Verify system. E-Verify, a joint project of the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration, gives employers a quick means of verifying employee eligibility.
“E-Verify is our most effective tool for preventing illegal immigrants from getting jobs, and they chose not to use it,” says Camarota.
The estimate of 300,000 construction jobs is based on U.S. Census and other studies showing that approximately 15 percent of U.S. construction workers are illegal immigrants.
Construction projects funded by the stimulus bill are expected to generate 2 million jobs. Assuming 15 percent of those workers are illegal, 300,000 illegal aliens would be employed. The actual number could be higher, however, because many of the projects are in states with high immigrant populations, such as Texas, California, and Florida.
The CIS estimates are accepted by the conservative Heritage Foundation, and even groups that advocate on behalf of illegals don’t quibble with them much. One activist for illegals, however, told USA Today that the CIS report amounts to “fear tactics.”
Some sources suggest Democrats opened up stimulus money to illegals to placate activists who may have to wait for the outright amnesty they covet. Others say it reflects the influence of pro-business interests who want a vast workforce of reasonably priced labor.
Whatever the motivation, Camarota says it’s no accident the verification measure was stripped out. “This was not just a careless oversight that can sometimes happen in the legislative process,” he says.
One economic concern generated by the CIS report: A significant portion of illegal workers’ income is shipped out of the United States to support their families. That money would no longer be available to support economic activity in the United States.
The Council on Foreign Relations, for example, estimates that in 2004 Mexican nationals pumped $22.2 billion back into Mexico’s economy via remittances sent back home. How well U.S. taxpayers tolerate the export of stimulus dollars given the rapidly rising unemployment at home remains to be seen.
“In general construction jobs are reasonably good paying jobs for working class people, and we’re talking about perhaps 300,000 of them going to people who aren’t supposed to be even in the country,”
Camarota says. “And this is money coming from taxpayers. The whole point of the stimulus is to put Americans back to work. And by not including E-Verify, it’s a terrible slap in the face to U.S. construction workers, who are currently experiencing a 10 percent, sometimes even 15 percent unemployment rate.”
Before leaving office, former President Bush signed an executive order requiring all federal contractors to submit employees’ names to E-verify. President Obama has delayed implementation of that directive until at least May 21.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed a lawsuit to prevent making the use of E-Verify mandatory. The organization says Congress approved it strictly as a voluntary initiative.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/stimulus_illegals_jobs/2009/03/09/190028.html
What a sad day as this country continues to slide into moral decay led by our new president. As I've said many times, President Bush defended life to his utmost. Obama has eliminated most of his hard work in less than 2 months. The success in science has come from adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood and other lines, not embryonic stem cells that actually end a life.
Obama opens up stem cell work, science inquiries
Mar 9, 6:28 PM (ET)
By SETH BORENSTEIN and BEN FELLER
WASHINGTON (AP) - From tiny embryonic cells to the large-scale physics of global warming, President Barack Obama urged researchers on Monday to follow science and not ideology as he abolished contentious Bush-era restraints on stem-cell research. "Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama declared as he signed documents changing U.S. science policy and removing what some researchers have said were shackles on their work.
"It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology," Obama said.
Researchers said the new president's message was clear: Science, which once propelled men to the moon, again matters in American life.
Opponents saw it differently: a defeat for morality in the most basic questions of life and death.
"The action by the president today will, in effect, allow scientists to create their own guidelines without proper moral restraints," said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said.
In a crowded ornate East Room, there were more scientists in the White House than Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science had seen in his 30 years in Washington. "More happy scientists than I've seen," he added.
The most immediate effect will allow federally funded researchers to use hundreds of new embryonic stem cell lines for promising, but still long-range research in hopes of creating better treatments, possibly even cures, for conditions ranging from diabetes to paralysis. Until now, those researchers had to limit themselves to just 21 stem cell lines created before August 2001, when President George W. Bush limited funding because of "fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science."
