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.
It's been a long time since our Aliyah pal has given us a look at his new life in Israel.
Holy Blood - Part I - Oct 2008
Being two days before Yom Kippur, I set my gyroscope for the Shuk. I travel gyroscopically to reach each station of my pilgrimage: the butcher for chicken, the Arab green grocer; the Menahem Begin booth for fruit; the Ethiopian's for quinoa and spices. In the shuk, nothing should distract me. But, the shuk is mostly distractions.
This day, my 'scope went off its gimbals. A small breech in the shuk wall beckoned. It was on Agrippas Street, just past the rugelach bakery and before the Arab knupfe and sweets seller. First I notice the two girl soldiers guarding the opening. Instead of bustle, an occasional person or a couple entered or left solemnly. The two steps up was half-ramped with rough cement, the stuff what the Romans invented.
Transformed to flaneur, I entered, hesitantly. An open courtyard with three tables forming an open square not quite greets me. In fact, greeting doesn't come to mind here. Only after a few moments does an undertone of pungence, an indistinct rankness fogged about me – comes and goes. I realize later that this is the fragrance of fowl death. I see a trio of pairs behind each table and perhaps five people before them, one young religious couple milling centrally or posed before the tables of judgment. Matters dawn on me. I see the kippa'd man withdraw a live chicken from a coop. He has a deft manner of holding up to the customer. One-handed, he pinions the wings from their base (our shoulder) behind the bird; unflappable these wings are now. I hear peeps and realize that these are almost chickens; oversized chicks, pubertal birds. The chicken, while white, has a besmirched breast, as if it has not yet come clean. It soon must. Of the young couple, the woman, hair-covered, bends forward, but a bit. The chicken-wielder passes the bird in an elliptically orbit and just at an angle near the woman's head, like some off-centered rings of Saturn. I see his lips move. Then, he pulls back this feathered sattelite and deftly again, releases thumb and forefinger from the wings to hold back the chicken's head, goose-necking the bird. In his other hand, he wields a straightrazor, similar to the old types once leather-stropped, but this has replaceable blades, like what Gillette invented. He makes a gentle slit, much less to it than I thought might be. And does the bird a header into one of eight zinc funnels sticking into the table before him. Little is seen from these funnels above – I think I spot a few feathers ascend to heavenward, but are brought back by wind and gravity before they get too far. I think I spy the legs kicking, but perhaps this is imagination. I do see the blood funneling down below. The couple, looking relieved or calmed, perhaps certain that at least the woman's sins have been dispelled, leave hand-in-hand. Money exchanged hands, but I never saw this.
In Switzerland, it's about Plant Dignity. But I think psychosis has been going mainstream for quite a while, mainly because psychotics are noisier than the rest of us.
Fortunately, I use a compassionate and humane chainsaw when I murder and dismember innocent trees.
The Stihl Farm Boss is the Official Maggie's Farm Humane Chainsaw. It is so good that the plants don't feel anything.
It's easy to forget that American financial markets are dominated by institutional investors, not by individuals. Institutional investors do not "panic" but, these days, institutional investors are puking assets for a variety of reasons: hedge funds to cover redemptions and to reduce their leverage, banks to reduce their leverage (what fraction of a trillion $ of assets, for example, does just Goldman alone need to dump to reduce their leverage?), and so forth. Sovereign wealth funds are, I am told, concerned about an Obama impact on American business growth and profits.
Of course, retail investors like me do get scared and begin puking our equities, for example, but this doesn't drive American markets. (Asian markets consist of a higher % of retail investors than do Western markets.)
So my question is this: Who will be the buyers of all these assets? What institutions are flush with the cash to run around buying up all of these presumably well-priced or bargain-priced assets? At some point, I suppose pension funds and insurance companies will do so, but do they have the loose cash to support the markets?
Well, I am assured that there is tons of cash out there, waiting for the right moment to commit. Nobody wants to jump in early, and few want to be the first to do it. Keeping their powder dry.
Additionally, a friend of mine in the financial business told me that the markets are the least of the problem. "Markets go up and they go down - that's normal and that's the deal," he said. "The real problem is the potential depth and duration of the global recession we are looking at, and the markets only reflect that. This will not be a normal, ordinary recession, and the politics could worsen it just as they did in the Depression. The markets are telling us that we have been spoiled, and that the candy is going away for a while. Six months or 5 years? I don't have a clue anymore."
