We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, April 22. 2014
Or does looking good matter, in general?
Oh noes: A salt crisis
Government intervention needed immediately to improve the plebs against their will!
Oklahoma will charge homeowners who generate their own power
...if it moves, tax it....
Jim DeMint: ‘Big Government Benefits the Rich’
George Will: Democrats are making income inequality worse
Sen. Harry Reid’s baseless ‘domestic terror’ accusations
Does the need to maintain a successful political community create an obligation to obey the law?
Rudolf Havenstein Draghi Speaks: Debt Default Is Our Aim; Hidden Wage Depreciation Is Our Means
Tackling ‘Placetimematter’ - Educational researchers study the darnedest things.
Climategate in review
That will help the kids improve themselves
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Splurging, by the First Lady's own definition of what it takes to live, cannot be the key to life. Michelle makes it clear splurging is only useful if you exercise and have a good diet. Splurging is just 'extra'. So it's a mixed message she's sending to people who need help fixing their diets and activity levels. Many people are likely to read this (and probably read ONLY the headline) and decide "OK, I can splurge!" and go their merry way saying "if the First Lady says it's good, it's good - she lives a healthy life."
Splurging, even if you live a healthy lifestyle, is NOT the key to life. It can be a fun part of life, and we all need some fun. But we need discipline first.
I'll simply add to this - neither she, nor her husband, exercise mental discipline when it comes to rational thought. So it's no surprise the mixed messages are being sent.
Re: Dressing nicely for church
I have to struggle a bit with this one. On the one hand, I'm glad they're in church however they're dressed. On the other hand, I think it is a show of respect to dress up a bit for church.
Sodium and Table Salt: Just watched an episode of America's Test Kitchen in which they said using salt in cooking is not a problem; it's the sodium in prepared foods.
Oklahoma energy: No good deed/idea goes unpunished.,
Chicago Schools--Start teaching critical race theory in 10th grade. No problemo! Who's gonna stay that long? (Grievance industry hardest hit.)
No doubt they also advised using sea salt where it was dissolved in the food as well. That always amuses me. This obsession that sea salt is somehow better. For what trace minerals? The larger, wetter crystals do offer an advantage when used as a topping and I may be persuade that the trace minerals can affect taste as the crystals dissolve on the tongue, but dissolved Sodium Chloride is just plain old salt.
So, shouldn't I be able to raise my naturally very low blood pressure (and my child's) by eating more salt? I have never seen an improvement in my super-low blood pressure by eating saltier foods. This is such a crock. I don't believe eating salt increases your blood pressure all by itself. I do believe that salt can antagonize someone who has developed high blood pressure, however.
Just like anything else in eating: moderation! Don't overdo any type of food, salt, sugar, etc.
re Oklahoma will charge homeowners who generate their own power
As I understand the article, this only applies if the homeowner wants to sell surplus power back to the utility company. It may be power that the company does not want or need, so I really don't have a problem with this. A market transaction should be between two willing participants.
re dressing for Church
Was Jesus elegantly clothed and did He and require a dress code for people to hear his message?
BLM to steal 90,000 acres along the Texas-Okla Border?
re not dressing for church.
Perfectly understandable for your basic protestant, for whom, as I understand it, nothing of particular import actually happens at a church service.
Utterly unacceptable for us Orthodox. An Orthodox Mass is more than just hearing the proclamation of the Word.
Again, I understand you have convincing reasons not to wear a tie to praisercise -- I know, its hot, global warming is taking its toll on everyone -- but recollect the parable of the great feast, from Matthew:
The wedding was filled with guests. But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man who didn't have on wedding clothing, and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here not wearing wedding clothing?' He was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and throw him into the outer darkness; there is where the weeping and grinding of teeth will be.' For many are called, but few chosen."
In the Western tradition commentators from Augustine of Hippo to Calvin have noted that it seems pretty extreme to cast a poor person off the street into outer darkness because of his clothes, and they emphasize that in the nature of parables the "wedding garment" is indicative of something that distinguishes those who will be redeemed from those who will be eternally without God, something that is actually provided by God, so the rejection of it is itself a rejection of God.
That's not to say that reverence in worship is unimportant, or that ones attention to outer appearance has no impact on one''s state of mind.
We see the great feast in the parable as a direct analogue of the celebration of the holy Eucharist in which bread and wine is transformed miraculously into His body and blood. Many protestants acknowledge this in a much diminished form, if at all and the difference is profound.
I am an attorney at law. If I walked into court with shirttails hanging loose and untied tie, I would be yelled at disciplined. If I walked into holy Mass the same way -- a matter magnitudes more important -- the priest would have a word with me which would be unpleasant and didactic. That is because I am a practicing attorney and a practicing Christian, and I should know better since there was a point in my catechesis as a Christian and professional education as an attorney that I was taught the proper way of showing respect/reverence.
Personally I am glad to see anyone wander into a church, in time, they will be taught just what they have found.
Re: Calvin. if there hadn't been a Reformation there'd have been an Eviction.
I think there is a difference between people who could dress more nicely for church and those who cannot (the poor, the infirm, etc.). When you dress up for work or an event (wedding, funeral, etc.) it is about respect. If you have the capability to dress a little more nicely for church, I think you should do it.
Putting on shorts and flip flops because you don't want to wear nice clothes (why is that so terrible exactly?) says a lot to me about your character.
