patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,209,865 comments by 14,379 users - DemocratsAreTotallyFucked, FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden, GNL, racinfanatik3, The_Deplorable online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 188 - 227 of 261 Next » Last » Search these comments
Plus, schools like the ones in Palo Alto, Cupertino, Saratoga, etc. have IMO an unhealthy sense of academic competitiveness among students and parents. Many parents are raising their kids to be academic automatons, and it personally gives me pause about sending my daughter into such an environment.
http://wsjclassroom.com/teen/teencenter/05nov_whiteflight.htm
Gunn is much better than Mtn View High, there's just no comparison between the two, much higher income and education level among Gunn parents. Gunn used to be the most competitive high school in the entire Bay Area (except Lowell in SF, which is a whole different game), until Saratoga High and Monta Vista came along about 15 years ago.
Gunn is always known for its ultra-competitive atmosphere, it's been the defacto prep school to Stanford for years. My wife, who went to Los Altos High, said that it was easy to spot those super-driven, super-hardworking Gunn kids from a distance.
Also, if you're looking for a job in tech in Silicon Valley - Stanford really is the way to go. I think you automatically get accepted into Google.
Plus, schools like the ones in Palo Alto, Cupertino, Saratoga, etc. have IMO an unhealthy sense of academic competitiveness among students and parents. Many parents are raising their kids to be academic automatons, and it personally gives me pause about sending my daughter into such an environment.
Both my wife and me went to public high schools that weren't on the top 1000 list. They were probably never on those lists and never will be. Guess we were considered big fish in small ponds. It was good in some respects. We got more respect from the teachers & students, but it didn't help much preparing for the ultra-competitive environment at college.
We haven't decided how we will approach this yet. But I'm sure the solution will depend on the temperament of the child.
eburbed,
Thanks for the WSJ "classroom" link. Interesting stuff, and spot-on.
BTW, re: the great LI NY schools, does everyone there have that LI accent? That would be a downside to sending your kids to school there.
Today, Saratoga High, Monta Vista and Gunn are all sort of the same, feeder school into Stanford and UCB, very competitive academically.
Harker is a good alternative for those who don't live in a good school district. Chambers sends his kid to Harker as well.
What is interesting to me is that competitive students and parents seem to think going to a competitive HS like Monte Vista, Gunn, etc. is a ticket to getting into a top college. I would second Mt. View Renter's point - how many of the "middling" students at, say, Monte Vista get lost in the crowd of overachievers and hence don't get into a top school? If that same kid had gone to a less competitive school, maybe that kid would have been valedictorian.
Moreover, there's the utility of HS as a stepping stone to an Ivy-equivalent, but then there's the utility of actually getting an education. I doubt these top HS's do so much of a better job than the rest. AND, let's not forget actually doing things other than studying, like playing sports, learning about the world and yourself, etc. (other than for the purpose of padding your college application).
I find the competitive HS mindset sad and depressing. What kind of childhood is that?
BTW, re: the great LI NY schools, does everyone there have that LI accent? That would be a downside to sending your kids to school there.
I was going to make a joke about that. Something about "But your daughter may sound like Fran Drescher or Sarah Silverman"
But it really depends on your parents. I certainly don't sound like Tony Soprano or Woody Allen.
Today, Saratoga High, Monta Vista and Gunn are all sort of the same, feeder school into Stanford and UCB, very competitive academically.
That's one of the things that really bugs me about the West Coast - the lack of good colleges. It's always Stanford this, Cal that, UCLA the other thing.
Back in the east there was more diversity: Tufts, UPenn, MIT, Columbia, NYU, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, Duke, BU - maybe even (gasp) Penn State.
Here's the other thing I don't understand. It seems like every kid around here is doing everything they can to get into Stanford, Cal, the Ivies, etc. I didn't think this was the case 12 or 13 years ago when I was applying to schools. Sure we cared about going to college. I'd say ~25% of my class got into a top 25 school. but I don't think most kids started actually thinking and preparing for college until the end of junior year.
Did parents just wake up one day and say, hey, I need to push my kid as hard as I can so he can go to Stanford, or at least a top tier school? Is it really that much harder to get in nowadays?
I find the competitive HS mindset sad and depressing. What kind of childhood is that?
I think that's actually a good thing. Given the trend of further globalization, erosion of safety nets, divergence in salaries - my prediction in the future is that you will either be a VP, or be working at the future Century theatre at Valco.
Hint: there won't be that many VP positions.
So better start getting ready to be cut throat and as money/power hungry as possible.