Science, politics and religion have long intertwined and conflicted with each other. In his actions Monday, especially with the stem cell decision, Obama is emphasizing more the science than the religion, when compared with his predecessor, science policy experts say. But they acknowledged politics is still involved.
Don't expect stem cell cures or treatments anytime soon. One company this summer will begin the world's first study of a treatment using human embryonic stem cells, in people who recently suffered spinal cord injuries. Research institutions on Monday were gearing up to ask for more freely flowing federal money, and the National Institutes of Health was creating guidelines on how to hand it out and include ethical constraints. It will be months before the stem cell money flows; the average NIH stem cell grant is $1.5 million spread out over four years.
Scientists focused on a new sense of freedom.
"I think patients everywhere will be cheering us on, imploring us to work faster, harder and with all of our ability to find new treatments," said Harvard Stem Cell Institute co-director Doug Melton, father of two children with Type I diabetes that could possibly be treated with stem cells. "On a personal level, it is an enormous relief and a time for celebration. ... Science thrives when there is an open and collaborative exchange, not when there are artificial barriers, silos, constructed by the government."
Opponents framed their opposition mostly, but not exclusively, on morality grounds and the scientifically contested claims that adult stem cells work just as well.
Said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America: "President Obama's order places the worst kind of politics above ethics politics driven by hype makes overblown promises, fuels the desperation of the suffering and financially benefits those seeking to strip morality from science."
In Congress, Reps. Diana De Gette, D-Colo., and Mike Castle, R-Del., said they would seek a quick vote on legislation to codify Obama's order in federal law, after failing twice in the past to overturn former President George W. Bush's restrictions. DeGette said she doesn't want stem cell research to become "a pingpong ball going back and forth between administrations."
But Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., chairman of the Republican study committee, said the president's new policy would "force taxpayers to subsidize research that will destroy human embryos." De Gette and Castle said their legislation tries to minimize destruction of embryos.
Stem cells are typically derived from fertility clinic surplus, destined for destruction.
Obama also said the stem cell policy is designed so that it "never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction." Such cloning, he said, "is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society or any society."
In addition to the stem cell order, Obama issued a memo designed to ensure openness about scientific research and give whistleblower protection to scientists.
Promoting science "is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient - especially when it's inconvenient," Obama said.
Science and politics often conflict, said Granger Morgan, professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University and a former science advisory board chairman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Perhaps illustrated no more wildly than in 1897 when the Indiana legislature attempted to change the mathematical concept of pi to 3.2. Science should provide the facts that politicians use for their decisions, Morgan and Leshner said.
Many scientists and environmental activists complained that the Bush administration had censored and marginalized science. That's a perception that Bush science adviser John Marburger repeatedly called untrue and unfair.
In 2006, the White House edited out congressional testimony about public health effects of global warming by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Julie Gerberding. A 2003 EPA global warming document was edited by nonscientists at the White House. A NASA political appointee tried - and failed - to silence the agency's top climate scientist.
Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona resigned in 2006, complaining about White House interference on global health issues: "The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds."
Obama advisers contend that all has changed. The government has already put on hold rules about scientific input on endangered species, reinstating advice that had been excised during the Bush administration.
Public policy must "be guided by sound scientific advice," said Dr. Harold Varmus, the Nobel Prize-winning co-chairman of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. The new memo Obama signed is "mainly a way of trying to prevent tampering with any advice," Varmus told MSNBC.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090309/D96QPFS80.html
Our management is not even taking salary, just shares as compensation (at least through Nov per SEC filings). I'd review all the SEC filings so you can see how many shares they own and to see there isn't much selling going on. I think management knows there's much better things coming down the line. We've all been waiting for the reselling of fuel to begin and it sounds like it will be the second half of 2009. I've got an e-mail into Steve right now asking if we're reselling yet.
Once we see the reselling of fuel begin (merchant fuel sales), our margins should be significantly higher (400-500% per most DD) and with the numbers shown in ADNY vision statement, they must be expecting to pick up other terminals or ???. It's always nice to buy in when no one it noticing.
http://www.adinoenergycorp.com/flash/downloads/ADNY-Our-vision-of-growth.pdf
far from it. Not with their expected revenue in 2009 and the transition to reselling fuel and possible other acquisitions. I'll be doubling up my holding soon here (at least once).