As for the poor or someone who cannot afford to dress up, I would never refuse that person entry into church or make them feel out of place....I've never been to a church that does that.
This all about people who can dress nicely because they have the clothes in their closet, but refuse to do so out of laziness or some feeling that they should be 'forced' to dress up. Whatever. Get over yourself.
Personally, I like to have a reason to dress nicely every week. I work from home, so I don't have a need to put on a dress or a nice pair of pants. Church gives me a reason and puts me in the more serious frame of mind for the service.
I have two questions for the folks at MF:
if you were going to finance real estate in today's America from whom would you borrow: large banks, credit unions, private lenders, etc.? Any suggestions?
Second: what terms/conditions should a borrower look for in the lending contract that makes the borrower vulnerable to what action, how do those terms work and what is a safe replacement for said terms? In other words what should a borrower be aware of in a contract?
You will find that credit unions can be best for rates, lower fees, faster closings and excellent underwriting practices. They will not offer creative financing, strange adjustable rate products or sub-prime offerings. I was a real estate appraiser for many years and loved having credit unions as clients rather than the big banks who often asked me to raise my final value, something wrong on many, many levels and which led in part to the meltdown.
I agree with MissyW about credit unions. Easiest and most straight forward refi I ever did was with a local credit union.
And as an added bonus, this one does not sell the mortgage.
That was key for me. I did have a mortgage with one of the US's largest banks. They sold the mortgage to another mortgage company and from there the nightmare began.
I have another question this morning -- does Kudzu burn? If so, why haven't the southern states taken a more aggressive position in re-claiming that wonderful land? Good soil for growing crops with today's techniques. Why not?
I would recommend reading "Why Things Bite Back" which is about unintended consequences. There is a whole section on kudzu, what the expectations versus the outcome were, and why it's so difficult to contain and/or reverse.
Kudzu regrows after burning. Some extension services suggest burning in spring and then applying chemical herbicide after regrowth, because that cuts the overall level of foliage requiring chemical application, but burning itself is not enough.
Also, burning is an excellent way to disperse kudzu seed, which is generally not the desired outcome.
With any invasive plant, the best advice comes from your own local "cooperative extension" They will know what is legal and effective.
Does the need to maintain a successful political community create an obligation to obey the law? I think the debate is disingenuous, as it asks the reader to debate conclusions while accepting the form of the argument.
What's happening here is that the status quo preserves itself for the benefit of a few and the debate over whether there there's a moral obligation to obey is illusory. The government sets the price of weregild and you will comply regardless of whether you think there's a moral obligation or just making a rational economic choice.
Weregild = the price to pay for doing something bad.
My company illegally discharges a certain compound into the water supply. Is it worth paying the tribute / extortion / fine / penalty / license / fee / carbon credit / tax? Maybe, check the bottom line. On the other hand, if the government wanted to prevent the discharge, it would arrest all the company officers.
I speed because I know with almost complete certainty that I can get away with it, safely, and if the traffic cops stop me once a decade, I can pay the fine with pocket change. If the government wanted to stop speeders, they'd impound the vehicle for six months.
If the NHL wanted to end fighting, it would eject anyone who dropped his gloves. It doesn't. So, is it worth a five minute major penalty to fight? See also, NASCAR.
The government doesn't want to stop the polluter, or the speeder, so the government squeezes the violator, just enough to raise revenue or appease the circus while allowing the tax base to survive; NASCAR will penalize for egregious cheating but rarely, rarely sit down a racer. NASCAR doesn't want to stop cheating, it wants sports radio to talk about cheating, because publicity fills seats.
Take the red pill for once.
Re dressing nicely for church. Our senior pastor is one who strongly believes that in a "post-Christian" world, having people dress up for church discourages folks from coming.
One time, when he got up to preach he said he was going to depart from his sermon and talk about how people should dress for church. I thought, uh oh, now we're all going to get it. But instead, what had him worked up was apparently a greeter or usher had made a negative comment to a first-time visitor who showed up in rubber slippers and that had gotten back to him. Our pastor said we should not care how people look who come to church; the important thing is they came.
We get about 1300 folks on Sunday in three services, which is pretty good for a conservative Reformed church, and are still steadily growing. So I have to say I can't say he is wrong on his position.
"PlaceTimeMatter": A Feminist construction. Looks like Education Is Bunk. A bunk is something to sleep on, so that's a reason for kids sleeping in/though class.
I would guess it has to do with the physics and the retail/wholesale value. Some states require the utility to buy at retail. Some supplies come at times of low demand, so it would be the double whammy of paying retail at a time the wholesale price is not even that high.
The other is how "clean/stable" the supply is that is being delivered.
Personally, I use about $3,000 month at 10-14 cents kwh.
I will never complain about the cost of that utility, because the alternative of running diesel runs about $14 per hour, and that wouldn't include the larger motors for irrigating.
Is there any way to write into a loan document some promise that the loan will not be re-sold?
Sure. But what lender would sign it?
But seriously, probably not enforceable, since the ordinary rule is that the right to receiving performance under a contract (here, repayment of money) can be assigned.
My guess is that you could do that, apple pie, but by reducing the lender's options it is quite probable that your interest rate would rise. Increasing the rate even 1% could cost you 10s of thousands of $$$ over the course of the loan.
IMO, your fear of the loan being sold is overblown. Whomever holds the loan will still have to abide by the original lending terms.