JayB

Have you considered the possibility that Medicaid and Social Security were two of the more significant factors that brought about the genesis of the "Nursing Home?"That's a good point, it's a form of collective support that can take the place of "taking care of your own." But are people are ineligible for Social Security and Medicaid if a relative is putting a roof over their head? (I actually would like to know.) Social Security and Medicare eligibility won't be affected, but I don't think that spouses, children, or relatives receive payment from the Federal Government for housing, feeding, or taking care of their elderly relatives. Not sure what kind of home-care/assistance options are available for folks who need outside assistance to keep their loved ones out of nursing homes. It seems like this might be both better for the old person and the people caring for them than placing them nursing homes in a significant percentage of cases, and would cost the Federal Government less money.

Have you considered the possibility that Medicaid and Social Security were two of the more significant factors that brought about the genesis of the "Nursing Home?"

Maybe you'll have to snag the bottle of Tween-20, the Brij series, or some saponin if you want to keep the enviro bona fides in tact.

Probably some kind of non-ionic detergent is my best guess. Snag some Triton X-100 from the lab, toss it in the wash, and let us know what happens...

No, no silly. It's to express their (collective) individualism. Passed a fat chick with the died black hair thing on a fixey the other day. She had a tattoo on the back of each ankle - an exploding firecracker on each, on the left it said "Cherry" on the right it said "Bomb". Oh, please. I think I ran into that one. Passed her while she was grinding up Dexter (whoohoo, passed the overweight emo on the fixie...Tour De France here I come! ), only to be passed triumphantly and with no small measure of contempt ("Who's doing the passing now, buddy...") while coasting down to Fremont.

don't take this the wrong way JayB but that's one of the most simplistic, least relevant statements you've made recently. this is true in every presidential race ever. no one has a clue what these guys will do in office. it seems that in every presidency there is reason to say that the man in the oval office didn't do what you thought he'd do. If you really feel this way, you'd be better served by a voting via plinko-machine with a slot for each candidate instead of a ballot. My point was that there's very little difference between the actual policies championed by Obama and Edwards, particularly with respect to foreign and economic policy. This made the fact that Tvash ruled out Edwards on policy grounds kind of surprising to me.

Court says no. How would you call this one? "Sperm Donor Wins Case Over Child Support January 3, 2008 - 5:26am By MARK SCOLFORO Associated Press Writer HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege on the deal. The 3-2 decision overturns lower court rulings under which Joel L. McKiernan had been paying up to $1,500 a month to support twin boys born in August 1994 to Ivonne V. Ferguson, his former girlfriend and co-worker. "Where a would-be donor cannot trust that he is safe from a future support action, he will be considerably less likely to provide his sperm to a friend or acquaintance who asks, significantly limiting a would-be mother's reproductive prerogatives," Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion issued last week. Arthur Caplan, chairman of the Department of Medical Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said the decision runs counter to the pattern established by similar cases, where the interests of the progeny have generally been given great weight. "It sounds like the Pennsylvania court is trying to push a little harder into the brave new world of sperm, egg and embryo donation as it's evolving," Caplan said. McKiernan's lawyer, John W. Purcell Jr., said Wednesday an adverse decision against his client would have jeopardized the entire system of sperm donation. "That wouldn't just include Pennsylvania, because we found out in the course of this trial that many doctors order their sperm for their artificial inseminations out of state," he said. Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together at Pennsylvania Blue Shield in Harrisburg and had a sexual relationship that waned before Ferguson persuaded him to donate sperm for her. Courts found that the two agreed McKiernan would not have to pay child support and would not have visitation rights, but Ferguson later changed her mind and sued. A county judge said it was in the twins' best interests that McKiernan be required to support them. In addition to monthly payments, McKiernan also was ordered to come up with $66,000 in back support. The appeal reverses that order. Elizabeth Hoffman, Ferguson's lawyer, did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment left at her office Wednesday. Justice J. Michael Eakin, in a dissent, said a parent cannot bargain away a child's right to support. "The children point and say, 'That is our father. He should support us,'" Eakin wrote. "What are we to reply? 'No! He made a contract to conceive you through a clinic, so your father need not support you.' I find this unreasonable at best." ___

It's much harder for me to identify substantive differences in the platforms put forward by Obama and Edwards than it is between either of them and Clinton. Is it the person or the policies that matter more in the preference for Obama over Edwards? Obama seems like a classier version of Edwards, with a life narrative and an agenda that resonates quite a bit more with people's aspirations for the country, especially on the racial front. What they'd do differently once in office is tougher to determine.

Who are you expecting to vote for Huckabee?

That might have been the strategy with this house, too, because we're in a similar position. Unfortunatley, it's a spec house where the 'window side' (there don't seem to be many windows on any of the other sides) doesn't face the view, which is diminished anyway due to it's lower altitude. Um...OK. Nice try. Funny thing is, everyone in our hood correctly predicted this thing wasn't going to sell. You'd think, with so much cash at stake, the developer might have thought about chatting up the locals a bit before calling in the dozers. I think that land prices in most neighborhoods in Seattle are high enough these days that anyone doing the tear-down thing concludes that they've got to slap a big structure on the lot if they want to turn a decent profit. Probably pencils out easier with townhomes/condos in places that are zoned for that.

$150 a square foot for cookie cutter new construction? I'm a close, here? Seems consistent with the numbers I've seen tossed around, but this is all 26th hand info before I see it. It would be interesting to see what someone who's actually involved in building/restoring homes has to say on that one.

