JayB

This section might be especially useful: http://www.mtgprofessor.com/purchasing_a_house.htm

It really depends on your goals, finances, and time horizon. It's probably a really, really bad time to take out a loan with negative amortization, interest-only, payment option, or adjustable rate features unless you are certain that you will either have built up a considerable equity cushion before the first rate reset hits (wouldn't count on this) or will be certain to have sufficient income/assets to either refinance or handle the higher payments. The odds are quite high that this is an even worse time to take out a loan with any of the above features if you expect to own the home for less than 5-10 years for any reason. If you are looking at the home as a place to live rather than an investment, have enough cash set-aside for a 10-20% downpayment, and the mortgage will consume no more than 1/3 of your gross income with 30 year fixed financing - it's probably a good time to buy, and the fact that real estate values relative to all of the conventional metrics (the amount it costs to service a mortgage vs the amount you can rent the property out for, price to income ratios, etc) are at all time highs shouldn't bother you because you've got a long time horizon to ride out any ups and downs and your primary motivation is not short term financial gain. There are quite a few people who were able to ignore these rules and get away with it for the past few years - but things have changed, so don't expect to be as lucky as the guy who risked it all to shoehorn his way into a property in 99-04 and made a killing, because things may not work out that way for you. The only other suggestion I would make is that you do some reading on your own. This: (http://www.mtgprofessor.com/) is a Website run by a Professor at the Wharton School of Finance that has quite a bit of useful information about determining how much house you can afford, what kind of mortgage would be best, etc. One of the few other sources that I've come across that's any good is a book called "The Truth About Money." I worked at a big investment company for 3.5 years, and the main thing I learned is that small investors usually take a pounding in the markets through a combination of poor decision making, bad advice, and high fees. Most books on investing seemed to offer more of the same. This is the first book on personal finance that I ever came across that offered something more substantial than various "beat the market" gimmicks or get-rich-quick schemes, and it has good sections on home-ownership, insurance etc. My only other observation along these lines is that I was constantly amazed by people who would spend 20-30 hours online educating themselves about digital cameras (for example), and scouring the internet for the best price - but would dedicate less than a 10th of that time to making major financial decisions that would probably affect them for the rest of their lives. If you haven't already done so, I'd dedicate a few months to studying this stuff - pretend like it's a college course - so that you'll never have to seek advice from people who may or may not know what the hell they are talking about. There you go - worth what you paid for it.

Not my point. Easy to read after hitting the quote button. Say "McCarthy" three times, click your heels, and all of this dissapears from your mind... http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300061838 http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300084625 Just gotta hit the quote button.

I think that the faux-martyrdom that the Left can wallow in as a result of the surveilance of various groups in the 1970s and the official anticommunism of the 1950s was actually one of the greatest blessings that the country could have ever bestowed on these groups. If not for these episodes, how could an arthitic parlor-Marxist from the 60's ever reminisce fondly about the time when anyone in the government took him and/or his "movement" seriously enough to warrant sending a 24-year old intern with a clipboard and a fresh crewcut to listen to the stream of inanities spewed forth from his bearded mug? 'Member those bombings and the rhetoric about overthrowing the government back then? Seems to bear a bit of a resemblance to the rhetoric and actions of the right-wing militia groups in the mid-1990s, but I don't see anyone wailing on about what a gross miscarriage of justice it was to send in the FBI, etc to monitor and infiltrate those groups to determine whether or not they constituted a serious threat to their fellow citizens. Porquoi? If the Hollywood had blacklisted Klansmen or Nazis would you still look upon this as an outrageous abridgement of the said Klansmen's or Nazi's political freedoms? Would Hollywood and the Left be falling all over themselves to praise the memory of/bewail the misfortune that befell the Nazis and Klansmen who could no longer find work in Hollywood? Without "McCarthyism" would people be able to dismiss all of the conclusive evidence that's been unearthed in Soviet Archives since the early '90's and dismiss any and all people who expressed concerns about Communists passing secrets to the Russians as deluded victims of a mass hysteria? I think not. Don't be too hard on McCarthy - he's done more for you than you think.

