JayB

So true! And this is directly affected by the man's ability to simply do his chores without being asked. Being in a relationship where the expectation is that the total work necessary to keep the household going is one thing, being in a relationship with some chick that draws up a mental checklist of "chores" for her husband that she monitors continuously and enforces with nagging and terse comments is something else entirely. I don't know too many men who'd object to the former, or who could live happily with the latter.

This is supposedly a real exchange from Craig's list in NYC. "THIS APPEARED ON CRAIG’S LIST What am I doing wrong? Okay, I’m tired of beating around the bush. I’m a beautiful (spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I’m articulate and classy. I’m not from New York . I’m looking to get married to a guy who makes at least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don’t think I’m overreaching at all. Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average around 200 - 250. But that’s where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000 won’t get me to central park west. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she’s not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I get to her level? Here are my questions specifically: - Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars, restaurants, gyms -What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won’t hurt my feelings -Is there an age range I should be targeting (I’m 25)? - Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east side so plain? I’ve seen really ‘plain jane’ boring types who have nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I’ve seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What’s the story there? - Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows - lawyer, investment banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out? - How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY Please hold your insults - I’m putting myself out there in an honest way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I’m being up front about it. I wouldn’t be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn’t able to match them - in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice home and hearth. it’s NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests PostingID: 432279810 THE ANSWER Dear Pers-431649184: I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament. Firstly, I’m not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here’s how I see it. Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a crappy business deal. Here’s why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here’s the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity…in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won’t be getting any more beautiful! So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain, you’re 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you! So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy and hold…hence the rub…marriage. It doesn’t make good business sense to “buy you” (which is what you’re asking) so I’d rather lease. In case you think I’m being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It’s as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage. Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I wonder why a girl as “articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful” as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K hasn’t found you, if not only for a tryout. By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then we wouldn’t need to have this difficult conversation. With all that said, I must say you’re going about it the right way. Classic “pump and dump.” I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, let me know. " Hahahaha...

WSJ has an interactive map that breaks the stats down by state and metro-area for the entire US between 2004 and 2006. Might come in handy if you want to keep tabs on where your money is going when you foot the bill for the bail-out. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/retro-SUBPRIME07.html Bob Kiyosaki and Carlton Sheets, what hath thou wrought...

Oh my. Behold the hardcore travel-insider's equivalent of a Larry Craig moment, complete with tales of electronic toe-tapping, resurfacing at the most inopportune time...

Carl - master of backhanded endorsements...

Whats the penalty? Deportation to the lEast Coast? Internment in the Bellevue forced labor camp? The East Coast will only work if you're willing to live in NYC without a car. Since your carbon emissions will be so much lower than the rest of the denizens on this board, you'll be allowed to board JetBlue once a month for parole visits to the mountains. You'll also be allowed twice a month to ride in a Prius driven by somebody wearing Vibram FiveFingers (made in Italy) to the gunks or the ADKs to climb ice or the best trad crag in North America. NYC. Visit for the boroughs, stay for the skiing...

Whats the penalty? Deportation to the lEast Coast? The move to an environment where all of the gear is effectively useless and *literally* serves no tangible purpose whatsoever might be just the tonic you need. The lEast Coast will put you closer to the goal, but for you, the bleak Cartesian infinity that is Iowa might be the only place where you could truly cleanse your soul. As things stand now, the move to Seattle is roughly analogous to a moth changing the angle of his orbit around the autoloatheorecreoconsumo flame inward a few degrees and flapping the wings with even greater vigor...

We need to start a "Carl's Confessional" forum where you can castigate yourself for succumbing to the same temptations that ensnare lesser beings who - whatever their faults - could at least claim ignorance when cross-examined and held to account for their sins. But not you, Sir. Fully conscious, hyperaware, eyes-wide open...you still succumb. For you there will be no mercy....

Ummm...yaaahh....I carry around those double axle cams for their good looks....same thing with that highly breathable single wall tent.... well, you epitomize the suburbanite fashion climber ... Never conceived of an excess of functionality being a fashion statement? Check out the Hummers at Bellevue Square some time. Ooops. Good thing for me that the preponderance of twin-tips on folks who are *all-about* riding and especially landing switch doesn't make your point either...

Ummm...yaaahh....I carry around those double axle cams for their good looks....same thing with that highly breathable single wall tent.... well, you epitomize the suburbanite fashion climber ... Never conceived of an excess of functionality being a fashion statement? Check out the Hummers at Bellevue Square some time. Oft overhead just after sinking a placement while quavering at the crux "God-DAMN that extra expansion range!!!!!!...."

Obama might as well swing for the fences at this point...

