JayB

Judging from the content of your previous posts, I suspect that the home is priced to sell, and that you will walk away from - rather than to - the closing table with a check in your hand. Having said that - any idea what portion of the housing stock in Bellingham is priced at $400K or higher? Anything more than 5-10% of the homes in Bellingham going for north of $400K seems insane unless my sense that the median household income there is hovering around ~$45-50K per year is way too low. I realize that the average household and the average home-buying household aren't necessarily the same thing, Bellingham is supposedly a destination of choice for wealthy retirees, etc, but still...

Where are you getting your stats? I'm surprised that anyone with any skin in the game would go with anything other than Case-Shiller-Weiss. I don't think that their numbers will be out for another couple of months. As things stand now, in KC YOY inventory is up ~70%, pending sales are down ~30%, and one wonders whether the frenzy you speak of will actually materialize. The only factors I see working in favor of such a prediction are the government's efforts to put a floor under home prices by dramatically revising OFHEO conforming loan limits upwards through the end of '08, Congress jettisoning the limits on FNMA and GNMA portfolios, the IRS eliminating the tax liability associated with forgiven loan balances (this might actually accelerate the mortgage jettisoning process, but I suspect that's not what Congress intended), and whatever other actions that they may take to transfer private mortgage liabilities onto the public balance sheet. Will these efforts negate the various factors at work that are presently diminishing effective demand for housing? It's not clear, but I don't think that the distribution of probabilities favors such an outcome. FWIW - my best friend is renting a three bedroom, two bath condo in San Clemente for $2200 per month. An identical unit is available for $800,000. I can put you in touch with the owners if you'd like to make an offer.

"Homeowner Equity Is Lowest Since 1945 Thursday March 6, 2:15 pm ET By J.W. Elphinstone, AP Business Writer Federal Reserve Report Shows Homeowner Equity Dipping Below 50 Percent, the Lowest on Record NEW YORK (AP) -- Americans' percentage of equity in their homes fell below 50 percent for the first time on record since 1945, the Federal Reserve said Thursday. Homeowners' portion of equity slipped to downwardly revised 49.6 percent in the second quarter of 2007, the central bank reported in its quarterly U.S. Flow of Funds Accounts, and declined further to 47.9 percent in the fourth quarter -- the third straight quarter it was under 50 percent. That marks the first time homeowners' debt on their houses exceeds their equity since the Fed started tracking the data in 1945."

My wife and I have been together for around eight years, married for three, and we still enjoy climbing with one another, but it's been a trial and error process for sure. Even after eliminating the aspects of climbing that just don't work very well for us as a couple, there's a near infinity of options out there that both of us can enjoy together.

Word. koihHyfoIW4

Hey - a member of the citizenry who knows who Gibbon was, much less one who incorporates quotes into contemporary political discussions. Woohoo. James Madison must be smiling contentedly from his grave. Speaking of Gibbon, though, it's amusing to me to see this level of angst and despair about how rising commodity prices are crimping the lifestyles of people who live amidst a material and technological extravagance that would flabbergast every last Roman emperor and leave them in a state of eye-popping, mouth-agape disbelief when they pondered the lot of the average American. As far as conservation is concerned, I'm personally happy that there is not - at least at this point - a central authority that can impose a collective discipline on how people choose to spend their money. The same agent of the "popular will" that could forcibly compel the redneck to eschew his F350 in favor of a soy-powered golf-cart could just as easily manifest itself in a popular hostility to lifestyle choices made by groups that are smaller, more vulnerable to coercion, and further outside the mainstream. In fact, minority groups are quite a bit more likely to suffer from unrestrained collective action than they are to benefit from it, which should give anyone pause before yanking that particular genie out of the bottle. The fact of the matter is that the percentage of people who are wealthy enough to crank up the thermostats or A/C, do laps around the state in their F350s, etc without feeling the pinch is so small that the aggregate effect of their excess consumption over whatever arbitrary standard the "collective judgment" might deem necessary and acceptable is next to nothing. When prices rise, 98% of the people in the country will respond by reducing consumption by any number of different mechanisms. They may not do so in response to anything more high-minded than basic self-interest, but change they will. In the end, so long as there's enough wealth in the country to generate effective demand for more efficiency, and the laws are structured to that those with capital to dedicate to the task are willing and able to deploy it, the net long-term effect of higher commodity prices on our collective lifestyles or well-being will also be next to zero. Now turn off your computers and go read some Gibbon. One of my favorites: "His manners were less pure, but his character was equally amiable with that of his father. Twenty-two acknowledged concubines, and a library of sixty-two thousand volumes, attested the variety of his inclinations, and from the productions which he left behind him, it appears that the former as well as the latter were designed for use rather than ostentation."