I will reserve you the first tickets to Adjectival Fascism Land in my amusement park. There you'll have the opportunity to denounce old ladies manning crosswalks, ushers at movies, suburban neighborhood watch committees, old-men sitting around bars in in VFW or Elks Club Regalia, Metermaids, Lifeguards, Toll Booth Attendants, Metermaids, as agents of the creeping *Adjectival* Fascism that's been sweeping the land since the fall of the Symbionese Liberation Army, and who are secretly plotting to raid your home, ferret-out your stash of bound, chronologically arranged MotherJones and The Nation anthologies and burn the whole shebang while goosestepping around the bonfire. There'll even be a glow-in-the-dark copy of "Manufacturing Consent" hidden somewhere in Adjectival Fascism Land that will make the mob flee in terror when you hold it aloft over hour head while chanting anything that rhymes with "Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho...," and will also get you a free desert at the snackbar.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/data/2003/upl-meta-crs-5206/98-379gov_2003Mar05.pdf I think that different standards should be applied to different scenarios. Someone in the commerce department leaking information about flaws in the manner in which the Department of Agriculture generates potato harvest forecasts is one thing, and leaks that disclose the details of nuclear warheads is another. I personally don't have any more problem with this investigation than I did with the investigation of the Plame leak. Which highlights one of the problems I see with leaks of classified information - most people praise leaks which further their political agendas, and criticize leaks which are detrimental to political causes that they favor. I'd be in favor of Inspector General's being appointed by a joint congressional commission with equal representation by each party, and giving them the power to decide who the details should be disclosed to - be that Congress, the press, etc. I personally have no problem with investigations of any and all leaks of information above a certain classification threshold. Whether anything that I've proposed in practice would actually work in practice is another question.

That must be one hell of a tantalizing vision for the aging paleoleftists out there. "Quick! Hand me the Lipitor, Geritol, and Enbrel!! Grab the placards! Get the beads and Birkenstocks out the the hope chest!! Grab the Baez 8-Tracks and rev-up the Volvo!!! The March is ON!!" I am personally hoping to open up a theme park for aging boomers where they can go to one of many "Lands," where they can gather, frolic, march, and protest in a variety of specially themed landscapes and pretend that they are deep within the geopolitical environments that they've spend the better part of 40 years reminiscing about. I'll have "68' DNC Convention Land," complete with rampaging cop-actors, who will rain down blows with their nerf batons and threaten the crowds with menacing animatronic German shepards. After there done there they can head over to "Campus Land," complete with their choice of buildings to occupy and a roster full of crew-cut sporting Deans, Provosts, and provosts to oppose them before ceding their positions and either converting or fleeing. These and many other fantasy environments will save the paleoboomers from having to confront/acknowledge critical differences between current political situations and the political events and/or figures which occured in their youth, and spare the rest of the population the periodic erruptions of impotent moral narcissism masquerading as meaningful political action "Marching" that blight the landscape from time to time. Fun time over. Isn't there an Inspector General that people within the government can go to to report things that are illegal/unethical/etc without taking it upon themselves to determine whether or not the information should be made public? If you have an environment where anyone within the government is free to leak whatever information that they choose to the press at any time, then that opens the door for people to expose abuses, but also for political hacks to compromise confidentiality to undermine another party's agenda, settle scores, and satisfy quite a few other goals that have little or nothing to do with the national interest.

Ditto on the rec to take up kayaking. It's the perfect sport for the "shoulder" seasons. When everyone on this site is bummed because it's too wet to climb rock and too warm for anything to freeze, you'll be busy watching the gauges rise and getting psyched for a weekend o' boating.

Plus they're stylin' Yup.

I like using a bike bag for commuting better than using a backpack because heat-retention wise, it's much more comfortable to have a thin strap covering your back than a pack. Just much easier to regulate body-temps. Then there's also the helmet-thing. Most backpacks seem to ride high enough that they interfere with head-movement when you've got a helmet on.