"All I know for sure is that people in distressed assets will make money over the long haul - if they can last long enough."
He concluded "One of my friends is so worried that he is seriously considering selling his Citation and switching over to NetJets." Here's a nice Citation X - the best way to travel. Doesn't the Constitution give me the right to have one of these?
During the presidential debate Tuesday night, Barack Obama was asked if he thought health care was a “right.”He said he thought it was a right. Well, if you accept that premise, I think you can ask some logical follow-up questions:Food is more important than health care. You die pretty quickly without food. Do we have a “right” to food in America? What about shelter? Do we have a “right” to housing? And if we do have a right to housing, what standard of housing do we have a right to? And if it is a right, due to all Americans, wouldn’t that mean that no one should have to accept any housing, or health care, which is inferior to anyone else’s… since it’s a right? Do we have a right to be safe? Do we have a right to be comfortable? Do we have a right to wide-screen televisions? Where does this end?
Read the whole thing. This is a point we have all made many times on Maggie's Farm. American rights are the rights of freedom from the government. There are no rights "for" anything. Whenever the government provides something, it diminishes the rights and autonomy of somebody else because government produces nothing - no products and no wealth and no money and no capital. Only citizens do that. That's the problem: rights without responsibilities are are snare and a delusion.
Related to the above, it's time to repeat our earlier notion that the markets are anticipating an Obama victory, thus driving more money - and especially foreign money - from our markets. In support of that idea, Insty found this graph:
Did you know that identical twins, whether they are separated at birth or raised together, are equally similar in personality, intelligence, interests, and habits? It's a stunning fact, I think.
I have been teaching the essentials of human nature and the related genetic foundations of human differences for years, partly because these things are true, and partly to counterbalance the "blank slate" bias in our society that says that we are all somehow equal until parents and our environment get their hands on us. This assumption lies behind the insidious mid- 20th century idea in psychology that Moms are the cause of everybody's problems. (No, I am not denying that events affect us, but only in the most extreme cases do they shape our basic architecture.)
The blank slate assumption, with its denial of human nature, has a lengthy history, but it was picked up most ardently by Marxists who wished very much to believe that social and psychological experts could shape children in such a way as to create "a new man," better suited to their vision of a utopian society (run by them, of course).
Steven Pinker's 2002 book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature was one of the first non-technical books (along with books like The Bell Curve) to address the subject. Unlike Larry Summers, Pinker was not run out of town for saying the politically incorrect things he says.
David Thompson has a fine brief discussion of this topic, and posted the short and entertaining lecture below by Harvard's Pinker in which he also touches on the topics of the arts and of parenting:
Our own Dr. Bliss and our net friend AVI are our go-to people on tribalism.
For better or worse, tribalism is in our blood. It probably was essential for human survival, and probably still is for non-human primate survival. Probably for us, too, if we value our own culture at all. I do value mine - my culture and my subculture.
Health care could be the next Fannie Mae type disaster.Similar forces are at work, and despite the lessons that should be drawn instead may be accelerated by the current financial meltdown.These forces are exaggeration of need and rights among the poor, greed by many of the rest of us, and many politicians seeking votes or contributions.
The forces in the credit crisis were the appeal to provide opportunities for home ownership to the poor and the consequent inflation of housing values that provided paper gains to the middle class and wealthy.Underlying these forces was a pyramid scheme profiting the political and financial elites that was dependent on trust in repayment of subprime loans by many without the means or stake in doing so.
Thus, ultimately the taxpayer and more careful consumers and investors are required to pay off, also making other worthy goals unaffordable.
- She's too feminine (I think that means she's trim and sexy) - She didn't go to the right schools - She takes religion too seriously (that's from church-goers) - She talks with a funny accent - She's not well-travelled - She says "nucular" and "I-raq." - She has too many kids, she's like a farm animal - A woman who likes to kill animals? That's sick! - She likes oil. Nobody likes oil. (said by a Lexus SUV driver.) - Alaska is nowhere - Nobody we know in Washington knows her - She wouldn't fit in at our cocktail parties (actually, I think she'd be the life of the party)
In other words, "She's not really one of us." These, I would contend, are all class-related, "We're so sophisticated" attitudes. When you think about it, it's funny how class-conscious and intolerant Liberals can be when they want to.