Exactly. I'm not afraid to say that I've doubled up my investment here recently and may still do it one or two more times in the next few weeks/months if the prices stays down. Invest the panic/stupidity and sell the froth.
I agree with Steve. As far as I'm concerned, DPDW is a ridiculously undervalued but rapidly growing company in a great sector. I'm going along with some of the best investors of all-time. Buy undervalued stocks and hold for the long term.
This was in Subsea 7's 2008 Annual Report that came out on Feb 3rd.
OUTLOOK
Whilst the market outlook will retain a degree of uncertainty for the medium term as a result of the current economic
climate, there has been no dramatic deterioration in the subsea market sector. Current indications are that National
Oil Companies and major operators are generally maintaining spending levels. The recent announcement from
Petrobras advising of a projected increase in Exploration & Production spending over the next 5 years from USD 65
billion to USD 105 billion supports this view.
However, as expected, the anticipated spending of smaller operators has been reduced and, as a consequence, a
number of development plans have been re-evaluated and deferred. This has particularly affected the UK Sector of
the North Sea (Norway remaining stable) and the Gulf of Mexico where a number of tie-back projects have been postponed. There are indications of decreases in costs throughout the supply chain and, in conjunction with this, the Company is focused on reducing its costs and improving efficiencies in order to remain competitive in the current market.
http://www.subsea7.com/cms/files/Subsea7_Inc_Quarter4report2008-FINAL.pdf
The stock market is really responding to the Obama plan isn't it. What a disaster this President is turning out to be. Carter squared and then some. DOW under 7000! Nice going. I hope the 52 percent of you that voted for Obama are happy now. We sure could use Reagan right now!!! Tax and spend doesn't work. We need tax cuts and spending cuts now. Not trillions in new spending. I believe we're up to about 11 trillion in spending and backing. Unbelievable!
Isn't it funny how a recession has always been defined as when the GDP shows negative growth for two consecutive quarters, but for President Bush they just made up new rules so they could say it started 15 months ago. Wrong! GDP was not negative (and only slightly) until Q3 of 2008. Q2 of 2008 was up nearly 3 percent! Funny how this recession that just started at the end of 2008 is now referred to as a 15 month recession. Buy hey, facts have never stopped the left from lying. The Obama tax and spend machine will not help. Let's hope we don't turn this around into hyper-inflation in the next year or two. Carter squared.
Rocky Mountain News to Close on Friday
Thursday, February 26, 2009 7:18 PM
The Rocky Mountain News, Colorado's oldest newspaper and a Denver fixture since 1859, will publish its last edition Friday.
Owner E.W. Scripps Co. said Thursday the newspaper lost $16 million last year and the company was unable to find a buyer.
"Today the Rocky Mountain News, long the leading voice in Denver, becomes a victim of changing times in our industry and huge economic challenges," Scripps CEO Rich Boehne said.
The News is the latest — and largest — newspaper to fail amid a recession that has been especially brutal for the industry. Four owners of 33 U.S. daily newspapers have sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the past 2 1/2 months. A number of other newspapers are up for sale.
"People are in grief, and they're very, very upset trying to process all the emotions that go with it and trying to recognize that we will be putting out our final edition tomorrow," said News publisher John Temple.
But that edition, he declared, is "going to be spectacular." Friday's newspaper will include a 52-page commemorative section, with a print run of about 350,000 copies. The News had a daily circulation of 210,000 and 457,000 on Saturdays.
"It's very rare that you get to play the music at your own funeral, so you want to make sure you do it well," Temple said.
Managing Editor Deborah Goeken said the special section will highlight some of the Rocky's best work, including Pulitzer Prize-winning stories and photos.
Scripps' Boehne said the News' 230 editorial employees would be paid through April 28. The rival Denver Post said it will hire 10 News staffers, including five columnists, four reporters and the editorial page editor.