Found the rest of the article. I've been hearing for a while that most of the talent in the State Oil Agency has either fled or been purged from the ranks, and that Venezuela's going to have a tough time convincing the people who have the expertise and technology necessary to maintain and/or boost production to put good money after bad in Hugoland. "Documentation obtained by the Financial Times shows that the state-owned Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) made a financing arrangement this month with investment bank ABN Amro to facilitate the purchases of oil from Russia via Rotterdam. PDVSA is believed to have dropped the Dutch bank after the Russian government agreed to provide Venezuela with an "open account" facility to buy the oil. The Ruhr Oel refinery in Germany, in which PDVSA has a 50 per cent stake, may be among the clients that are being supplied with the Russian oil. The tabular content relating to this article is not available to view. Apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused.PDVSA would not confirm on Thursday that it was buying oil from Russia but said a statement would be issued on Friday. The company said it would be "logical" that the Ruhr refinery was sourcing some of its oil from Russia because it would be cheaper than transporting it from Venezuela. One US trader who deals in Venezuelan oil agreed, saying: "We have been expecting PDVSA to start buying [oil from the] Urals for the Veba system for some time. It is possible that they are trying to buy directly from Russian producers." The move suggests a growing gap between Venezuela's declining domestic output and its expanding contractual obligations to international customers. Luis Pacheco, a former planning director of PDVSA, said: "Why would Venezuela be buying crude oil from Russia? I would imagine it would be to meet obligations for light oil deliveries, but they are relatively small. Most of PDVSA's obligations are for heavy oil." Under President Hugo Chávez, PDVSA's oil output has declined by about 60 per cent, a trend analysts say has accelerated in the past year because of poor technical management. Mr Chávez's push to extend his influence throughout Latin America and the Caribbean with promises of cheap oil for friends and allies may be overstretching PDVSA's finances, however. Venezuela currently supplies about 300,000 barrels per day of oil and products to Cuba, Nicaragua and others under favourable long-term financing arrangements. This week, Venezuela signed a deal to send oil to town mayors in Nicaragua aligned with the leftwing Sandinista party. Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved."

....to cover a production shortfall. Leader for Financial Times Article. World / Americas Venezuela buys Russian oil to avoid defaulting on deals By Andy Webb-Vidal in Caracas Published: April 28 2006 03:00 | Last updated: April 28 2006 03:00 Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, has struck a $2bn deal to buy about 100,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Russia until the end of the year. Venezuela has been forced to turn to an outside source to avoid defaulting on contracts with "clients" and "third parties" as it faces a shortfall in production, according to a person familiar with the deal. Venezuela could incur penalties if it fails to meet its supply contracts."

http://www.timbuk2.com/tb2/retail/catalog.htm?categoryId=0&skusetId=86 I've had a Timbuk2 bag for about a year that I've done the bike-commute thing with. Been through blizzards, NorEasters, etc and haven't ever had a drop get through. For larger volumes those Ortleib backpacks look like the ticket. http://www.ortlieb.de/_prod.php?lang=en&produkt=velocity I also know of people that bring in new sets of workclothes via car/bus/whatever on Mondays and then ride the other four days. Ahh, that's keen beta; thanks. Backpack dealie might do the trick, too. Is this what they mean by "bipartisanship?" Or would that be "bike-partisanship?" I have the bike messenger pro model in the medium size and it's big enough for lunch/files/clothes but that's about it. It looks like they make an XXL in this model that's 3300 cubic inches, so that should be big enough for pretty much anything you'd want to lug into work. http://www.timbuk2.com/tb2/retail/catalog.htm?sizeId=8&skusetId=79&categoryId=40

Since we're on the subject of bike commuting, I can't say that it's saved me all that much money over the years. It has some other benefits, but in the past year alone I think I've spent at least $500 or so on tires (includes studded snow tires for the winter), tubes, brake pads, cables, shifters, led-lights, a new helmet, etc - not to mention all of the extra money I've spent on fuel, e.g. food. I think I'd be money ahead if I just took the bus every day, but commuting by bus sucks way more than shelling out some extra money for gear and grinding through all of the delights that the New England climate can throw at you.

http://www.timbuk2.com/tb2/retail/catalog.htm?categoryId=0&skusetId=86 I've had a Timbuk2 bag for about a year that I've done the bike-commute thing with. Been through blizzards, NorEasters, etc and haven't ever had a drop get through. For larger volumes those Ortleib backpacks look like the ticket. http://www.ortlieb.de/_prod.php?lang=en&produkt=velocity I also know of people that bring in new sets of workclothes via car/bus/whatever on Mondays and then ride the other four days.

I think that there's a government agency that will mail you a "Seattle Bike Map" for free if you send an e-mail asking for one. I imagine there must be some sort of a bike commuter discussion board for the city as well where you can get some beta on commuter routes that offer a decent compromise between speed and safety.