Below is Palin in Carson on Saturday. Thank goodness for all of those non-snobs. They are the heart and the heartbeat of America, and we Eastern elites should thank God for them.
Michael Goodwin of the New York Daily News: "Some day, we will look back with disgust at the abuse Palin has taken and wonder how it could happen in this great nation, circa 2008."
Whenever there are crises in markets, socialists are quick to label them as failures of capitalism and free markets. While markets surely do, on occasion, fail, freeze-up, or get clogged (although they are far more effective than planned economies), in this case you need look no further than the role of government regulation and control to see the seeds of the problem:
Rep. Barney Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .
Yes, Congress asked Fannie and Freddie to roll the dice, and they did so while making a pretty penny for themselves. As Kimball put it today:
... in recent years the “invisible hand” that adjudicates among competing interests to produce the most efficient channels of economic growth has increasingly been replaced by the heavy hand of government-sponsored social engineering. One especially onerous one is in the form of the Community Reinvestment Act, which, in its fully-developed, post-1995 form, was a gigantic wrench tossed into the engine of capitalism that stymied the orderly evaluation and pricing of risk. It’s one thing to give Chris Dodd or Barack Obama a sweetheart mortgage for favors rendered. It’s quite another to force banks to issue more than $1 trillion of risky mortgages to people with bad, or no, credit history and then prop them up with taxpayer guarantees through the agency of entities like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
Banks didn't want to own all these loans so they packaged them in creative ways and sold them like bonds to willing buyers (albeit with possibly erroneous triple-A ratings). You can call that "greed" or you can call that smart. But when the market for these packages disappeared because the housing bubble burst, the owners of the packages were forced under the new laws to mark to market - and there was no market. It's as if you tried to sell your house today for $500,000., but nobody gave you an offer today, so overnight your net worth (and your ability to get credit) dropped by $500,000.
Anyway, now banks are hoarding cash to meet their capital needs and to avoid further risk. That is why we will begin to see funds fail, and maybe more institutions fail, unless the Feds do more than their rescue bill to loosen up credit.
Marxists and statists of all stripes are, as one might expect, rubbing their hands in glee and declaring this the final death crisis of Capitalism. But I think just the opposite is occurring. What we are in fact seeing are the final death throes of governmental social engineering. As I noted two weeks ago, we are in a kind of Mentos-in-coke world right now - where, thanks to tech, the sheer speed of transactions and the enormous breadth of response, almost any outside influence can quickly turn the whole economy (or culture) into an explosive brew.
This is Clematis Henryi. I have just ordered one to grow over an arbor.
In my experience, these are tricky plants and slow to establish themselves. When they are unhappy, there's not a damn thing you can do about it. When they are happy on a sunny fence, they are great. They supposedly like their feet cool, shaded, and mulched.
I've tried everything but, like people, they just go their own way and follow their own path, whether it leads to heaven, hell, or Paramus.
The question is almost never raised whether our tax deduction for charity is excessive.Whatever our religious faith, all agree that charity is a high personal and societal calling and deserves government support.Republicans and Democrats agree, in supporting President Bush’s faith-based organizations in its delivery (although Barack Obama would restrict their ability to exclude hiring outside their doctrine, requiring they act secular instead).
However, much described in the tax regulations as charity is not.Scriptures refer to helping the unfortunate and being neighborly and loving. The preferred methods providemeans to recipients to support themselves.This concept of charity has been broadened by advocates of non-profit organizations, and by liberal interpretations of scripture, to include virtually anything that one can say is of any possible societal benefit, no matter how narrow, cost-ineffective, more self-serving than serving others, or even a veil for partisan politics.
Some conservatives argue against narrowing the tax code.They, justifiably, see our income and assets as our own, not the government’s, and want to keep as much as possible outside the government’s control.Further, they see individual choices as both morally and practically preferable, more cost-effective, better measured, more adaptive, and more focused than government.They are correct.
A reposted deer hunt note from 2007 from our contributor Gwynnie:
Gwynnie got to return this August to an annual hunt on one of California’s last great Spanish land-grant ranchos for coast Black-tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), also known as Columbian black-tailed deer.