One of those reporters, Lynn Bartels, said she would miss sitting beside her News colleagues. "The Rocky is the most amazing family," she said.
Bartels held a box of tissues over her head and called out, "This is for everybody."
Dennis Schroeder, a News photographer for 25 years, said some of his colleagues were angry but others were relieved that a decision was made after weeks of uncertainty.
"It's hard losing the best job in the world," he said.
Employees gathered outside the newsroom to open a 1985 time capsule cut out of a wall. It contained copies of the Rocky and Post, a book of employee signatures, a map of Denver and books from Rocky cartoonist Ed Stein and the late columnist Gene Amole. The capsule read: "To be opened in April 2059 on RMN's 200th anniversary."
Scripps announced on Dec. 4 it would try to sell the newspaper. Only one potential buyer came forward, "and that party was unable to present a viable plan," the company said.
"Good grief — that's a piece of heritage we're losing," said Diane Scott, 56, of suburban Englewood.
Mike Hankinson, 25, of Denver blamed the format. "It's the paper. People go online now," he said.
Scripps has owned the News since 1926. The newspaper will close just two months short of its 150th anniversary.
Since its first edition on April 23, 1859, the News has covered the Civil War, Colorado statehood, the Ludlow Massacre, the Columbine High School shootings and the Oklahoma City bombing trial. It survived a devastating flood in 1864 and competition from as many as five newspapers at a time.
A circulation war with The Post in the 1980s and 1990s proved costly, and in 2000 the rivals announced they would pool their business operations in a joint operating agreement between Scripps and The Post's owner, MediaNews Group Inc. The deal took effect in 2001.
"The Rocky will forever be remembered for its vital role in the city's history and the city's success," said William Dean Singleton, chairman and publisher of The Post and CEO of MediaNews. "Although we competed intensely, the talented staff of the Rocky earned our respect with each morning's edition."
Singleton, who is chairman of the board of The Associated Press, has said Denver could support only one newspaper. "I'm not just confident that we'll survive. We will survive," he insisted Thursday.
MediaNews said starting Saturday, Rocky Mountain News subscribers will get The Post for the length of their subscriptions, but they can cancel if they want. Singleton said only about 14,000 subscribers get both newspapers.
The Post will also return to seven-day publication starting Saturday. Under the JOA, The Post published Sunday through Friday and the News published Monday through Saturday.
Scripps said it has been working with MediaNews on "a plan to unwind the partnership" since mid-January, the deadline for offers.
The future of the Denver Newspaper Agency, the entity that handles the two newspapers' business operations, was unclear. The agency is a 50-50 partnership of the News and The Post. It employs about 1,800 people.
Scripps and MediaNews Group also are partners in Prairie Mountain Publishing, which publishes the Camera and Colorado Daily in Boulder, the Broomfield Enterprise and other Colorado newspapers. Scripps said it would transfer its 50 percent interest in Prairie Mountain to MediaNews later this year.
Scripps said it will retain ownership of, and still offer to sell, the Rocky Mountain News name and the newspaper's archives and Web site.
Ed Atorino, a newspaper industry analyst at The Benchmark Co., said that indicates the News could become an online-only venture at some point.
"Online newspapers seem to be doing pretty well," he said. "It's a very low-cost business."
Financial problems are widespread in the newspaper industry as readers have gravitated toward the Internet and advertisers have followed them. The housing slump also has crimped real estate ad sales, and the recession has eliminated much demand for employment and automotive classified ads.
The publisher of the New Haven (Conn.) Register and the owners of The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News filed separate bankruptcy cases last weekend. Tribune Co., whose stable includes the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, filed for bankruptcy protection in December. The owners of the Minneapolis Star Tribune filed in January.
Hearst Corp. said this week it will close or sell the San Francisco Chronicle if it can't slash expenses, and the company has laid out plans to close the Seattle Post-Intelligencer if a buyer isn't found before April.
Gannett Co. is looking for a buyer for the Tucson Citizen in Arizona.