...Golf? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/nyregion/21golf.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=53478f97ee77d7d2&ex=1203742800

In this case, I' talking about the alleviation of sanctions, rather than their imposition. Also - one could argue that full trading rights, etc are privileges that nations voluntarily extend to one another, rather than rights that all nations are automatically entitled to irrespective of their policies or conduct. I agree that sanctions, embargoes, etc often miss their target and are innefective in bringing about the desired ends, but there's a distinction between applying punitive sanctions and extending privileges. If you disagree, do you consider the conditions that the EU demands that potential members meet before being accepted punitive sanctions? Unjustifiable impositions of their norms on other sovereign states, etc?

1)How about a simple, declarative statement every now and then instead of an evasive interrogative? 2)Guns in home. Yes. 3)Choosing who you sleep with. Yes. 3)If they wish, of course. 4)Clinton's formula. Safe, legal, and rare. Yes - including legalizing all currently illegal drugs, and legalizing organ sales from adults who can establish that they are mentally competent and understand fully the ramifications of their decision. 5)There's a difference between promoting values and imposing them. I am not opposed to using an exchange mechanism (dropping embargo's for establishing freedom of speech in places where it's currently restricted, on a take it or leave it basis) in those cases where such methods will be effective. In cases where we have no leverage, I'd be happy to substitute unconditional free trade. I think there cases - both rare and extreme - where the use of force is warranted as a last resort. Would military intervention in Rwanda count as an intolerable interference in the affairs of a sovereign state, or an unjustifiable imposition of values on a non-consenting populace (this being the hackers in this case, as the hackees would presumably not oppose such a move on principle).

1) No - but this is a massive distortion of the case of Cuba. Feel free to explain the moral and practical downsides of doing what I suggested at your leisure. 2)What *exactly* do you mean by "the freedom to be healthy?" Is there any necessary contradiction between enjoying basic human liberties and health, between exercising free speech and health and/or literacy? If not - then what is your point here? If you want to argue that free speech and the like have to be sacrificed in order to promote health-care and literacy, or that health care and literacy are ends that justify depriving people of their rights to vote in free elections, own property, speak freely, etc - then have at it.

See the final portion of my last post for a reply to your statement here.

if some were to foment rebellion in the US, and work for the overthrow of the US government, what do you think the ramifications for the perpetrators would be? just curious.... but, here's an interesting factoid which you probably recall: boris yeltsin barely won an election against a communist in the '90's. the soviet establishment was every bit as repressive as castro's has been, was it not? yet the representative of this establishment would have probably won a free election, were it not for large cash infusions from the west for his opponent (and now witness putin's popularity!). it would be truly interesting for me to witness a free election in cuba, with fidel as one of the candidates. oh, another interesting one: our old friend daniel ortega won a free and fair election in nicaragua. when we think we can speak for the people of another country, we only show our ignorance and arrogance. You seem to be conflating those who might wish to venture a critical opinion of the government with those who advocate overthrowing it. There is quite a distinction there, no? So far as I know, we are free to advocate for an overthrow of the government so long as we don't engage in any violent plots to do so. You are also equating the violent overthrow of a totalitarian regime that relies on repression to remain in power, for the purposes of alleviating the said repression - with a violent overthrow of a liberal government established and maintained by the action of the voters. What could be the purpose of a violent overthrow in the later case? Would there be no moral difference between the two? As far as Russia is concerned, the former regime may have won the first election - but if they permitted free speech, free association, and the like - they'd have to earn that right every election. Had that been the case, fine. Had it not - the government would have had to rely on other means to secure its power, which is largely what Putin has done since that time. As far as Cuba is concerned, Fidel may well have won every open election since 1959. If he himself was confident of that fact - why has he not permitted free elections at any point since that time, nor has he allowed the citizens the basic freedoms necessary to make an informed decision? But in the end - I agree - let them speak for themselves through their free votes. That their doing so will always promote liberal ends is demonstrably untrue - but that leads to a larger discussion about whether democracy is valuable as an end in itself or as a means of perpetuating an institutional framework within which liberty is preserved. I don't personally think that the democracy is best understood, nor is its chief virtue that sometimes it serves as, an institutional framework in which the majority is free to do everything to everyone else, but here we may disagree.

1)When it serves to promote a basic human liberty. 2)Yes and yes.

So I presume that you also objected to interfering in, say, in Serbia's internal affairs? How about Rwanda's internal affairs? If not, what's the difference here? As far as Cuba is concerned, you still haven't answered the questions. What are the concrete negative moral or practical consequences that will result from using our leverage with Cuba to entice them to sign voluntary agreements which relax the repression of Cuban citizens? The reason to use leverage to promote more rapid adoption of basic human rights in Cuba should require no argumentation, but if necessary - the main argument I'd put forward is that it would be more likely to vastly accelerate the changes that would naturally occur if the embargo was abandoned. As far as the elections are concerned, I've dealt with your statements before. No objective, sane deliberative body has found any of your accusations against Bush credible in the least. As far as the larger process is concerned, what aspects of formal election process that brought Bush into office differ in any respect from those in operation since George Washington was voted in? This notion that the operation of the electoral college should render any sitting president mute when observing the likes of the election that kept Mugabe in office are difficult to reconcile with any precept of logic, morality, or rationality that I am familiar with.

