Also, last time we went to Prose, I had pickled sunchoke. It was excellent. Oh, and we have a bizarre middle school sex scandal in town. I'd try to explain, but it's rather baroque. But it has made for amusing town mailing list reading, as the various people who campaigned to save the principal in the spring flounder about trying to find a proper foothold and work out which direction to be indignant.
_
respond?
(5)
03:02:47 PM,
Wednesday 15 August 2007
-
The Box Huckleberry. Plants are strange. No one has ever found a fertile seed in the wild, yet, berries. Not efficient. Not what it's friends would advise. Speaking of Perry County, an article on the dropping of things in central pennslyvania.
_
respond?
02:32:48 PM,
Wednesday 15 August 2007
-
In the re-election, the president with a relatively strong economy, and a war in progress, managed to eke out 51 percent. Why? Because Rove preferred to divide the country and get his 51 percent, than unite it and get America's 60. In a time of grave danger and war, Rove picked party over country. Such a choice was and remains despicable.
Clinton and Edwards are running against Bush. Obama is running against Rove. Too glib? I was reading Sullivan. Glibness is contagious.
Also, I watched a bit of the debate. My Edwards aversion is just as strong as it was several years ago, and goes for Biden as well. I liked Clinton more than I expected. I think I'd actually like her as a person. It's just her approach to politics I don't like. I gave it up, feeling vaguely ill, after 20 minutes. For some reason, I find the republicans easier to watch. I think it's because their pandering misses me completely, but with the Democrats, I sometimes have to dodge. _
respond? (4)
07:25:58 PM, Monday 13 August 2007
-
Arlington Bites. This pleases me.
_
respond?
05:55:35 PM,
Monday 13 August 2007
-
A square, flatbottomed teaspoon, to make approximating fractions possible.
_
respond?
03:59:37 PM,
Monday 13 August 2007
-
I'm having difficulty comprehending this whole credit crunch thing, but it seems important. Basically, large banks bought bonds backed by risky private mortgages. If a bad mortgage goes bad, but the underlying asset has appreciated, the bank isn't hurt. So in an expanding housing market, this wasn't a problem. But market for the properties underlying these mortgages has turned. So no one wants to buy those bonds. So funds consisting of those bonds can no longer be priced, because there's no market, so there's no price. And if there's no price, you can't sell it. And so, to prevent... what? the central banks have started buying these bonds up, or issuing short term loans to banks. This is where I get lost, because I don't get what banks do. I'm also not sure where the money went, how it goes back to reality. People borrowed money they can't pay back, either to buy overpriced houses, or borrowing against their houses at inflated prices by refinancing. If they can afford their mortgages, this isn't a problem. But it does mean these mortgages are no longer secure; if they can't pay them, the collateral is insufficient. So they default (the details of which depend on state bankruptcy law). But the bank that made the loan has sold it to someone else. Lets say the Federal government buys up the bond, presumably at a steep discount. Where did the money go? Some of it went to the borrower, who purchased something they couldn't afford, or took out a refi loan they couldn't pay back. Some of it went to all the fees along the way, to the house builders, the agents, the mortgage brokers... Was it a misallocation of capital? Or just a retroactive, bizarre and undirected housing subsidy for the financially adventurous? It's just one of those things where everyone gets described as a victim, and it's confusing. The leprachaun gold (in this case, house prices) vanishes, and everybody feels cheated. I suppose, much the way everyone seems to be getting rich when the market goes up, and people suddenly think they can make a living by borrowing money without adding value. It's just, $323 billion dollars, which is the combined efforts of the EU an US central banks so far, is rather a lot of cabbage. Bubbles move wealth from the future to the past? Maybe? That isn't right. They silently erode the underlying capital, converting it into apparent profit. (housing 'appreciation' that didn't actually exist). The danger is that if too much of this capital is eroded, um, something bad and macroeconomic happens? Drat. Nearly had it.
But I learned a new word today: NINJA loans. No income, job or asset loans. They have some of the hallmarks of an urban legand, but still. Anything that combines finance with fuedal japanese assassins should go over well with my readership.
_
respond?
(8)
04:08:28 PM,
Friday 10 August 2007
-
Whatever you do, don't listen to The Chicken Song from Spitting Image. Just don't.
_
respond?
(3)
09:38:30 PM,
Wednesday 8 August 2007
-
I seem to feel that gloating about luck is more forgivable than gloating about skill. I'm not sure why this should be.
_
respond?
(1)
06:36:56 PM,
Wednesday 8 August 2007
-
Jonathan Alter and Eric Alterman are allegedly different people. Very odd. It seems like my distaste formed in reaction to Alterman, but it applies nearly as well to Alter, so much so that it took me this long to realize they were distinct.
I consume too much political journalism.
_
respond?
04:57:01 PM,
Wednesday 8 August 2007
-
Speakers of chinese keep calling my business line.
_
respond?
11:11:04 AM,
Wednesday 8 August 2007
-
There's something fundementally exciting about talking while on mute. Putting your faith in technology. Rather how I imagine hang-gliding.
I get my thrills where I can.
_
respond?
10:24:54 AM,
Wednesday 8 August 2007
-
"You can think big, but remember, you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president, because they could have consequences." -Clinton Think big, talk petty! That was one of those things she shouldn't have said, even if she thinks it. It sounds to me like criticizing Obama for, what? Not pandering enough? overestimating the intelligence of the american people? (he's not broke yet! Though he has had to explain the concept of a hypothetical rather slowly a few times) Destablizing Pakistan by pointing out they seem to be using our military aid to escalate the arms race with india? Also, if I want to take on republicans, rather than the world's problems, which we shouldn't talk about in front of the children, she's my girl. Why girl? But I suppose that's too fussy of me - she has to navigate the language of political cliches written entirely for men. But still, I'm your woman sounds better and non-creepy. Both have unfortunate pop song echoes. Though, so does 'I'm your man', come to think of it.
_
respond?
(4)
09:40:46 AM,
Wednesday 8 August 2007
-
site & script courtesy of Moss
