• propecia cost per month amoxicillin 250 mg dosage for adults furosemide lasix contraindications
  • xenical online prescription orlistat capsules 120 mg price in order for the thyroid gland to produce thyroxine köpa viagra på nätet cialis precio españa medicament impuissance reliable viagra online viagra soft tabs information cialis how long to take effect
    viagra online sicuro 
    acquista viagra generico 
    forum viagra ohne rezept 

    Cryptocurrency Tech Analysis: Bitcoin Hinting ABC Corrections

    After staying in a gloomy avatar for most of the recent days, the cryptocurrency market held high hopes after medium-term upside correction attempts made in Bitcoin charts. In the last 24 hours, we saw the digital currency inclining without a glitch, but soon lost momentum upon nearing its medium term upside target. A pullback scenario is, therefore, forming. Have a look:

    Image

    As you can notice in the chart above, the Bitcoin price has trended smoothly upwards during the US session, but has fallen right ahead of touching the channel resistance near 233. As we enter the Asian session, we could notice some selling pressure near the psychological resistance near 230 that has resulted into two mildly looking red candles. At press time, the Euro session is just two hours away, starting which the Bitcoin price action would be more mature. The current bias however is more inclined towards bears, a reason we see an ABC correction happening anytime. As Bitcoin price moves downward, the primary downside target will continue to be held near 225, an ideal stop as well. A break below this point will bring back 222 fiat in sight, a threshold that will separate Bitcoin from a breakout towards 215. In case Bitcoin manages to float above the 222-225 range, we can expect it to retest the initial target near 230, with an upside risk falling towards 233.

    Yeah, well …

    I won’t be commenting on domestic politics much from now on. What I will be doing is posting pictures, among which will be some for sale elsewhere. Buy my pictures!

    Here’s my permanent take on the subject of domestic politics: they suck, and the only way to change that is to find a way to motivate about 20 million people into the streets of the District of Columbia with the intention of, as Mario Savio once so elegantly put it in another context, throwing their bodies upon the gears. We all know that that’s not happening any time soon, so I’m going to limit myself to commenting on our foreign adventures and whatever else I can do drive-bys on without getting myself thoroughly depressed.
    Continue reading

    In which our leadership cast themselves into the fiery pit and pull us all down behind them

    Someone said this on Facebook a day or two ago: “At risk of being called somebody who would have given the Nazis a free pass at Nuremburg, terrorists aren’t exactly the most sympathetic of victims. I think the political will to prosecute Bush, Cheney etc. is near zero. As harsh as it may sound, I don’t think most Americans care about this.”

    That’s not an uncommon response among the ones I’ve seen on Facebook and elsewhere, and of course the bit about many Americans not caring is impossible to dispute. But the risk, the sin there, isn’t attached to giving Nazis a free pass at Nuremberg; rather, it’s attached to giving them a free pass before Nuremberg. Enough Germans regarded Jews — and Gypsies, Communists, Socialists and others — as not exactly the most sympathetic of victims in the years leading up to the war and the Holocaust, that the authorities felt comfortable pursuing their expanding and escalating regimen of state terror. Once you introduce the nature of the victims into the question of whether or not we should marginalize/oppress/torture someone, all is lost. Anyone can be demonized when the conditions are ripe.
    Continue reading

    Presidential leadership is a fairy tale, except when it isn’t.

    I was in the process of writing something vaguely complimentary about President Obama — he’s not killing nearly as many blameless people as he might be, under the circumstances, and he hasn’t formally invaded anybody; consider it written — when I ran across a post by Charlie Pierce at Esquire, lamenting the pundit fixation on presidential leadership and raising the notion that a perceived lack of leadership is only a reflection of the fundamental cowardice of the American people.