The last major American newspaper to close was the Dallas Times Herald in 1991, said Ken Doctor, an industry analyst with OutSell Inc.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/rocky_mountain_news_final/2009/02/26/186174.html
President Obama's $1 Trillion Tax Hike Plan
Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:59 PM
By: Chris Gonsalves
Looking to fund an ambitious healthcare program and put more money in the hands of the poor and the non-working, President Barack Obama wants wealthier Americans and businesses to pay nearly $1 trillion in higher taxes over the next decade.
In his proposed 2010 budget, released today, Obama suggests bringing back the top two Clinton-era tax rates of 36 percent and 39.6 percent for the nation’s highest earners. Those taxpayers currently pay 33 percent and 35 percent. More than 2.6 million Americans would be forced to pay the higher rates, according to Bloomberg News.
Tax rates on capital gains and dividends will rise to 20 percent for top earners, up from the 15 percent rate set by former President George W. Bush in 2003.
“It’s a clear repudiation of Bush’s policy,” Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland in College Park, tells Bloomberg. “It’s more Obama Robin Hood.”
As if the rate changes weren’t enough, Obama also proposes punishing the rich by stopping the scheduled repeal of the controversial estate tax next year. The president suggests imposing a 45 percent tax rate on any family’s estate worth more than $7 million.
The Obama tax hikes also include new restrictions on itemized deductions for families that earn more than $250,000 per year. Deductions for things like charitable donations, mortgage interest and investment expenses will be capped at 28 percent for the wealthiest taxpayers, some 30 percent less than they currently get.
By 2020, taxpayers in the wealthiest households will pay $636.7 billion in additional taxes according to estimates in the budget proposal.
The changes would be phased in gradually over the next few years, according to an analysis of the budget by the Wall Street Journal. For the 2009 tax year, the 33 percent tax bracket starts with couples with adjusted earnings of $208,850. A taxpayer in the top bracket paying $1,000 of mortgage interest, for example, would see a tax break worth $350 reduced to $280.
According to estimates from Deloitte Tax, a married couple with 2 children under age 17 and income of $500,000 a year would owe approximately $11,300 more than under current law if all of the tax provisions in Obama's budget request outline were enacted, CNN reported.
The remainder of the $1 trillion tax hike would come from $353.5 billion in additional levies on businesses, especially U.S.-based multinational corporations. Obama’s proposal calls for significantly rewriting the rules on the taxability of profits earned overseas, increased enforcement of international tax collections and changes in accounting that would serve as a “windfall profits tax” aimed largely at the oil companies.
"This budget plan is once again a missed opportunity for American taxpayers — it raises taxes on all Americans, implements massive new spending and fails to make any tough choices to control the deficit," Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., the top Budget Committee Republican, told the Associated Press. Gregg was nominated by Obama to join his Cabinet as commerce secretary but later withdrew.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_huge_tax_hike/2009/02/26/186115.html
Hang on to your wallets. The Obama tax increase machine is being unveiled. And hey, what's another $634B for the beginnings of socialized medicine. Does anyone see what's going on here? Catch everyone sleeping thinking that all of this is needed to lift us out of our recession. It's a full tilt power grab. Everything he can grab while we're all asleep at the wheel. My senators are well aware of what's going on. Let's get more on board to stop this now!
More outstanding DD jdsgungho! Thanks for all your effort here and keeping us informed. Looking forward to your next trip to Deep Down!
The reselling of fuel (merchant resale) has always been key with me and they obviously expect to be doing this by the second half of 2009. Still anxious to see these "detailed" numbers to see why the huge increase in revenues. At two cents, this may end up being the sleeper of 2009.
Here's the e-mail response from Steve. Steve's responses are in bold.
After hearing that our projected revenues for 2009 are $67 million, I'd like to get a copy of the detailed projections that are "available upon request". Sure
We really need to hear some more information from the company as to what is causing the projected revenue to jump by more than 30 times the 2008 numbers. Yes, merchant resale is the projected cause.