It actually wouldn't bother me if every single aspect of cam production took place in China, so long as the right QA/QC standards were in place. IMO the big value-add is in the design, developing the manufacturing process, the brand-recognition, having a roster of folks who know what they're doing in the mountains evaluating the products and translating their inputs into tangible improvements in quality and function, etc, and it would make perfect sense to ship out the low-value add stuff if you could hold quality constant while lowering costs. It's always struck me as odd that those who advocate simply giving the less fortunate people in the world money or its equivalent are granted the secular equivalent of sainthood, while those who advocate giving them something much more valuable that they can actually use to lift themselves out of poverty permanently - our business - are vilified. If you do something so routine and repetitive that it can be outsourced to China, it's also routine and repetitive enough to be automated - so even in the absence of outsourcing, the end result would be the same.

If the components are made the same way by the same vendors, and are assembled in a facility owned and operated by B.D., managed by B.D. employees, and are subject to the same QC measures as the cams assembled in SLC - what reason is there to doubt the quality of the final product vis-a-vis cams assembled in SLC, unless one assumes that the Chinese employees are less vigilant or capable than their peers in the US? I'm no engineer, but as someone who's actually been on the line doing the assembling, I can't think of any reason why the average Chinese guy would do that particular job, or the testing, or anything else at a lower level than their counterparts in the US. If you have other emotional or political reasons to object, fine, but unless someone can point out specific reasons why I should conclude otherwise, I don't buy the idea that the cams that BD makes in China are less reliable or have a lower quality than those that were made in the US.

Figures are in billions.

Just heard about a situation like yours about a friend from Portland from the wife, although in this story the dude *was* cheating and the marriage is a goner. The best part was getting some (half)-joking words of warning and admonitions as a result of some other guy's shenanigans. Not the cheating type, but even if I was I have to think that even a quick, back-of-the-envelope calculation concerning the cost and benefits of some out-of-wedlock action would keep me on the straight and narrow after I got married. Once you tally up the cost of all of the severed relationships, emotional keel-hauling, lawyer's bills, etc it'd be hard to conclude that any piece of ass in the world would justify even a 100th of the cost.

Seems like it might be worth sending an e-mail to the company, but I have a hard time believing that a company like BD would put stuff on the market that wasn't subject to the same QC battery that they employed with the stuff that they made in the USA. Especially after what's happened to CCH.

I think there's some old Kjell Swedin route at Index that'd fit the bill. Forget the name, don't think it gets climbed much. Looked at it a few years ago and climbed something else.

All BD water-ice crampons seem to have the secondary points set way too far back for my liking. YMMV.

Gottman is really good...took a prep for new baby class based on his material....and he's local to boot I've kind of dismissed this literature after reading about 4 pages of a book full of John Gray's inano-pablum, but this stuff looked like a substantial improvement. As soon as I saw some validation for my passionate hatred of emotional microanalysis (once had a former girlfriend what I "really meant" when I asked her if she'd pass the salt) I figured it'd be worth shelling out $10 for an ounce of prevention.

The real math wiz would come up with a theorem that describes the maximum number of possible results...

Just a friendly poke in the ribs…….trying to bring some humor to this heated debate. Even if I am the only one who thinks it to be funny……ha ha. To answer your question above…..I honestly don’t know. I cant hang with all you college types……brainy folk…… I do know how to belay and lead climb. I guess I play guitar a lot too…… It's all good, no offense taken. I was hoping you knew something about FISA constitutionality, that's all. First hit on Google... Link