Is it really that much harder to get in nowadays?
Yes. It started about a decade ago. Even "admit everyone" public schools are turning down students now.
Concluding one of the most brutal admission seasons ever, college officials say they are accepting an unusually low percentage of applicants.
Elite colleges including Brown University, Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania say they have accepted a smaller percentage of applicants than ever before. Brown admitted only 13.8% of applicants, down from the 14.6% of applicants it accepted last year. That is a record-low rate, says Jim Miller, dean of admission. It saw a record 18,313 applications this year -- up more than 8% from last year.
Other top colleges also say the huge surge in applications translated to an unusually competitive year. The number of applications to Dartmouth College rose 9.3% to 13,937 this year -- the largest pool ever, says Admissions Dean Karl Furstenberg. He admitted little more than 15% of those applicants for the 1,075 seats available next fall. That is a new low, down from around 17% at this point last year.
The University of Pennsylvania admitted 17.7% of the record 20,479 applicants -- down from around 21% last year. A surge in applications -- coupled with an expected increase in the number of students who will enroll if admitted -- has meant a stingier year in admissions, says Dean of Admissions Lee Stetson.
Stanford also reported its lowest-ever admit rate, with less than 11% of the 22,332 applicants admitted.
Several factors have shifted the admissions math in recent years. Students are sending out more applications to better their chances of landing somewhere. In a 2005 survey of more than 200,000 college students, over a quarter of students said they applied to six or more colleges, compared with 18% of students who did so a decade earlier, according to the UCLA Higher Education Research Institute.
In turn, colleges are becoming stingier with their admissions, with some leaning more on "wait lists" of students neither accepted nor rejected, as it becomes harder to know who will accept an offer of admission. Mr. Stetson at Penn, for one, says he expects about 800 students to end up on such a list, compared with 500 last year, to better able "control the class size."
"This year it's become really clear" how competitive the process is, says Bob Turba, chair of guidance services at Stanton College Preparatory School, a public magnet school in Jacksonville, Fla. He points to one student who was wait-listed at non-Ivies Johns Hopkins and Washington University in St. Louis -- but was admitted to the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell.
"I am beginning to believe that it is important for students to add a college or two" in their applications roster, says Mr. Turba, "because there is no way to know -- counselor or student -- from where the acceptances will come." Mr. Turba reports a few students this year who applied to almost 20 schools.
Online applications make it easier to apply to more schools. Roughly three-fourths of applications are online, estimates the Common Application, a Herndon, Va., nonprofit application provider. Swarthmore, for instance, attributes part of a huge surge in applications to the fact that it began this year accepting credit-card payments for the $60 application fee.
Another reason for the increase in applications at many schools is simply demographics, as the number of high-school graduates is expected to continue to rise: By 2012, that number is projected to have increased by 11% from 2000.
[Graphic]
It's not just the sheer number of applicants that makes schools competitive. The colleges indicate that they are also seeing large numbers of highly qualified students. The University of Pennsylvania turned away 394 of the 1,045 valedictorians that applied. Also, about 70% of applicants who got near-perfect scores in the math and critical-reading sections of the SAT were turned away, says Mr. Stetson. At Brown, 94% of admitted students this year were in the top 10% of their class.
Some public universities are also seeing increases in applications. The University of California-Berkeley received 41,700 applications for the fall -- nearly 13% more than last year. It admitted about 24%, or about 9,800 students. That is similar to the number of students it admitted last year.
Everyone wants to go to college now (duh) so it's become even more competitive.
The problem of Bay Area is, there are either the good schools, or the bad schools, very few so-so schools in between that can replicate the experience of an average HS kid in middle America, or elsewhere America. Even the remaining so-so schools are becoming competitive because the mix of the parents is changing.
Saratoga, Cupertino, Palo Alto have competitive schools from elementary to HS, Los Altos has great elem schools. Sunnyvale, good parts of San Jose are following suit, and you see API improvement going on YOY. Parents who got stuck in so-so school districts, like Redwood City or bad parts of San Jose, all send their kids to private schools, so the public schools in these district just stay bad. We are just talking about the west side here, if you venture to east bay, there are tons of REALLY bad public schools that will stay that way. It is not even worthwhile to have your kid become a valedictorian there, because Ivy Leagues don't usually accept kids from a school which has NEVER sent anybody to the college. You also need to worry about the kind of influence your kid will be getting from the bad schools.
