chucK

New question How do I format the top row (or rows) to be a header so that when I scroll down the top row stays put (so I can keep seeing the variable labels)?

If you've got an electric stove with the old fashioned metal burners, you can usually flip the elements so they are sticking up. Let the thing get to red hot and try slicing the rope over the side of that.

Or perhaps an army of evil civil-disobedient Hitler clones!

That rhetoric couldn't be more empty coming from you! Does the "respect" we need to learn include wishing people dead? "I'd rather see you all get fucked over by terrorists and rot in the aftermath, then lift a finger on your behalf." Talk about respect!

I think that people against the war may not be totally crazy to believe they have no legal recourse in terms of war policy or public policy. Opinion polls have been against the Iraq war quite substantially for a while now. Sizeable minorities have opposed it since day one. What is there to show for it? A surge. Increase the troops over there! Add to that the fears of being disenfranchised because of the Diebold voting machine controversies, and the alleged justice department attempts to influence local elections via "voter fraud" investigations and interferences in prosecutions against GOP-friendly pols. You've got some people worried that legal means of change are being removed. Then, of course, you've got the President who doesn't even feel the need to follow laws that have already been put on the books (you know the ones we're talking about here), and indicates his unwillingness to even follow the laws currently being enacted by the use of his signing statements. Put it all together, I wouldn't blame any average war critic for feeling like he/she has any practical legal recourse.

In the formula put a "$" before the value you want to remain static. E.g. if you want to keep the row static A$1, column static $A1, both static $A$1. whoa!! geeks popping out of the woodwork. Like whack a mole!

It sure does... I'll add that even though I drink a lot of it in the morning, I don't notice the difference during and after that daily load, but on the occasion when I do have a cup of coffee or a coke in the afternoon - WHOA! I'm lit! Same thing happens when I have the coffee late. There's pretty good science coming out about that kind of thing. When the body gets habituated (addicted) it will start working ahead of time to counteract the effects of the drug. There's some rat experiments where they get a rat habituated to a drug (NO in the experiments I'm thinking of) accompanied by a stimulus such as a flashing light or buzzer. Then when they do the stimulus without the drug there is a measureable opposite effect of what the drug would do. In the case of NO they were looking at body temperature. I've read in less scientific sources that heroin addicts are known to have overdosed using their regular dose but in different circumstances so their body gets surprised and hasn't had time to start the mitigating effects. Anyway, this is all meant to explain why LB feels so much more affected by the caffeine if he drinks it at any time other than the first morning jolt. I also experience this phenomenon. The only scary thing is realizing that once you're habituated (one mug full o' espresso each morn) you probably have an extra "downer" effect each morning, and you need the dose just to get you to normal. No wonder some people feel like they have so much more energy after they kick the stuff!

....and now the Bush administration has the contents of all those calls recorded and wiretaps on all of those who called.

Not a very good one either. Despite your own wavering declarations, you ventured down to this event with an agenda. I don't subscribe to the idea that opinion-reporting is inherently wrong, but I do believe in disclosure. Don't try to pretend you're just a neutral observer who, once on site, had some kind of epiphany. What was the agenda, and where do you have proof or suspicion of it?

Holy shit! I actually totally agree with an entire post of yours. Well written. ...and Klenke, you suck!

Good name for it. I thought you'd like the personal-responsibility aspect of it. Are you turning nanny-state on me?

Seems like this would impose a pinch on the tax revenues and thus would force rates on the sub-25's to increase. I'm surprised that you aren't arguing for a personal responsibility/free-market alternate solution here. One could take the money that is saved by not having to subsidize those post-25'ers taxes, and invest it however one sees fit into an equity fund sufficient to pay off all personal property taxes for the rest of one's life.

All other rental owners have to pay property taxes too. The property tax owners pay is figured into the competitive rate, no? If you didn't have to pay the property tax, then you'd probably lower your rental prices to entice more renters, right?

See my comments above about that bogus argument. Which was basically, do what you can and stop worrying too much about being put out more than the other guy. And you think renters don't pay property tax?

I don't think I said "my way or no way". I just voiced my preference and gave you my reasons. Perhaps you misunderstood my "might be willing to agree" line. I actually meant that that was one of the places I think we were less far apart on. See my recent edit about the local school taxes thing. For schools I think local control is far superior to State or Federal govt. I don't have a problem with communities getting what they paid for, though a small amount of state or federal subisidies would be nice to alleviate gross disparities. State income tax might be cool. I think it would totally kick ass on the sales tax, but I'd much rather it replace the sales tax than property taxes.

You say my examples don't fly? Where do you think the pipes that bring water to and from your house come from (maybe your utility bills pay for some, but isn't some of it local govt. sponsored)? How about the police that keep your covetous neighbor from coming and taking your property by force? The fire department that will come and put out the fire in your neighborhood so it won't spread to your house? Roads and other infrastructure? The property owner doesn't benefit from that? Schools are the only one of your examples I might be willing to argue, but in my mind educating children enriches the entire community. I'd much rather live among a reasonably well-educated populace, than in some gated community, afraid to go to the 7-11 for fear of the roaming gangs who couldn't get a job because they never learned to read or exist peacefully with their peers. Property taxes are local. Local people decide what they're used for. Way better than sending your money to a more distant entity like the State or Federal government (at least for educating the local populace and building roads). And if you don't like property taxes, what's your answer? Read Recycled's post. I thought it summarized the issue well.

I haven't expected any serious response from you for a long time now. But one can always hope. I believe in redemption.

You're not arguing about it (in the conventional sense anyway of offering positions based on facts, logic and reasoning), so far all you've done is bitched about it. Wah wah, I want this, because I do.

A couple of badasses for sure. Are you implying that their giving their lives in the Iraq war bought us the necessary time and freedom so that we could protest peacefully? If not for this heroic Iraq War then we'd already be in the clutches of evil facist muslim fundamentalists? If so, I'll have to politely disagree on that part.

once you pay for your property (e.g. a loan if you have one), you are free and clear. you are not taxed for your property, and you can not be evicted for any reason. it's yours until you die. Ooo! How's that for a sense of entitlement!

I'm still waiting for your better idea.

and non-property owners don't benefit from these things? Property owners benefit the most from an investment in their community. Worrying about others not having to do as much is a character flaw that merely discourages solutions. If you've got a better idea let's hear it. What taxes are you in favor of?

It's payment for services. It's a contract you enter into when you purchase the property. Do you also consider evil the Condo association fees that owners communally enter into in order to pay for upkeep of their common building? If you want to be totally free and clear you create a fund that would pay off your property taxes until the end of your life. Simple. Your property tax is just one more cost associated with purchase of the property. I'm sure you don't agree with paying for all the services that property taxes buy (since much of it will not directly benefit you, and you've already stated you'd rather see all of us dead), but who does? I also don't agree with having to pay so much more to buy a house in Seattle, but I knew that was just the cost of doing business. Your whines are simply bitching about high prices. Everybody does it, because life in the USA is so goddamned tough.

If you have a better way to pay for infrastructure, city government and public schools, I'd love to hear it. Being a property owner you benefit from each of these things. Seems reasonable to tax those who most benefit. But like I said, if you've got a better idea...

Sheesh, is idiotic extrapolation all you do? No, I wouldn't congratulate such a neighbor. Why should I? And why would anything I've written indicate this?