Judiciary oversight. Previously, if the government had probable cause, it would take it to the FISA court and attempt to obtain a warrant. The court would rule on its merits. In "emergencies", the government could execute a search, but would need to report to the court within 72 hours with case specifics. The current protocol does away with this mechanism entirely, replacing it with a quarterly judiciary review that does not even go into case specifics. No evidence is brought before a court, no probable cause in any case by case sense. This should trouble anyone with constitutional and legal precedent knowledge. ? I'm a little confused here; I thought it was self-evident that the "powers" we speak of are surveillance powers, unmitigated by constitutional safeguards? In this context, "intent" and the "means" are somewhat insignificant and misleading, since the legislation itself is a product of the "intent", and the "means" are given by said legislation (both of which have no bearing on the constitutionality of the legislation). It is said that the "abuses" have already occurred, if we mean by "abuses" non-constitutional activity. And yes the "abuse" would occur into the next administration, as long as non-constitutional legislation existed. And since we all know what YOU meant by the above, I'd have to answer by saying that it could be difficult to know, due to the seemingly limited amount of judiciary oversight (back to this one again). Remind me of this language, for seemingly I have, how does one put it....Spaced. Are you talking about domestic surveillance, overseas surveillance, or the grey-zone where overseas targets originate communications from outside the US to persons located inside the US who may or may not be citizens? If this summary is accurate: " 1. The Act Permits Our Intelligence Professionals To More Effectively Collect Foreign Intelligence Information On Targets In Foreign Lands Without First Receiving Court Approval. The Act clarifies that the definition of electronic surveillance in FISA shall not be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S. This clarification restores FISA to its original intent and means intelligence professionals will not have to go to court in order to collect foreign intelligence on an overseas target who may be planning to attack the U.S. 2. The Act Provides A Role For The FISA Court In Reviewing The Procedures The Intelligence Community Uses To Ensure That Surveillance Efforts Target Persons Located Overseas. The Attorney General is required to submit to the FISA court the procedures by which intelligence professionals will determine that the authorized acquisitions of foreign intelligence do not constitute electronic surveillance that is, the procedures by which the government determines that the acquisitions are directed at persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States. " The addition that I'd personally like to see would be quarterly audits of all activities authorized above to insure that the law is being obeyed, and granting the FISA court the authority to stop or modify any programs that have been found in violation, and discipline and/or remove any persons found to be responsible for doing so. Perhaps there's a mechanism of some sort in the text, perhaps not, perhaps there'll be one in the final version that passes the Senate. Anyone with the time to read through the three versions should feel free to chime in with their findings. Having a Supreme Court doesn't prevent violations of the Constitution, only seeks to remedy them after the fact - so I can personally live with this kind of a safeguard.

thats the price on the flyer out in front of the house. i see online it is already down to $784,950! Buyers market! What a steal! http://www.windermere.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Listing.ListingDetail&ListingID=18678123 i watched the construction, this builder is a total cheapskate...it was really thrown together. he paid 250,000 for the lot (more than i paid for my larger lot with a house on it!), and i bet he didn't spend more than 200,000 on the house. we talked to the contractors working for him, the guy has a terrible reputation where ever he goes with pissing off all the neighbors and treating the people working for him like crap. but his money is green. it will be interesting to see how much the house will go for...with the market as it is, you'd be a fool to pay a penny over 600,000 IMO for what you're getting. Even that is way overpriced. Love how they provide the interest rate for conforming vs. jumbo loans on their calculator there. Last 20-down, 30 year fixed jumbo rates I saw started at 7.125%, so unless the DP is enough to bring the balance down to $417K, the real montly nut will be around $4200, not including taxes or insurance, even if the buyer has the $160K for the 20% down. I think that comes to roughly $81K/year of after-tax income just to cover the monthly mortgage nut, before you even start pay for utilities, insurance, food, groceries, transportation, etc, etc, etc, etc, If you go by the long-since-forgotten and abandoned rules that total housing costs shouldn't exceed 28% of your gross and/or three times your income, anyone who has the $160K on hand for the 20% downpayment should also have a gross somewhere in the $260-300K range. Median household income in Seattle is roughly $48K, and I'd be astonished to learn that there are as many $250-300K/year households in Seattle as there are $750K and up homes. Good thing real-estate only goes up.

Here are some stats for those of you who think that living together before marriage is good and like a test-run of marriage... Those who live together before marriage have higher separation and divorce rates. Psychology Today reported the findings of Yale University sociologist Neil Bennett that cohabiting women were 80% more likely to separate or divorce than were women who had not lived with their spouses before marriage. The National Survey of Families and Households indicates that "unions begun by cohabitation are almost twice as likely to dissolve within 10 years compared to all first marriages: 57% to 30%." Another five-year study by William Axinn of the University of Chicago of 800 couples reported in the Journal of Demography that those who cohabit are the most accepting of divorce. In a Canadian study at the University of Western Ontario, sociologists found a direct relationship between cohabitation and divorce when investigating over 8,000 ever-married men and women (Hall and Zhoa 1995:421-427). It was determined that living in a non-marital union "has a direct negative impact on subsequent marital stability," perhaps because living in such a union "undermines the legitimacy of formal marriage" and so "reduces commitment of marriage." Those who live together before marriage have unhappier marriages. A study by the National Council on Family Relations of 309 newlyweds found that those who cohabited first were less happy in marriage. Women complained about the quality of communication after the wedding. Seems like it could be a causal-vs-correlational thing at work here. It could be that the kind of chick that's more likely to shack up with a dude before marrying him is also more likely to be the kind of chick that's more likely to get divorced under any circumstances.

Let's have a link to the listing. I need a good laugh. Might be even funnier to look at the terms of the financing after it sells. Will probably have to be a cash purchase, go through with a $413K downpayment, or a jumbo sporting a rate way over the tab for conforming fixed 20-down, 30-year financing.