patrick.net

EBGuy
I'm not familiar with that school. Where do you get that this was anti-vaccinators at work? Is it an educated guess?

And - forgive the clueless idiot - but what is biodynamic farming?

biodynamic farming = organic farming + rotation farming, the whole idea is not to tire the soil out.

I don't think it is necessary in earthquake or volcano regions because our soil is still quite "fresh". However, biodynamic farming is most needed in countries with heavily depleted soil, which are usually developing countries with destitute farmers who lack both education and "luxury" to rotate crops.

Where do you get that this was anti-vaccinators at work? Is it an educated guess?
Yes, to be clear, it is a bit of rumor mongering. From the comments on the article, it appears that vaccinated children (and also teachers) came down with pertussis (whooping cough), as the vaccine is not 100% effective and wears off with age. So the outbreak could be a result of a vaccinated child contracting the disease, spreading it to adults, and then to other vaccinated children -- but I'd bet my Birkenstocks non-vacc. transmission vectors were involved.

We are on the same wavelength Patrick. When I read about the President's intent to veto the Frank bill, I felt the same sentiment. I logged in today for the first time in months to say so, and you had beat me to it.

IMO, President Bush has made so many wrong decisions for so long (too many foreign and domestic policy mistakes to list here). So when I felt some admiration for him on his intended veto, it felt perverse. I had the sudden urge to take a decontamination bath.

I do not believe however that President Bush is taking the free market approach, nor do I believe he is looking out for our best interest (our = renters and financially responsible citizens). I think he balks at Frank's bill because it requires lenders to take a 15% loss on each of these mortgages. It is more likely that Bush is protecting the lenders than anyone else.

My beef with Frank's bill is that it essentially resets the values of the properties to 85% of their original market value. When these properties were sold, no such discount was offered to any other potential buyers. It is inherently unfair on that point, not to mention that there is no such provision in the bill to guarantee future buyers the same discount.

I can only hope that our next President will let the market decide the value of a property (radical idea eh?), and not some do-gooder politicians. When our leaders start trying to "help" us with our debt management and household finances, then we're really in big trouble. We see how well they've done with our national budget. I say, no thank you. And a small, perverse side of me says thank you Mr. Bush (as I quietly throw-up in my mouth).

And - forgive the clueless idiot - but what is biodynamic farming?
To add to OO's comments, those who farm biodynamically care a lot for the land and about the food they produce. However, stict adherence to biodynamic principles (certified by the US Demeter Association) involves rituals and practices, that are, shall we say, off the beaten path. Here is a previous post which links to a Chron article talking about biodynamic farming.

OO and EBGuy

thanks for the biodynamic enlightenement.

EBGuy - that comment you linked to had some pretty hilarious parts....I guess there's nothing that can't be taken to such an extreme it becomes self-satirizing (if that's a word)

More heartache for Peter P (and maybe all of us) :-)

http://www.examiner.com/blogs-73-Yeas_and_Nays~y2008m5d9-McCain-planning-climate-change-tour

RE: More heartache

Sigh. Can we have Dick Cheney instead?

Hopefully, McCain is just "running center" to woo the liberals.

Even IF (big if) "global warming" is real, there are more important issues to solve. Sea-level rising? I say it is just hot air rising.

It is understandable that countries (e.g. Europe, Japan) with negative population growth and declining world influence want to believe in a theory that will dampen the growth of their competitions.

We need to ask ourselves this. How does believing in "global warming" serve us as a still-growing power?

Now, we pretend that we are compassionate. What would buying the hypothesis mean to developing nations that *need* and *deserve* growth.

BayAreaIdiot Says:
I wonder if the FT and the Economist will start writing nice things about [Putin]

Not much chance - FT and the Economist are a little anglo-centric, and if there is one thing the british hate more than the french, it is the russians.

Russian billionaires contribute much to London's economy.

"Global warming" is the ultimate "I've got mine so screw you" religion.

Peter P Says:
Russian billionaires contribute much to London’s economy.

Of course, the british are always happy to take your money - that was not my point. I was making a slightly flippant comment based on geopolitical history - the English have gone to great lengths for several centuries to contain and restrict Russian influence. However, I must also admit that the English are extremely even-handed in their xenophobia - they hate pretty much everyone else too. :-)

However, I must also admit that the English are extremely even-handed in their xenophobia - they hate pretty much everyone else too.

LOL! They love Americans, right? ;)

SP is correct. The English do hate everyone on the "wrong" side of the channel :-)
I think that includes Americans most of the time, although they may have a slight hate-deficit on that special case. Same goes for NZ, Australia and a couple of other places. I think.