Whenever I hear "Paranoid" and "Politics" together, the first thing I think about is Hofstatder's book, and the next thing I think about is just how closely the psychology describes the political thinking of mattp and Chuck, despite the fact that Hofstadter was describing elements of the reactionary far right in his day. I can't help but wonder if part of this outlook, which seems to be especially common amongst the people who were weaned on the politics of the late-60's left and have had to watch its marginalization and decline for most of their adult lives. "American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wind. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics., In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant. Of course this term is pejorative, and it is meant to be; the paranoid style has a greater affinity for bad causes than good. But nothing really prevents a sound program or demand from being advocated in the paranoid style. Style has more to do with the way in which ideas are believed than with the truth or falsity of their content. I am interested here in getting at our political psychology through our political rhetoric. The paranoid style is an old and recurrent phenomenon in our public life which has been frequently linked with movements of suspicious discontent. ...... The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms—he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millenialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date fort the apocalypse. (“Time is running out,” said Welch in 1951. “Evidence is piling up on many sides and from many sources that October 1952 is the fatal month when Stalin will attack.”) As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated—if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes. ... The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind A final characteristic of the paranoid style is related to the quality of its pedantry. One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to be in any political tendency. But respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all but obsessively accumulates :evidence.” The difference between this “evidence” and that commonly employed by others is that it seems less a means of entering into normal political controversy than a means of warding off the profane intrusion of the secular political world. The paranoid seems to have little expectation of actually convincing a hostile world, but he can accumulate evidence in order to protect his cherished convictions from it. .... This glimpse across a long span of time emboldens me to make the conjecture—it is no more than that—that a mentality disposed to see the world in this way may be a persistent psychic phenomenon, more or less constantly affecting a modest minority of the population. But certain religious traditions, certain social structures and national inheritances, certain historical catastrophes or frustrations may be conducive to the release of such psychic energies, and to situations in which they can more readily be built into mass movements or political parties. In American experience ethnic and religious conflict have plainly been a major focus for militant and suspicious minds of this sort, but class conflicts also can mobilize such energies. Perhaps the central situation conducive to the diffusion of the paranoid tendency is a confrontation of opposed interests which are (or are felt to be) totally irreconcilable, and thus by nature not susceptible to the normal political processes of bargain and compromise. The situation becomes worse when the representatives of a particular social interest—perhaps because of the very unrealistic and unrealizable nature of its demands—are shut out of the political process. Having no access to political bargaining or the making of decisions, they find their original conception that the world of power is sinister and malicious fully confirmed. They see only the consequences of power—and this through distorting lenses—and have no chance to observe its actual machinery. A distinguished historian has said that one of the most valuable things about history is that it teaches us how things do not happen. It is precisely this kind of awareness that the paranoid fails to develop. He has a special resistance of his own, of course, to developing such awareness, but circumstances often deprive him of exposure to events that might enlighten him—and in any case he resists enlightenment. We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well."

Permethrin treatments for clothing are supposed to be pretty effective. http://www.tickinfo.com/permethrin.htm

You can find similar linkages between unsavory activities and any commodity, especially those that happen to be scarce and valuable, - but how, exactly, does that help address any energy issues in any realistic scenario worth discussing? Please note that this does not include the "magically kill off 90% of the population and move everyone into the commune" plan. It's worth noting that the majority of the most egregious abuses increase in direct proportion to the extent that the state controls the resources of a given country. A monopoly in the hands of a government, especially in the third world, is much more dangerous than a monopoly in the hands of a corporation, given that along with the economic power comes the political power necessary to suppress dissent and help themselves to the treasury with no effective scrutiny from the public. Add to this the fact that state control effectively raises the stakes of political change from simple administration to outright ownership and control, and you've also got a pretty nice recipe for political instability and turbulence, which fuels a perpetual carnage that relegates any harm inflicted by private corporations to subtrivial status by comparison.