The Black-tailed Deer is currently considered a subspecies of the mule deer and can interbreed with the Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus) where their range overlaps. They share many similarities but are much smaller than a Mule Deer and their ears are smaller too. They are called Black-tailed deer because the bottom two thirds of the tail is black. Up higher, where the tail is attached, the fur is brown and under the tail is whitish. The general body color is reddish to greying-brown (with black hairs interspersed in winter) and the underside of belly, chin, neck patch are white. The brownish color camouflages the deer in the forest and field edges where it lives.
Habitat in the Coast Range of California is often as shown in the photo, where they browse oak trees, especially black oak. Black-tails also feed on tender grasses, herbs, branch tips, and new leaves in spring and summer. In winter, they eat Douglas fir, western cedar, Oregon yew, trailing blackberry, red huckleberry, and salal branches.
Shooting is usually long-range, and the .270 or the .308 are ideal for shots from 75 to 200 yards. The .243 is OK for the deer, but inadequate for the 300-pound European wild boar that have infested Northern California and are part of the alarming collapse of new oak tree growth – they love acorns. One State scientist is predicting wide-spread extinction of oaks based on the current trend.
Gwynnie’s buck, which died instantly from a 75-yard head shot and rolled 100 yards into a precipitous canyon, was a forked-horn, and weighed 116 pounds field dressed. The California State biologist performing her post-hunt autopsy testing for parasitic infections said he was probably 3-4 years old. Other dressed-out bucks ranged from 90 to 118 pounds.
If you happened to miss the first presidential debate last night, I have some advice for you: If you read any of the analyses out there today, take them with a mountain of salt.
I spent three hours this morning reading so-called analyses and have yet to find one that even remotely borders on objective and impartial. Everybody's a homer. To the Left and the MSM, Obama clearly won with his natural brilliance. To the Right, McCain 'crushed' Obama with ease.
And pigs can fly.
Despite what appears to be a deeply-seated human need for a 'winner' in every contest, I don't see debates that way. And, given how the Lefties all saw Obama as the winner and the Righties all saw McCain as the winner, I'd say that feeling is somewhat justified.
However, if you demanded a verdict from me, I'd call it a draw. Here's how I saw them balancing out:
McCain used the phrase "What Senator Obama doesn't understand is..." a number of times to great effect, then launching into a mini-tutorial on just what Big O doesn't understand. This was the primary point the Righties were crowing about this morning, and it was obviously the basic strategy employed by Team McCain. As I said, it was extremely effective. By the third or fourth time, it actually tilted the event from "debate" slightly toward "lecture" in a very subliminal, but powerful, way. In the lexicon of the day, it was downright Rovian.
On the other hand, Obama has a much better stage presence, stands tall and erect, shows passion when he needs to and has a voice that's ten times more presidential-sounding than McCain's. Yes, yes, I understand that to a pundit these are all 'empty suit' gestures, but I don't care how pundits view it. They're smart enough to nuance the discrepancies; the average American voter is not. Half the people who watched it probably saw a doddering old man past his prime and the energy and passion of the young bull ready to take the lead, and the other half saw a calm and experienced elder statesman lecturing the young pup on the basics, grooming him for his own presidency four years hence. The intricate details of the subject matter that the bloggers blather on about are lost on the average joe.
They both upset their base in (at least) two ways:
McCain reminded us that he's a total wuss when it comes to good old-fashioned torture, and reminded us that the poor polar bears are dying by the thousands and we need to take drastic action immediately. (he didn't actually mention the polar bears by name — I'm just extrapolating)
Obama made some fairly strong statements regarding the military, something along the lines of "If we have to take military action, we will!" I'm sure that went over big with the anti-war crowd. He then floored the greenies by saying something like "And, yes, we need to develop nuclear power," with the "yes" aimed directly at the anti-nuke crowd, as in, "Yes, you morons, we need to..."
...recent work by several researchers at University College London?—?including the establishment of the first major grant-driven research program for the neurobiological investigation of aesthetics, or neuroaesthetics?—?has made the first steps toward a unified biocultural theory of art.
An object's beauty may not be universal, but the neural basis for appreciating beauty probably is. The researchers' initial discoveries and the increasing formalization of the field promise to open the way for the first time to an understanding of beauty based on something other than speculation.
Can things of the soul and spirit be understood in terms of neurotransmitters and neural wiring? Count me a skeptic. Different levels of organization have different rules and patterns which do not transfer one to the other. For example, you could know everything about atoms but never predict a living cell, and you could understand everything about a cortical network without predicting Moby Dick. (And, for me, on a good day I see beauty everywhere but on a bad day I see it nowhere.)