Regarding Global Warming: Most times I'm not sure what to think Peter P. There is something about those who are ardent believers which repels me.

Whether or not it's related to "saving the planet" I don't know. But it is unquestionably related to limiting growth so I Imagine the fight will be over who's growth and in what way. I can't figure that one out. I don't really get what the balance of power is on the international rulemaking re: global warming.

RE: saving the planet

Earth is very sturdy. Humanity cannot even possibly ding the planet.

Most people who claim to be "saving the planet" are really trying to save themselves from lifestyle changes.

The truth is, Nature is constantly in flux. One cannot embrace Nature without accepting environmental changes. The causes of those changes are themselves irrelevant, because Nature is simply reacting to our existence.

Well-to-do Brits are all retiring overseas now, particularly in Spain and Australia. They are not the uber-rich types, just middle upper class who seek better weather (and death tax treatment) at the end of their lives.

But the funny thing is, I have met so many British retirees in Australia complaining about "brown" immigrants dirtying up the British Isles and taking advantage of the welfare system. I am like, dude, you have already left that place behind, so worry about your new abode please. Plus, if you don't notice, you are a Johny-come-lately "immigrant" yourself so quite bickering over immigrants.

Scientifically speaking, there is no conclusion about what we will experience after this "global warming" period. There may very well be a global cooling, a mini ice-age which happened around the time America was founded.

I am for limiting carbon output not because I want to save the planet, because the planet cannot be destroyed or saved by minuscule human activities. I just want to breathe better air. And our reliance on cheap fuel is simply unsustainable.

And our reliance on cheap fuel is simply unsustainable.

When fuel is no longer cheap, alternatives will look attractive. Regulation is completely unnecessary.

Most people who claim to be “saving the planet” are really trying to save themselves from lifestyle changes.

Well that doesn't make the effort automatically suspect, particularly if the lifestyle change in question is "death"!

Like I said, I can't tell if it's happening, if we're causing it, if we can reverse it or even if it is definitely a bad thing. I also kinda see a bit of a contradiction in a scientific theory which requires "belief", especially belief in models. Haven't we just learned models suck in modeling the real world? :-)

However, if someone can plausibly claim they'll "save the planet", without limiting (technological) growth, I'll agree to let them try.

Well that doesn’t make the effort automatically suspect, particularly if the lifestyle change in question is “death”!

I doubt that...

Haven’t we just learned models suck in modeling the real world?

Models, "peer-reviewed" studies, whatever. They can be be constructed to "prove" anything.

something about a virus at JavaOne Peter P - watch out!

I never eat anything there. But thanks! :)

Oh, try out Lark Creek Steak. It has the best sauteed calamari!

thanks for the recommendation Peter P. I Love steak. and calamari too!

gotta run now

The English do hate everyone on the “wrong” side of the channel.

The old British expression was "the wogs begin at Calais". :lol:

Best traditional Italian Calamari (squid steak) I’ve had thus far - Rappa’s on Monterey’s warf. Worth the walk.

Thanks! I will try that next time.

Walking was / is / and always should be free (in America, in public places).

Perhaps we should privatize the sidewalks. :)

So, if you want free and green - Walk

I have been walking to work for a couple of weeks now. Haven't felt this good since my time in the Airborne. If I had the time, I would walk home.

Let’s at least start with being financially conservative.

The only fiscally responsible people left are in the middle. We have "Deficits don't matter" on one end and unlimited government entitlement on the other.

Heaven help us when the only sensible politicians are people like Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwartzenegger.

As prices near — or in some places top — $4 a gallon, most Americans say they are cutting back on other household spending, seriously considering buying more fuel-efficient cars and consolidating their daily errands to save fuel.

Gas prices have risen well above the $4 a gallon mark, in Half Moon Bay, Calif. Record high gas prices are prompting Americans to drive less for the first time in nearly three decades, squeezing family budgets and causing major shifts in driving habits.

There are certain numbers that are typically off-limits, particularly in the workplace: age, weight and salary. But if you're young and just beginning to build your career, you're more likely to readily divulge that information. Sharing paycheck details with friends, peers and even colleagues is empowering, according to create salary reports based on very specific criteria to help determine real-time market value.