We've all been lead to believe that once we start reselling fuel (merchant fuel sales) that margins could increase 400-500 percent. Yes, there will be significant change in margin (up) once resale is begun. I believe these were for about 6 months of resale though - we'll just have to wait and see the actual number; but, certainly margins will increase nicely since revenues are based upon the same throughput.
However, what I see from the numbers posted is that revenues are forecast to be up over 30 times 2008 numbers but the margins actually go down. Is there an explanation for this? I am sure our accounting department is being cautious with these estimates, as they should be.
As a long time shareholder who has never sold a share and continues to accumulate, I'd like to hear more details from the company on where we currently stand and where we're going in 2009 and beyond. I expect just that kind of detail in the very near future. But of course, it will need to be properly disclosed to all. To me, it appears as though the company is moving ahead with its stated initiatives, finally. I believe the story is developing, and that more information is imminent.
Maybe we should update the I-box with that address then. I'll give it a try.
The number of state governors considering not accepting "stimulus" money is growing. Thankfully midterms are next year!
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/gop_governors_stimulus/2009/02/18/183197.html
Wholesale prices were up .8 percent last month. We can't keep printing money. Remember the Carter years? If Obama's first month is any indication, we are in for much worse. We need to be cutting taxes and spending not increasing them. I see Obama is now trying to take over the census program. This needs to be stopped asap. Please notify your representatives. If the White House gains control of the census count, the two party system in this Republic is over!
http://cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=43519
Haven't posted here in a while but just had to talk briefly about my viewing of the HBO movie Taking Chance.
For those that don't know the story, PFC Chance Phelps, was killed in action back in 2004 in Al Anbar Province. He was a gunner in a group of five vehicles when it came under attack. Chance's vehicle was requested to come to the front to provide some cover and after being successful, he was hit and killed. The movie covers the rest of the story as written by his escort, Lt Col Strobl. The movie focuses on the transport of Chance from Dover to Dubois, Wyoming (his early year's home town).
The movie debuted at the local high school and moving tributes were given by General Kelly (the current Western Iraq commander) who was in Chance's patrol, Lt Col Strobl (Chance's escort) and the movie's director. It was quite a tribute to our military and how the fallen are treated and the respect that everyday citizens show along the way. I'd highly recommend seeing it when you can. Do a little background reading first though.
It will be very interesting to see what unfolds here. I've sent Steve and e-mail and if there's some interesting info, I'll update the board.
That's very interesting jdsgungho. We really need to know more about what is happening here. So it sounds like they are expecting to be reselling fuel by the second half of 2009. Now we've all heard that reselling fuel (merchant fuel sales) would increase our margins 400-500 percent but what's going on to increase our sales by 30+ times but yet decrease our gross margins?
The Adino "Our Vision of Growth" page says we can obtain detailed projections upon request. I will be e-mailing Steve for a copy of these "detailed projections". Maybe you should too.
Thanks for the post and all your DD!
Bliz
It is a sad day for our Republic but I am very proud of our House Republicans who all voted no on this massive spending bill of $787 (True cost over 3 Trillion) Billion dollars. The Democratically controlled congress now has the U.S. on the hook for over around 10 Trillion dollars. Yes Trillion!!!
Are we ready to lose more of our liberties and money as inflation kicks in down the road. Some say hyper-inflation.
These three need to be booted from office asap:
Republican Sens. Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins as well as all but 7 House Democrats.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/stimulus_specter_taxes/2009/02/12/181372.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090214/ap_on_go_co/congress_stimulus
http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/stimulus_bill_doubters/2009/02/13/181565.html
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/12/true-cost-of-stimulus-327-trillion/
http://seekingalpha.com/article/119568-the-credit-crisis-u-s-taxpayers-on-the-hook-for-9-7-trillion
Sounds good! If the number is a typo, then we need to know the actual forecast (and margin). If it's not, I want to know what they are expecting to happen! A few more terminals under their belt, etc...lol!
We need to confirm that number. I assumed it was a typo. Otherwise, why the 30+ time jump from last year?