Still, they may as well give it a try. I get skeptical when they call it a bio-cultural model, however. It makes it too clear that they seek to detour around the psychology part.
Casual business dress is passe (I don't know how to do an accent aigu on this machine).
I learned this from the Wall St. kid of a friend this weekend. They were informed that, from now on, Business Formal is their required dress code, all week.
That's good news for Brooks Brothers and Ann Taylor - if there is anybody left on Wall St. to need the clothing.
What do I wear to work? Blazers or tweed jackets and tie, and grey trousers. Brooks shirts. I wear good suits to court, but I only own 5 of 'em for court, weddings, and funerals.
If we have any such readers, would you guys please consider showing up for work once in a while? I mean, like, even if you have messy lives, and addictions, and multiple divorces, and kids from numerous females with school problems and police problems, and sick relatives, and broken transmissions, and court dates, and side-jobs, and cash-flow emergencies, and bowling practice and softball practice, or a kid with a tooth-ache or stomach-ache, or your helper is out sick with a hangover or a bad head-cold, or whatever, how about considering working like normal people? Like normal Yankee people who do not have an excuse du jour, and view their work as a serious committment to another person?
You know, like beginning work early in the morning, showing up when you say you will, working a solid 8-hr day, and all that sort of regular steady American thing. It just might do you guys some good.
Most people need structure to their lives if they are to thrive. I think these guys just don't need the money.
I still have no master bathroom, since early August. Tiling is half-done. No, 1/4 done, and this guy is supposed to be the best guy around. He shows up for two or three hours, gets a phone call from one of his ex-wives or a lawyer or a dealer or a friend who wants to go out drinking or fishing or an hysterical girlfriend who says he's cheating on her and who needs calming down, or a friend he has to take to rehab in Ohio, or whatever, then disappears for two days and turns off his cell phone.
The shower door guy seems reliable, and our carpenter is the shiznits.
Had the pleasure of hearing Roberta Flack perform a charity concert this weekend. She has knocked me out since the early 70s, and does a lot of work for autism. Here's my cell phone quality photo:
The guy on the right is the jazz reed virtuoso Arturo Tappin. Also in her band, Ralph MacDonald (who plays in Jimmy Buffet's band), guitarist David Spinozza, and Buddy Williams on drums. Dennis Collins joined in on a few tunes, and sang his Every Soldier Has One Prayer. Great band. My only regret is that she didn't do Bridge Over Troubled Waters.
Teeth are a sensitive subject. When you lose one as an adult, you feel a bit emasculated. Lose a handful, and you can develop a clinical depression.
And root canals are a torture which even the CIA would never inflict on Osama. My first one was without Novocaine at age 14. The elderly dentist didn't "believe in" Novocaine. I have had plenty since then.
Plus it costs big bucks to keep good teeth after 45, unless you are one of the lucky ones with genetically strong enamel.
My teeth are mediocre-to-poor. I have one implant so far, many crowns, and a number of failing crowns. My wisdom teeth were pulled years ago. I have some extractions and two more implants on the way, plus a bridge. Most of my teeth have fillings and miscellaneous repairs. My dentist blames it on cigars and bad tooth genes, and says I need a serious big-time periodontistry before he can do any more repairs and reconstruction.
I also lost a few front ones playing hockey in prep school. The brother of my then-girl friend stuck the end of his stick in my face, entirely by accident no doubt.
Whenever I am sent to a new person, eg a periodontist or an implantologist or an oral surgeon, before I open my mouth I always say "Promise you won't say 'Oh my God what a mess.'"
This stuff gets expensive. But even worse is that it is a depressing reminder of ones' aging and deterioration, a memento mori.
Entropy always wins. We pay and struggle, but we always lose the battle.
The media have done only a fair-to-middlin' job of creating the impression that Obama's main personal and political contacts have been people other than Ayers and Dohrne and Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko, but if he has any other pals or close associates, I've never heard of them. Does he have any?
On the other hand, the media has done an excellent job keeping Obama's growing-up mentor and surrogate father Frank Marshall Davis in the closet. Obama may have learned his Alinsky from books, but he grew up at the feet of his red-diaper Mother... and Davis. (As I understand the story, Obama's Kenyan/Moslem father knocked up Obama's single mother, married her in Hawaii to make the kid legit - despite having a wife or wives in Africa - and then hit the road.)