    It’s an oft-raised notion in Pierce precincts. It really pisses me off, not because Americans can’t be awfully and unnecessarily scared, but because many Americans display the kind of bravery that Pierce decries the lack of. It pissed me off so much today that I took the recently unheard of step of responding to it, which response follows, unedited for clarity.
    Continue reading

    Hillary Clinton’s disqualifying experience

    What does being qualified to serve as president mean? You hear it a lot about the current Clinton iteration. Lots of people who earnestly don’t want Hillary Clinton to be president will tell you there’s no doubt she’s qualified, but [insert objection here]. Her supporters acknowledge no deficiencies other than, perhaps, an almost embarrassing overabundance of competence. It’s because of her previous White House experience, her Senate experience and her Ministry of War Diplomacy experience.

    There’s no denying Clinton has experience, but how, exactly, does it qualify her to be president? Her first significant experience in the (so far only) Clinton administration was the monumental health insurance reform fiasco. Her first significant vote in the Senate was the one green-lighting the invasion of Iraq, a massively stupid, destructive, unjustifiable decision that she refused to repudiate for more than a decade.
    Continue reading

    Republicans in Congress are not preventing Obama from devising a coherent foreign policy

    Somebody suggested to me recently that if not for Republicans in Congress, President Obama would have a coherent and consistent foreign policy, one that would perhaps have included a long-term plan for post-Gaddafi Libya. Never mind, apparently, that the President has two quite large institutions and several smaller but still substantial ones, all headed by persons of his own choosing, to help him out on that front.

    The occasion was a post by the always vivid Charlie Pierce at Esquire, reacting to a somewhat disjointed critique of the President by New Hampshire senator and Lindsey Graham mini-me, Kelly Ayotte. Ayotte is concerned that the President may have taken up the cudgel against ISIS for electoral purposes, and that once those are achieved (or not), he’ll back off from the fight and leave the other players to their own devices. By way of precedent, she mentioned the chaos in Libya, where the President participated in the destruction of the previous order without giving a lot of apparent thought to the following one. Pierce thought Ayotte was presumptuous to criticize the President. I thought Ayotte was beside the point, the point being that she may well be right. In any event this would seem a good opportunity to review the hot-spot foreign policy of this President.
    Continue reading

    Good news: Barack Obama will not be the answer to “Who Lost Afghanistan?”

    Lots of Obama supporters on Facebook during the 2012 campaign period were touting the end of the war in Afghanistan as one of the President’s larger achievements. President Obama, they said, “ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

    This was absurd not just because the war in Afghanistan was not what one could actually call over in 2012 (neither of them were, but that’s another story), but because the President’s promise to end the war in Afghanistan was not a promise to end the war, while his exit from Iraq was the product of a failed negotiation to extend our presence. (11-dimensional chess, I’m sure: Obama pretended to want to stay in order to placate war lovers, but actually wanted the negotiation to fail so he could realize his true desire to be shed of the affair.)

    Let’s review.
    Continue reading

    On Patriot Day, we begin the war we have been fighting for years

    Yesterday was Patriot Day, by proclamation of the President. The proclamation was released by the press office at 9:24 AM, about two hours before the office released excerpts from the speech the President delivered about 10 hours later.

    Pre-speech excerpts are a tradition. These are the lines administration officials want the chucktodds of the press to be talking and writing about in the hours before the speech, the “Tonight, the President will say” lines. These are the lines meant to manage expectations and convey gravitas. They’re released in the morning so the chucktodds have time to write something up that is similar to but not identical with what all the other chucktodds are saying and writing, and which includes responses from anonymous administration officials — somber, but favorable — and public experts (“experts disagree!”).
    Continue reading

    Folks torturing folks, redux: Obama plants his flag on the wrong side of Nuremberg

    When you come down on the same side of an argument as the Nazis and other Germans guilty of crimes against humanity, you’re doing something wrong.

    Not long after he took office, President Obama invoked the Nuremberg defense on behalf of the folks who tortured folks. That’s the one where the Germans who committed what are now known as crimes against humanity said they had the right to assume that superior orders are lawful. A few days ago, he described anyone wanting torturers held to account as sanctimonious because we were all afraid after 9/11.
    Continue reading