Hadn't looked at EESO in months (even deleted the board) and then I just happened to look at my brokerage account and just about fell over in my chair! Last time I looked we were at .0003. I like that 100 bagger plus! Glad I didn't sell!!!
No. I'm afraid to ask Steve. I wasn't very impressed by their website. Looked hokey to me. I'd personally rather see them focus on getting their license to resell (they've supposedly been working on this forever now) and increase their margins the 400-500 percent we've all talked about. We've already increased our OS to 83M as of mid November. I remember when it was under 50M before the shareholders approved the increase. I hope they're very cautious with further share issuance. I don't want to see shares tossed around like candy on Halloween.
For those that haven't followed this closely, we could have purchased the terminal for the same deal but since we didn't have the money, Adino assigned their rights under the lease to Lone Star and they purchased the terminal back last fall. We now lease from them for 30K/month (increasing 3% each year) with an option to buy the terminal for $7.75 through 10/1/2009 and then a million more for each of the final 4 years. The terminal was appraised at over $14M last fall.
Lone Star Fuel Storage and Transfer
purchased the 60,000-sq. ft. warehouse
located at 17617 Aldine Westfield (North)
from David J. Zehr for $3.6 million or $59
per sq. ft.
http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/Base/Markets/Houston/English/Market_Report/PDFs/2008_4Q_Houston_Industrial_Market_Report.pdf
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/700815/000113717108001045/adino10q111408.htm
A little DD might tell you a lot
http://www.adinoenergycorp.com/flash/downloads/ADNY-Our-vision-of-growth.pdf
Obama administration meltdown already. Thankfully we have mid-term elections next year. It's no coincidence the economy began to deteriorate when the Democrats took over in 2006 and is accelerating under Obama. The market has no faith and even the general public is starting to see we elected a far left President who is in way over his head. Thankfully we know what happened after four years of Carter.
Read through this and see how clueless this administration is. Summers even outright lies on who received these tax cuts. I know how much my taxes were lowered under President Bush and I'm not rich. He even says it only affected 1 percent of the most rich. Give me a break. The biggest tax rate reduction (lowered marginal rates) went to the lowest brackets. That is fact and history! This is going to be a long 4 years for this country. The 52% were dead wrong!
Summers: Bush Tax Cuts Won't Be Extended
Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:25 PM
By: Newsmax Wires
President Obama's senior economic advisor made clear Sunday that any idea of renewing the Bush tax cuts, set to expire in 2010, is a dead issue.
Lawrence H. Summers, a former Treasury secretary and head of the White House's National Economic Council, made clear to “Meet the Press” host David Gregory that Obama is committed to allowing the tax cuts to die.
Summers also left open the possibility that the administration may revoke the tax cuts early, an idea pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
But he emphasized that the Obama administration is dead against extending the tax cuts, an idea favored by Republicans.
Asked if he was open to extending the cuts to 2013, Summers responded, "First, it's a bad idea because we simply can't afford it. The president's inherited a trillion-dollar deficit, and a deficit with a baseline that is terrible as far as the eye can see."
During the presidential campaign last year, Obama had pledged he would rescind the Bush tax cuts early and redirect the new revenues to tax cuts for lower and middle class wage earners. But in September, Obama indicated he might delay rescinding the tax cuts if he faced a severe recession. At the time he also insisted he would allow the tax cuts to expire no later than 2010.
The Heritage Foundation has warned that if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, "taxes will rise dramatically for most taxpayers" with tax rates rising "substantially in each tax bracket, some by 450 basis points."
For example, top wage earners currently in the 35 percent tax bracket will see their tax rate increase to over 39 percent -- an increase of more than 10 percent in extra taxes they will have to pay.
Last year, the Bush White House claimed that allowing the tax cuts to expire would mean a family of four would have an additional tax burden of $1,900 annually. They also claimed 43 million families with children would see an increase of taxes over $2,000.
Summers' exchange with NBC's David Gregory follows:
MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about tax cuts. About a third of his package is made up of tax cuts. Republicans want more. Specifically there's a question about the Bush tax cuts which, of course, expire next year. Does the president want to actually repeal those tax cuts this calendar year?