I think the conspiracy bit is a touch more complicated than you suggest, and one of the more notable complications arises from the fact that the American public was party to the conspiracy. Most of the trolley systems predated the automobile, and their ridership fell in direct proportion to the number of households that could afford to own their own car. The automobile made it possible for people to live in detached houses, with yards, for lower price, than they could ever afford in the city - and still earn premium "city" wages. Trolleys or no trolleys, the exodus to the suburbs would have occured in the very same fashion. The argument about price fixing may not be a new one, but it's hard to see how it has any relevance here, since there's no evidence that anyone is fixing prices. Prices for crude are set on the open market, not in the Exxon boardroom. If it were otherwise we'd have never seen prices go anywhere near $10 a barrel, or drop in real terms. Yet, every time gas prices go up, we're treated to the same empty spectacle. Congress calls hearings, the FTC - which is constantly checking for this sort of activity anyway - finds no evidence. I can't recall ever arguing on behalf of subsidies for any business, or for tarriffs, or for any other legislation that distorts the market in favor of any given participant. Eliminating subsidies for anyone involved in the energy business would be great - so if you are opposed to subsidies you should be equally upset that the corn lobby has managed to secure not only a massive set of subsidies for ethanol production, and mandates for consumption that completely exceed current production capacity, but also managed to keep the tarrif against ethanol produced elsewhere in place - so that instead of ethanol being transported much more efficiently to ports in the coastal areas, it has to be transported by rail or truck to these same destinations. Factor that into the already meager energy savings associated with ethanol as a fuel, and consider the environmental impacts associated with intensive corn production, and it's hard to see how this is much of a victory for anyone except the corn lobby. The only possible upside is that maybe third world farmers will have to contend with slightly less surplus corn/flour distorting prices in their local markets.* The bottom line is that oil companies wouldn't exist without the aggregate demand created by the trillions of decisions that people around the globe make every day. They - like the Trial Lawyers - are certainly guilty of trying to rig the system in their favor, but that's hardly a unique defect.

I'm left wondering if the politicians proposing these market interventions are actually stupid enough to believe in them, or if they are convinced that the vast majority of the electorate is ecomically illiterate, and that they simply have to pander to them. I expect that there will be plenty of responses on this thread that vindicate the latter view. "We are in favor of legislation that eliminates the price signal, and thereby discourages conservation, eliminates incentives for increased efficiency, and an expansion of supply. Vote for us."

You live in Seattle and you want civilization to end? What are you gonna eat? rats? I have an acre of vegetables and I also have livestock; not to mention fruit trees and fishing in my backyard. I will do just fine without civilization. You, on the otherhand, will die; most definitely. I predict that roving bands of cannibalistic tweakers would quickly rise to the "top predator" level in your neck of the woods. Run when you hear the faint echoes of the techno remix of the "Deliverance" anthem whispering through the trees....

Common sense, and a B.A. in the History of Science, a B.S. in Biochem, and actually working in the field. It's a messy world and there's clearly more than just the evidence at play, especially when a new idea makes its debut, but that's how things generally work. Thankfully, most scientists ignore the onanistic wankfest and go about their business curing diseases, etc, without putting things like "virus,""DNA," or "gravity" in scare quotes. I have a copy of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" at home, but think the guy was kind of a one-note wonder. I think Larry Laudan's "Science and Relativism" is a good antidote to Feyeraband.

I just can't help but wonder if this is the first time you've pondered any of these issues. This thinking that underpins this guy's thesis isn't substantially different than Malthus's, and even Malthus was drawing on the work of his predecessors. His most famous modern disciple was Paul Ehrlich, who prophesized a similar fate for the planet in the early 1970s. This guy just sounds like a new-age Ehrlich. I've read both Malthus and Ehrlich, which - besides the "Step 1: Eliminate 9/10ths of mankind" - is probably why this sounds like a new riff on an old tune to me, and doesn't really seem worth my time to hear out in any great detail. If you are really interested in this topic, I'd start with Malthus and Ehrlich, then mix in a bit of Jared Diamond for a more sober analysis, and see if you still find Derrick convincing and/or compelling. The other point that I'll touch on is that there's a difference between open-mindedness and gullibility, and their roles in the parsing of new ideas. The reason that controversial scientific ideas eventually win broad acceptance is that the evidence which supports them is so compelling that even the most obstinate skeptics have to concede that the proposition that they've been criticizing is true. If this guy is really convinced that his proposition is true, he should be trying to articulate them in ways that insure that they'll get the most rigorous critical scrutiny from the people with the most expertise and authority on all of the areas that his hypotheses pertain to. Let me know when he articulates a testable hypothesis that generates a critical response from experts and then maybe I'll take the guy more seriously.

I don't have the time to listen to this guy ramble for a couple of hours, and don't really think it's necessary as long as I understand his vision of an ideal future - which seems be one in which, at some point, most of the population dies off or is killed off in some fashion. Not sure how you can realistically get a 90% reduction in population in any realistic scenario without one or the other happening. It doesn't really matter to me whether the motivation for this fantasy is to "save the planet," eliminate particular races, or bring about some other utopia, golden future, etc. Same misanthropic fantasy, different rationale. Hopefully this guy will do his part to bring his fantasy to fruition by castrating himself and then committing suicide.