Public school in the Bay Area is a mere reflection of the wealth distribution in this area. You have the rich people, and the poor people, we do have some middle class, but they are disappearing. So you either struggle to join the rank of the rich, or get stuck with the poor. It is hard to obtain an "average" educational experience here.
My wife who went to the "average" public schools here in the 80s will not send our kid back to the same "average" schools, because these presumably average schools have either deteriorated in quality or soared in competitiveness. She had a great time with her average schools, but that sort of experience cannot be replicated today.
The good news is that a lot of this phenomenon is due to the echo boom demographics. Being Gen-X, I was lucky enough to have applied to college near a population nadir. The Bay Area, specifically Cupertino and similar towns have the added effect of educated and competitive immigrants from countries where incessant testing, studying and cramming pretty much define childhood. I would never have my children grow up in such an environment.
eburbed:
You forgot Cal Tech. So yeah, that's 4 top schools on the west coast. Maybe that's why it's so competitive here? I don't know...
When I was applying to college. Just in the Boston area, we had BU, BC, Tufts, Harvard, MIT in the top 25. Brandeis and Northeastern were also ranked relatively high.
The problem of Bay Area is, there are either the good schools, or the bad schools, very few so-so schools in between that can replicate the experience of an average HS kid in middle America, or elsewhere America.
By average HS kid in middle America, do you mean "HS Football is the most important thing in my life"? :)
OO,
One point to add - the "reflection of wealth" breaks down in some ultra-wealthy enclaves, like Woodside, Portola Valley. Good K-8, but lousy HS's. Generally these folks all send their kids to private schools.
So better start getting ready to be cut throat and as money/power hungry as possible.
If my only "options" in life as dictated by the powers-that-be are: a) try to become a high-rolling back-stabbing greedbag CEO, or b) scraping bubble gum off the floor of run-down movie theater 'til I'm 70, then my choice is NEITHER.
Luckily, there are still some other alternatives out there, some of which don't even center around illegal activities. The key thing to me is to be flexible & open-minded in shifting careers, stay out of (unmanageable) debt and LIVE BELOW YOUR MEANS.
In case people here are not aware, a lot more countries are joining the competition for getting into Ivies than before.
There are prep classes in the most affluent parts of China for rich kids aiming at the Ivies. A friend of my wife's classmate from undergrad went to China about 12 years ago as an independent freelancer, and then started a business coaching local kids on their essays, SAT scores, activity profile to get into top American colleges. He also started a bunch of other businesses, but this Princeton Review-equivalent is flourishing big time. This outfit even hooks up existing students at Ivies with Chinese applicants brushing up their essays and resumes for a fee. In fact, international applicants may receive more favor because they appear more "exotic". Also, as long as the applicant has stellar SAT scores, it is much easier to pedal other extra-curricular stuff since it is harder to verify, yes I am talking about the grey areas of - fraud.
Welcome to the globalization of everything.
Welcome to the globalization of everything.
You guys are depressing me. What a way to start the weekend.
Surfer-X,
Why yes, I do have experience with the MCC (Mortgage Credit Certificate) program. It's funny you asked because I intended to ask if they have it in SF. I was recently reviewing the program in Chicago. It's funny because after you have not owned for 2 years you will be considered a first time homebuyer. I'll explain the program and my experience for those who care.
The MCC gives you a Fed. Inc. tax CREDIT for a percentage of mortgage interest paid each year that you live in the property FOR THE LIFE OF THE LOAN! When I had one in the early '90's it was for 35%. So, if I paid $3,000 interest in a year I had a income tax credit of $1,050 that comes right off your tax bill as it is a credit and not a deduction - Awesome.
In order to qualify you either need to be a first time homebuyer (read not owned in the last two years) or buy in a "targeted area". In addition, your income must be below certain thresholds. These vary by number of persons in the household, type of property purchased, etc.. I actually met all of the criteria when I applied. The location part is funny because I was buying on the edge of what is called the Gold Coast but the trageted areas were determined decades ago so, the area was considered blighted, etc. and thereby a targeted area. I recently looked into this again and most of the city is still a targeted area.
Here is the link-
I find the competitive HS mindset sad and depressing. What kind of childhood is that?
Mr. Skibum,
It is people like you who will drive down property values in Crapertino. Please keep your opinions to yourself. Next thing you know, you will be suggesting children go to community college for two years and then go to UCB. I mean, Berkeley will be on their diplomas, but they will be scarred for life from the community college experience. I would rather my child get an ulcer (and graduate in the middle of the pack) in Crapertino than graduate with honors, from say, high school in San Jose.
signed,
Concerned Parent and Realtor
Cheer up!