Those are the reasons that I am not convinced it's paranoid to have Manchurian Candidate thoughts about Obama. Maybe it's hysterical and fear-mongering - but who really knows this guy Obama, besides his wife? Who is in a position to deny it? Did a single person who has known him personally witness to his real self, to his character, at the Dem convention? Or anywhere else?
No. Isn't that odd? Most 40+ year-old guys have at least one colleague and friend who has known them and has worked with them over many years, played sports with them, hunted or hiked or rock-climbed or sailed or fished with them, confided in them, gotten half-drunk with them, smoked late-night cigars with them, prayed with them, done projects with them - and who can credibly witness publicly to their character, depth, collegiality, work ethic, hobbies and interests, habits, struggles, intelligence and perceptiveness, personality, and core beliefs.
Who speaks for Obama besides Obama, and a few Hollywood airheads? I realize I know very little about this guy, nor does anybody else. He's a media-made icon. He is a Mystery Man, a blank slate, unless you look carefully for the facts the media never mentions.
Here's an Accuracy in Mediapiece on Frank Davis, with the AP's efforts to minimize the relevance of the relationship. Davis' reported homosexuality and pornographic avocation may be irrelevant, but his committment to Communism is not.
At any rate, it's not what you would call an American Story.
The trout get active and hungry again at this time of year in New England. This unique and wonderful stream on Long Island, about 1 1/2 hours from New York City, has sea-run Browns, Rainbow and Brookies - some quite large. Not many places where sea-run trout are found: if readers know of other streams that do, let us know about it. Of course, this stream holds hatchery fish too. It is a very special place.
The rule is barbless flies only, and first-come, first-served for assigned beats. This photo of one of our Maggie's Farmers on the stream is from a couple of years ago.
Many businesses fail every day, and that's the way it ought to be. Otherwise, we would still have buggy whip factories in New York City. In Capitalism, failure is not a dirty word. In fact, failures reveal the success of the way things work.
While McCain and Obama seek to grab news space by blaming someone or something for the Wall Street business failures, I do not. Businesses come and go, from bait shops to corner lunchrooms to investment banks to car manufacturers. I feel badly for folks who lose their jobs, but otherwise I feel good about the creative destruction that Capitalism provides space for. Business is all about calculated risk: in the end, what profit rewards is risk, regardless of the product.
These investment banks were gambling to stay alive in a changing world, and made bad bets. Competition is what hones businesses - and they eventually fall if they cannot keep up or adapt - or behave imprudently, or encounter bad luck.
I deal with many business people in my work, and it is my conclusion that the biggest obstacle to business creation, and thus capital creation and job creation and wealth creation, is the government. Note that the biggest screw-ups of the year, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were government agencies. So much for government's role in the financial industry: it inevitably becomes politicized, mediocratized, and corrupted - as with any government involvement in any industry. Few people in government could figure out how to run a candy shop, much less a complex enterprise.
Also related: How the Dems supported the sub-prime fiasco. Follow the money. And the banks were all too eager to play that game - as long as there were buyers for the junk. A game of musical chairs, as in all bubbles.
In Switzerland, 
Did you know that identical twins, whether they are separated at birth or raised together, are equally similar in personality, intelligence, interests, and habits? It's a stunning fact, I think.
Health care could be the next Fannie Mae type disaster.
This is 
If you happened to miss the first presidential debate last night, I have some advice for you: If you read any of the analyses out there today, take them with a mountain of salt.
What's up with Beauty Studies (ie Neuroaesthetics) these days? 
Casual business dress is passe (I don't know how to do an accent aigu on this machine). 
If we have any such readers, would you guys please consider showing up for work once in a while? I mean, like, even if you have messy lives, and addictions, and multiple divorces, and kids from numerous females with school problems and police problems, and sick relatives, and broken transmissions, and court dates, and side-jobs, and cash-flow emergencies, and bowling practice and softball practice, or a kid with a tooth-ache or stomach-ache, or your helper is out sick with a hangover or a bad head-cold, or whatever, how about considering working like normal people? Like normal Yankee people who do not have an excuse du jour, and view their work as a serious committment to another person? 
How are your teeth?