By Age:
Age 61+ $184,800
Ages 25-40 $184,900
Ages 51-60 $203,900
Ages 41-50 $207,500

By Function:
HR $185,300
Marketing $186,400
Consulting $190,600
Sales & Marketing $193,500
MIS/IT $201,000
Sales $204,000
General $216,700
Finance $235,900

By Industry:
Business Services $187,300
Healthcare $194,200
High Tech/Defense/Aerospace $206,000
Financial Services/Banking/Insurance $225,700
Life Sciences (Pharma/Med/Biotech) $230,800
Energy/Utilities $233,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, according to ExecuNet's research from CareerBuilder.com and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania reveals a lot more detail about why and what jobs are at risk and where they are likely to go.

Based on a survey of more than 3,000 hiring managers/HR professionals and 6,700+ workers across the U.S., the research identifies the high-wage, high-skill jobs being offshored that were previously thought to be impervious to risk, and 69 percent of employers believe high-skill service positions are at equal or more risk of being offshored than low-skill jobs. Examples of jobs companies plan to offshore:

Computer programmers

Software developers

Customer service

Systems analysts

Sales managers

Graphic designers

HR personnel

General managers

Marketing personnel

Technology services, telecommunications, insurance, manufacturing, engineering, banking and finance, oil, travel, utilities and communications all reported higher rates for offshoring.

Permarenter,

GC?

While I detest the Bush Administration handling of nearly everything, this was clearly the right call. A huge majority (>95%) of mortgages are being paid timely, and if I'm going to bail out my neighbor's foolish spending, could they hand over their toys (plasma TVs, video game systems, vehicles, new furniture, vacations, etc.).

As someone that purchased their first home in Florida in 2003 (mid-boom) with 20% down (how old fashioned) and at a value of less than 3 times my salary (again old fashioned) having my Hummer driving, beautiful people neighbors being foreclosed on is unfortunate for their children but exactly what they deserved. And the only aspect I'd like to alter is the ability to go and retroactively retrieve money from ultra-smug bankers, mortgage brokers and realtors that helped fuel this new paradigm by encouraging this foolishness.(and their well-paid lobbyists of course)

By the way, I subsequently left my job and was underemployed for a couple years, ended up relocating to NC in 2006 for a new job, and still own my house in Florida due to the market conditions. Now I have a renter (negative cash flow but close) and continue to pay my mortgaage while compromising my lifestyle to honor my obligations. That's what responsible adults do. If I had listened to all the shrewd financial advice, I could owe an extra $150K and NEED a bailout, but drive to my foreclosure in a sweet car while wearing Armani)

Finally, when somebody has no equity (0% down or the like) and pays a teaser rate, or pulls all the equity out of their home to finance other investments/lifestyle, they are really RENTERS, and should not be considered homeowners- they simply were a conduit for a prior owner to transfer ownership to the bank. And I'll be damned if I bailout the bankers, again.

Yes- it's a rant, but this stuff is mighty frustrating.

msbern,

What an elegant and excellent post.

I will vote for republicans in 2008 just because democrats favor bailout.

Another one bits the dust!

http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2008/pr08033.html

A rather detailed mortgage tax savings calculator:

http://www.crystalbull.com/mortgage_calculator.php

Paul,

ANB Financial, National Association, Bentonville, Arkansas.....

How odd. I take it that's Arkansas National Bank. It's in the hometown of Wallyworld. I wonder if Wallyworld has a stake in it.

It's interesting how FDIC has a "watch list" of troubled banks - about 60 last time I heard. But this watch list is a closely guarded secret. I can understant why, but it's still frustrating.

I wonder if you could pry that list loose using the Freedom of Information Act? :?

Offtopic: can anyone explain what is going on in Palo Alto? I saw a 1,200 sqft sh*tbox (really) listed for $1.39 million on Loma Verde just a week ago.

Yet, as unreal as that price seems, other houses listed in the past few weeks in the general vicinity seem to have sold. Who is giving these idiots mortgages?

OK youse guys, listen up! Here's some really good investment advice.

Investors agree that hard times for homeowners like Mr. Martin will yield good times for storage firms. U-Store-It’s stock is up 33 percent this year. Extra Space is up 18 percent. Public Storage is up 18 percent.

www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/business/11storage.html?hp

It looks like when FB's get foreclosed, they put all their stuff (e.g. plasma TVs, HD Fatboys, etc.) into storage. Then when they don't pay the rent, the storage place auctions the toys for pennies on the dollar.

A cottage industry has developed to profit from these lost and abandoned items. The other day in this Chicago suburb, Stephanie Donahou and her son Marcus had only a moment to decide whether to bid on a unit in default. They could see a couch, a sewing machine, a fish tank, a washer and dryer, lots of Christmas wrapping paper, a television and other trappings of daily life.

“This is someone’s house,” Mrs. Donahou said. Her bid, for $160, was the highest.