DR. SUMMERS: I don't think there's any question they have to be repealed. The country can't afford them for the long run.
MR. GREGORY: So repeal them this year? Because they expire next year.
DR. SUMMERS: What the timing -- what the -- they expire, expire at the end of next year, and they have to be allowed to expire. What the timing will be, that's something that's going to have to get worked out.
MR. GREGORY: Because the House speaker says do it this year.
DR. SUMMERS: That's something that's going to have to get worked out through the legislative process.
MR. GREGORY: All right.
DR. SUMMERS: There's no question that the president's been very emphatic about this, as he was very emphatic during his campaign, that they can't be part of...
MR. GREGORY: OK, but timing is important.
DR. SUMMERS: They can't be, they can't be part of the long-run budget picture.
MR. GREGORY: Well, understood. But...
DR. SUMMERS: And it's a timing--it's something that's going to be--that's something that's going to be worked out in the course of the...
MR. GREGORY: But what's his position, repeal them this year?
DR. SUMMERS: ...in the course of the legislative, legislative process. The president has made clear they--that the question of timing is one we're going to have to reach as we see how the economy unfolds...
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
DR. SUMMERS: ...as Congress reaches its judgments. But they're not going to be with us for long.
MR. GREGORY: Why not? Why not? Conservatives make the argument, why would you want to raise taxes--if you repeal those tax cuts, taxes do go up on upper-income Americans, primarily. Why would you want to raise taxes right now? Why not put that expiration date off into, say, 2013? Why is that a bad idea?
DR. SUMMERS: Put the expiration date off into...
MR. GREGORY: 2013.
DR. SUMMERS: ...2013? First, it's a bad idea because we simply can't afford it. The president's inherited a trillion-dollar deficit, and a deficit with a baseline that is terrible as far as the eye can see. We've got to spend money now while we have a recession, while we've got this serious economic crisis, but as soon as the economy recovers we are going to have to find ways of getting the government's finances under some kind of control. Second, we have to focus on, frankly, the parts of the economy that need help. If you look at what's happened over the last 10 years, the incomes of middle-income families have barely or kept up with inflation, or in many, many cases fallen behind inflation. The people who are the beneficiaries, the small minority, a little over 1 percent of the population that are the beneficiaries of those tax cuts have actually seen their incomes rise much more, much more rapidly. And so I think it's a pretty clear question of priority as to where the, where the assistance needs to be channeled.
MR. GREGORY: But you say...
DR. SUMMERS: But understand this, the president has vowed that there will be tax cuts for more than 95 percent of Americans, for all working families with incomes below $250,000. They will see their taxes cut, they will not see tax increases.
MR. GREGORY: Well, let me just press you on this point. You say we can't afford to let those Bush tax cuts expire later, but we can afford to, to spend up to $700 billion for the tax cut that you like?
DR. SUMMERS: We can--we--it's a good question. We certainly can afford to do what is necessary now to stimulate this economy, to put money--frankly, when you put money into the hands of middle-class families, history and experience suggest that they spend a substantial part of it, pushing the economy forward. When you put money into the hands of those with very high incomes, only a much smaller fraction of it is spent and so you derive much less benefit in terms of pushing the economy, in terms of pushing the economy forward.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/summers_bush_tax_cuts/2009/01/25/175083.html?s=al&promo_code=78AB-1
Nice couple days for the country. Let's just say yes to terrorists and no to babies. Disgusting...
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama_abortion_policy/2009/01/23/174721.html
Maybe because LBWR has only made only 145K in the first 9 months of 2008. That's only .001 eps (based on 140M+ O/S) I think at one point a lot of investors felt that we'd see a much bigger bump in their revs (gross and net) but it just hasn't happened yet. I think you should count yourself lucky LBWR isn't selling for even less. I've always felt LBWR has sold at a premium because of Dexter's integrity and future potential of LBWR. When LBWR get an eps up near a penny then you'll see those 10-20cent prices again imo.