At least we can count on the housing market to pull us through. Speaking of which, anyone pull the trigger on the new house next door? Still vacant. The price is still too high, even for the robust Seattle housing market. I think the guy did not make a very good investment in how much he paid for the lot + the type of house it is+ how it is situated. Its pretty funny, asking for more than 3/4 million for a "Rearview Window" picture window view (literally like 15 feet or less from the big picture windows right when you walk in the door) of the neighbors decrepit deck complete with old refrigerator and washing machine rusting on it. They even hired a new real estate company which outfitted it with furnishings, but so far the polished turd has not sold. It'd be interesting to see at what point the profit trends to zero on that one. Thankfully for them, it's impossible to lose money in real estate, and they needn't concern themselves with such things.

At least we can count on the housing market to pull us through. Speaking of which, anyone pull the trigger on the new house next door?

I'm just curious as to what qualities, values, or circumstances you think enabled you to go from ditch-digger to your present station. Do you think that your trajectory constitutes an exception to the rules in a way that renders it meaningless for anyone else to base any broad conclusions on, or that others might be capable of doing something similar?

I'll just sit it out if either Hukabee or Romney are the nominee. (I think Hukabee is the Howard Dean of the Republican field this round.) I'll plug my nose and vote Guliani if I have to, but I stand by my month's old belief that the finalist will be my favorite; McCain. Under no circumstances will I vote for one of the kook/whack-job Democrats. I'm also hoping that I have the opportunity to vote for McCain.

"I'll take 'Words that will never be uttered by a PhD candidate studying The Role of Latent Gender Signifiers in Late Victorian Poetry' for $1000, Alex."

This absurd victim-narrative would be more compelling if a region in which the same dynamics were in play - long history of domination by colonial powers, extreme underdevelopment relative to Western industrial powers, even greater poverty, far fewer natural resources, etc - hadn't lifted a few hundred million people out of poverty and captured a significant fraction of the global manufacturing economy in far less time than it took the conglomeration of retards running South America to devastate their own economies. It's still more amusing to contemplate how the authors would account for the rise of the US as the world's foremost economic power between the time of the first settlements and the late 19th century. The fact of the matter is that South Americans either scared away foreign capital with asset seizures/nationalization, used protectionism to lock out the capital that they couldn't scare off, and bankrupted themselves with staggeringly idiotic policies like "Import Substitution Industrialization." The latter of which made about as much sense as Saudi Arabia refusing to exchange oil for rice and trying to grow it in the desert instead. In addition to negating any comparative advantage that they may have had, their new economic policies provided opportunities for politically inspired patronage and rent-seeking. This took them from also-rans in the realm of corruption to world-beaters in this category.

that is "too" comrade. Yes it is.

Some of the characteristics that her base seem to have qualms about - excessively calculating, etc - actually provide me with a substantial measure of reassurance concerning the kind of policies that she'd actually implement once she took office. I've been willing to accept politicians who at least rhetorically address some of the concerns of the wackier elements of the Republican electorate for some time as a lesser-of-all-evils thing so long as they and their cabinet are more likely to champion policies that I support in more concrete ways, in areas that I consider more consequential. However, when you've got a guy who's an isolationist economic flat-earther *and* has signaled his intention to cater to the wingnut contingent in the party way more than Bush has - that's just a bridge to far for me.

Given that the poorest class of people in the US probably have material wealth (car, food, roof over head, indoor plumbing, electricity, freezer, over, clean drinking water, etc) that far exceeds that of at least 3/4ths of the world's population - it's worth asking whether or not it makes sense to focus on absolute vs relative standards of living when drawing conclusions about what their material conditions say about the state of our society.

No, Jays post is an elitest argument that is designed to distract from the real issues. If you don't think there is a real, actually true underclass (hidden) in our society then you need to get on your tivo and check out the New Orleans Hurricane aftermath. As hard as it may be for your little brain to figure out, things "arn't all better" soly because of rich guys, working folks built the middle class and that constant is under great threat from the freemarket neofacist mentality that seems to be on the rise these days. Kiss me first sweety, I might even give you a drink if youre thirsty. Was the article arguing that the underclass doesn't exist? The gist of the article seemed to be that - income inequality and material inequality aren't quite the same. - When it comes to material deprivation, in comparison to the wealthiest people in society, the poorest people in today's society are immeasurably better off than the poorest of 20, 40, 80, and 120 years ago. You can thank inventors and entrepreneurs for substantial part of that improvement.

Also suggesting that Obama is in the lead at this point. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22484066/

NBC is calling it for Huckabee. If he wins the nomination (which he won't), I'll be voting for the Democratic candidate, unless it's Edwards.

If we are counting cc then add +1 to my column...

Dependency Theory?A bit off the mark. It's more of a leftist view of European and then U.S. support of repressive regimes, including the violent overthrow of independent nationalist governments, in order to maintain the exploitation of raw goods by offshore capitalist interests--our wealth and rights secured against the forceful denial of others' in their own countries. But more to the point is that it amounts to a biased criticism of a foreign power, much like this Black Book of Communism promises to be. The notion that South Americans required foreign capital and technology to sustain the brutality, incompetence, and corruption that have been the hallmarks of their history is a notion that's laughable enough to be worthy of a...leftist intellectual from South America.