Your children, should they become directors/vp's/c-level execs will have unbelievable human resources available to them to implement strategies and produce products at prices and scales previously unimaginable. They'll really be able to make a difference. And profit!
Go look at some open houses. That’ll cheer you up
Good idea. I'll just imagine they mistakenly added a zero to the price, and put in an offer at "asking".
Santa Clara has a MCC program:
Personally I think it's ridiculous. Government manipulation like this only boosts property prices.
SFWoman Says:
How can you control the costs of land to a developer? If the land is owned by the city or unified school district that is one thing, but land owned by a private individual? They can sell at whatever the market will allow.
There's little things called 'eminent domain' and 'resumption of land'. Or, indirectly, the govt can mandate for an 'affordable housing developer's levy', which means that the developer will automatically offer less money to the land vendor to absorb the levy. This is being done in Oz. Hence, the land vendor just has to take the price being offered, as they won't get a better deal elsewhere -- the developer cites the fact he has to pay the levy to the vendor. However, if the govt is too scared to do these things, it can, as you say, re-use state owned lands to do its own affordable housing developments.
There was a time when the govt wasn't too scared to intervene in a market crisis, known as the 'New Deal'.
The developers I have spoken with told me that their ‘below market rate’ units actual lose a small amount of money per unit. This is fine when it is 15% of a development, but not when it is nearly 2/3 of a development.
I wouldn't necessarily believe what a developer told me. But I would need to look into the detail of what your Supervisor is suggesting to see whether what she is suggestng is practical or not.
I remember there was a large condo and apartment below market and subsidized development built in Boston when I was in college (late 1980s). At the time it ended up costing $600,000 per unit to build. I had friends who were buying condos in Back Bay for about $350,000 at the time. The whole thing was a giant boondoggle for someone.
If you look at the financial picture of the Fisherman's Wharf development available on the Web you will see that they have developed it at about half the cost of a market-oriented development. There is enormous waste and corruption in construction practice already, I would think a public project under scrutiny should come to less.
Most of the “not for profit†developers (including Bridge) are just shell companies that allow politicians to pump money back to campaign contributors. On average “not for profit†housing costs at least twice as much to build as “for profit housingâ€.
You'd better pull the figures and show me. If that's the case in the US, they should be doing things differently there, shouldn't they?
Many liberals think that developing real estate is a license to print money. It is not, it is a very risky line of work that has put a lot of smart guys in to bankruptcy. When a “not for profit†develops property the costs just keep going up and up since the government will pay for all the “costsâ€, just not any of the “profitâ€. Let’s not forget that a “cost†to a “not for profit†developer includes a lot of “profit†that goes to the contractor and all the subs…
It IS a license to print money. I know of several billionaire developers even in a small country like this one. Many of the risks are to do with guessing the 'right' price to offer for land, and hoping they can sell inventory for the projected price. These particular risks are taken away by doing affordable development, as there will most definitely be demand, and the state has controlled the land price. The equation then become much easier. I wold expose the process to intense public scrutiny and transparency also to prevent overruns on building costs. The govt does NOT have to pay all costs (not that that should really matter), they can merely act as brokers for the whole process in a PPP relationship and make sure the land is affordable to begin with, and that they have specified caps on asking prices. The contractors and subbies all get paid, but no-one walks off with 25-30% slush money profits which creates the billionaire syndrome with 2 Maybachs in the driveway.
eburbed Says:
Santa Clara has a MCC program. Personally I think it’s ridiculous. Government manipulation like this only boosts property prices.
How does it boost prices? Why is it that posters here want a deus ex machina to come down and fix the market, and when govt starts to do just that, no matter on how small a scale, a huge cacophony of wailing and gnashing of teeth goes up, amid cries of 'we're doomed', 'it'll never work', etc?
4 months old, you say? Just when you start getting exhausted, frustrated and angry, they start smiling, interacting and being generally cute. It’s like an “intelligent design†to keep parents from killing their newborns.
yeah -- altho i think 'natural selection' may have put paid to the ones who didn't smile, interact and be cute... however, cuteness is evident across the mammalian kingdom, so it probably predates primate evolution... :D
Why is it that posters here want a deus ex machina to come down and fix the market,
They do? My feeling is that most posters here just want the government to enforce the law.
-Prosecute shady appraisals
-Restore integrity to the mortgage industry - lying on your application is a crime. Enforce it.
eburbed Says:
They do? My feeling is that most posters here just want the government to enforce the law.