Yes.

for the sake of moral consistency, i assume you would support this approach with saudi arabia, kuwait, pakistan, jordan, etc etc? or do you only see it being morally applicable to small powerless impoverished countries? Morally applicable, no. Practically applicable, yes. Do you find this morally objectionable? If so, why? A second question concerning the support that the Cuban regime enjoys amongst Cubans. Given the difficulty that you or I have discerning the convictions of the average Cuban, I'd agree that it's difficult to tell where they stand from a distance. However, I'd venture that the Cuban regime is laboring under no such disadvantage, and knows full well where it stands. Given that the Cuban government has a much more accurate understanding of popular sentiments than you or I possibly could - what do you make of their decision to maintain their repression of the Cuban people by denying them freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc? If the regime knew that it had the undying loyalty and affection of its citizens, would there be any need for it to imprison dissidents, execute potential rivals like Ochoa, etc?

Are you serious? We'd be making them an offer, which they'd be free to reject if they saw fit, which I suspect they would - since they seem to have a keener sense of their vulnerabilities than the average American leftist. Where is the coercion here? What is the moral and/or practical downside of using the prospect leveraging trade benefits that will lift the standard of living of all Cuban citizens in exchange for alleviating the many forms of repression that the Cuban government inflicts upon its citizens. I would also make sure that we used all of the broadcast technologies at our disposal to insure that the Cuban people knew what was on the table.

Hah, I hadn't thought about that hullaballou in awhile. A little research turns up this tidbit: "Last month, Spink, 34, and Wesley Cornett, 28, a second drug runner, each received a three-year sentence from Martinez, who accepted joint recommendations for leniency from defense attorneys and the government because of their cooperation." in this article about the arrest and trial of the kingpin. It appears that d-dog played rat fink and sang like a canary. Jay, its better that you revived this spectacle in this thread than in the "how far would you go for your pet" thread.

We don't do this w/r/t China. I'd say that we have more leverage with Cuba, but if it turns out that I'm wrong - unilaterally dropping all sanctions would ultimately have the same effect, but it would just take longer to arrive at the same end. Give people enough economic freedom and ultimately the state depends on the people for it's existence, rather than the converse.

Yeah, then they can blame the multinationals. Can't wait to get me some of those magic boneless buffalo wings! And TruckNutz are going to look great on those decaying '57 Chevys. The horror. I'm sure that they'd rather keep the repression, poverty, etc if they knew that Boneless Buffalo Wings were waiting for them on the other side of Communism.

If I were in charge of policy I'd make trade relations and embargo easing contingent upon the regime taking concrete steps to enhance the liberty of Cuban citizens. E.g. - drop the detention of political dissidents, and we'll drop the embargo in X area. Allow unrestricted access to all broadcasts, and we'll drop Y. Pass a law guaranteeing freedom of speech or allowing for the formation of opposition parties, and we'll drop the demands that you compensate US companies that had their assets seized, etc. In the end - if there's a regime in Cuba that wants to continue playing dress-up and calling itself Communist that doesn't repress its citizens, allows them freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc - I can live with that. Failing a stepwise approach, my second option would be to drop the embargo immediately and watch economic liberty work its magic on the regime, who could no longer blame the US for the suffering endured by its people.

Why the unremitting and unconditional affection for Castro, but the inverse for Pinochet? I suspect that the total body count is lower for Pinochet, the repression less severe and of shorter duration, and the outcome a stable, modern democracy that's been at *least* as successful at improving the lives of its citizens as Castro's Cuba has been. Make the objective case. Take your time.

you seem to know enough of the cuban people to speak for them? wow. same to all you armchair qb's who are so intimately knowledgeable about another country. Is someone channeling the "If you aren't a Muslim..." argument? One can formulate an opinion on a particular regime without presuming to speak for the inhabitants living under the regime, no? Any ideas why it may be more difficult to discern the true sentiments of Cubans on this topic than it would be for say, the Dutch? the last question of your post would be the germane question, and the one that seems to be without an answer (except for FW's fair and objective take). there is of course opposition to the castro regime in cuba, fairly obvious, but there is also widespread support within cuba, which is way less obvious to consumers of exclusively domestic US news. now, do i believe in a single party dictatorship? no. do i think castro was a really bad guy? no. contradiction? no. I suspect that there's widespread support for the "Dear Leader" in North Korea at the moment as well. The true test of how deep and sincere that support is will only come when the citizens have free access to information, and can voice their opinions without fear of repression. Until Cuba satisfies those conditions, your estimates of the true level of support for the regime in Cuba aren't much more reliable than estimates of popular hostility towards it, are they?

Bummer about the fatalities in Lava. What did you hear? Last drowning recorded in the GC on AW is from 2004.

Does the presence of people that you deem political prisoners in Guantanamo (which are these strict equivalents of Cuban political dissidents, in your estimation?)render the actions of the Cuban regime against non-violent political dissidents ethical or legitimate in your eyes?