-Prosecute shady appraisals
-Restore integrity to the mortgage industry - lying on your application is a crime. Enforce it.
And that will completely reverse the recent 6-7 year boom and completely prevent capitalist waves and boom/bust cycles? I don't think so. It will be increasingly necessary to quarantine housing from 'investors' into the future to facilitate a decent social settlement.
The primary drivers are liberalised credit products, a shaky sharemarket and historically low interest rates. And 'irrational exuberance'.
The few people who have overreached will come unstuck by themselves in a very short space of time. In this sense, the market is self-correcting. However, govt should be doing much more to guarantee a better social settlement and affordable housing for all.
However, govt should be doing much more to guarantee a better social settlement and affordable housing for all.
Ah.
I used to believe in that kind of stuff in college. Then I got a job and started paying taxes. This is a very cliche story. :)
I guess that brings us back to the France discussion earlier on this page... is housing a right? is medical care a right?
Tough questions.
DS,
I think what eburbed meant was, whenever government attempts to subsidize something, the market inevitably reacts by raising the price (to absorb the subsidy). Basically, all a subsidy ends up doing long-term is to raise macro consumer demand for the good/service, and producers react by raising prices. And this isn't some crazy, right-wing notion, either, but a principal that's been proven time and time again in real markets. It's been estimated that without perpetual corn & milk subsidies in the U.S., the price for these would be at least 50% lower.
In a nutshell, as a tool for redistributive economics (to help the poor), government subsidies generally suck. Even programs that add directly to supply (government-built/owned housing) don't have as bad a track record as subsidies do.
eburbed Says:
Ah.
I used to believe in that kind of stuff in college. Then I got a job and started paying taxes. This is a very clichéd story.
I guess that brings us back to the France discussion earlier on this page… is housing a right? is medical care a right?
Tough questions.
Questions that have been answered in other countries, as per France, Scotland, etc. There is no question that you are operating in a minimal govt laissez-faire framework at present. A better welfare state will articulate and offer more guarantees and rights of citizenship, whether it's health, housing, education, whatever. (e.g. I get free health care and heavily subsidised scripts as a universal health care right of citizenship.) And you have to ask where your taxes are going and to what use they're being put, at a 30% tax rate... Why would you be proud to be an American if all Americans are cut-throat and laissez-faire and your overarching govt is a corrupt shambles that helps no-one and extends no decent guarantees? It's just an atomised society of hairy-chested individuals with no unifying features at that rate...
Peter P
2007 Jan 5, 8:25am
A better welfare state will articulate and offer more guarantees and rights of citizenship, whether it’s health, housing, education, whatever.
Welfare only works in smaller population with proportionally abundant resources.
The US has 300M people. Welfare will not work.
Looking back, I guess it’s idea of appreciation is that over inflation. If you enter 0, you don’t break even - but the delta isn’t that bad:
Year: 30
PITI: $4,338.66
Payment After Tax Savings: $4,127.98
Rent Payment: $6,237.30
Value of Investment: $678,879
Home Equity: $657,060
I hate to sound like your parents, but what does the analysis look like after year 30. Your home appreciates with inflation AND you no longer have rent payments (you do have taxes and insurance, though). Not a bad (somewhat) fixed return on your investment for the golden years. That is why many here are pro-home ownership for the long haul. You will do okay in the long term if you buy now, but I'd continue to bubble sit for at least a year. Negative appreciation can be very ugly if you hold for "average" terms. People held onto their homes the longest in Monterey County (6.7 years) and the shortest in Napa County (just over four years).
I am not sure I understand the tone of the posts regarding education, competitiveness and getting admission to the Ivy League. Everyone is speaking as if all this ensures, that top achievers will get to rule the world as one of the few CxOs.
Since when did academic excellence start having the same meaning as professional success ? They are often mutually exclusive.
Yes, I have heard of the "Old Boys' Network". But as a middle class person, I don't expect my kids to be "accepted" even if I send them to Ivy League schools. But more importantly, high GPA does not imply high corporate power.
skibum Says:
> What is interesting to me is that competitive students
> and parents seem to think going to a competitive HS
> like Monte Vista, Gunn, etc. is a ticket to getting into
> a top college. I would second Mt. View Renter’s point –
> how many of the “middling†students at, say, Monte
> Vista get lost in the crowd of overachievers and hence
> don’t get into a top school? If that same kid had gone
> to a less competitive school, maybe that kid would have
> been valedictorian.
I went to public schools up until High School when I went to a real good private school. Going to high school with kids who all expected to be very successful and who thought that anyone that didn’t go to a top school was pathetic changed my outlook on college and life in general (remember as a kid I took apart old water beds and refrigerators to save the nuts and bolts with my Dad who didn’t go to college). If I ever have kids I’ll plan on sending them to the best private school in the area.
More often than not kids end up like the kids they hang around with so if a kid goes to a school with other kids who have been told since they learned how to talk that you need to get good grades and get in to a good college odds are your kid will get good grades and get in to a good college (100% of the kids in my high school got good grades and went to top colleges).
If you drive across the bay to Oakland Tech. or Kennedy High in Richmond where the kids all learned since they were little that the white man is evil and you need to act tough if you want to be a good gangster (depending on what report you read either more than half the kids or just under half the kids don’t even graduate)…
Why would you be proud to be an American if all Americans are cut-throat and laissez-faire and your overarching govt is a corrupt shambles that helps no-one and extends no decent guarantees?
Well when you put it -that- way. :)
I prefer to identify myself as a New York-American.
And our government isn't in corrupt shambles... compared to Somalia. :)
But as a middle class person, I don’t expect my kids to be “accepted†even if I send them to Ivy League schools.
I've seen it happen. Believe it or not, your ability to drink really helps. Joining the right frat (in the east coast) may really help your chances of getting a good finance job.
Peter P Says:
Welfare only works in smaller population with proportionally abundant resources. The US has 300M people. Welfare will not work.
That's ridiculous. You can upscale or downscale a welfare state to any sized population, it's simple math. America does have proportionally abundant resources, it's the most affluent country on earth, a large land mass with ample resources, and the largest oil consumer. Further, you already have a welfare state working in a multitude of ways, it's just that it's arguably not as good as other countries, and there are prevailing 'discourses' that have been generated in the public mind about why it should remain as it is. What we see is a huge abundance that is not distributed very well -- huge wage multiples, extremes of wealth and poverty, etc.
« First « Previous Comments 188 - 227 of 261 Next » Last » Search these comments
Once upon a time in a neighborhood far far away developers made new zero plot line 3500 sqft. stucco homes for everyone to enjoy. These “homes†were valued beyond belief, for they were on the most hallowed ground in all-of-the-world, the San Francisco Bay Area. For a long while these magnificent edifices to all things boomer grew and grew in “valueâ€, this of course was expected from Mr. Boomer and his second (third?) trophy-wife. After all, the entire world has curried their favor thus far, why shouldn’t their “home†provide an endless source of income in the form of cash out refi’s and HELOCs?
This world existed in peaceful harmony with all creatures big and small for many many moons. While the estates were labeled “McMansion†by some, their comments were taken on face value as these sort of mudslingers are typically just jealous bitter renters. All was well in Boomerville until an evil presence was felt. Rumors of a dark evil propaganda monger began to spread, and there was much fear. Ford Expeditions were piling up on the showroom floor and the Botox clinics no longer had waiting lists. For a short while it was whispered that this evil one sustained himself on the bitter tears shed by over-extended boomers.
This dark evil Prince of Propaganda upped the ante when he broadcast his vile diatribe for all to hear on the world wide web. A new sort of lighting fast propaganda delivery vehicle was developed, the blog, this device which has brought so much sorrow upon the happy development by the calm tranquil bay has come to be known as “Patrick.netâ€.
Patrick was a hideous vile hate filled little man; with venom coursing through his veins he sat by his cheap pine table writing his callous disparaging words. The “home-owners†were justifiably enraged. How dare one without the daring do to sign his life away make such callous and darn right mean statements? The rumor mongers at Patrick.net brought up, over and over again, terms that they clearly manufactured from some unknown, unverified data source, things such as “true valuationâ€, “reversion to mean†etc, were mentioned ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
The “home-owners†had a secret weapon though, not only was the Sweet Baby Jeebus on their side, but also were a group of skilled wordsmiths uniquely qualified to respond to the hooligans at Patrick.net. These Master Pulitzers were of course besmirched by Patrick’s neo-fascist online militia. One of Patricks Brownshirt’s, a creature so loathsome he goes by the name “HARMâ€, went so far as to call the skilled these skilled wordsmiths, “trollsâ€.
It was indeed a sad day in Boomerville, one can smell the bitter tears and only envision how sweet they taste to the horrible Patrick, sitting by his cheap pine table, in his pathetic rental.
Surfer-X