I am not sure if I should be intimidated or flattered. The house two doors away went up for sale in recent days. The asking price is $498,500. When determining value of a house, the most often asked question is what are other properties in the immediate area going for. The house across the street in the other direction recently sold. It had an asking price of just under $80,000. Does that mean that my house, since it rests in some geographical midpoint between these two properties, is properly valued somewhere along the $418,000 continuum between 80K and 498K? I would like to see an agent arrive at some average and be able to provide reasonable supporting rationale. I propose an alternate pricing strategy: something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Maybe in place of posting an asking price, when listing property, one could simply advertise "Best Offer."
Real estate pricing is not my only cause for confusion this Sunday morning. The sermon at this morning's service addressed the concept of evil. I was left with a very confused picture as to the description of evil, the contemporary examples of evil offered, our inability to determine what is evil in real time, and the personal moral responsibility of the so-called evil-doer. There was one take-a-way. I am not able to use the rationalization: "The devil made me do it." Although in the final judgment, Someone else may determine that the malevolent spirit, in fact, did just that.
So, in the final result, I am left either flattered or intimidated. I may flatter myself with some, albeit limited, assurance that I have at least one out. Or I can be intimidated by the awareness that I have only one out. What's your best offer?
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
When I left the house today at 5:10AM for my morning walk, there was ample evidence that someone had visited the neighbor's Bear Buffet (aka, dumpster). There was also evidence in my yard, no less, that the bruin had eaten his full or was full at some time during the event. I have pictures to support these comments.
This time the big fellow exercised some thoughtfulness and did not drag the individual bags into my yard before ripping them open to snack upon the contents.
Needless to say, I was more cautious than usual when I started out on my walk and passed the wooded lot on the corner. It wasn't that I was particularly concerned about early morning vehicle traffic either.
Yesterday morning, when I walked by the service station and convenience store downtown (in what constitutes "downtown" in a city with a population of 530), the dumpster behind the service station was tipped and its contents laid out bear buffet style. Within the local bear community, the word must be out that the 4th Street hosts a Sunday night buffet special and 10th Street hosts a Monday night buffet special. My future morning walks may provide evidence of other local bear buffets Tuesdays through Saturdays. In previous years, the Headstart Program's dumpster was raided on more than one occasion, but that program is done for the summer--closed for the season, if you will. The dining technique used by bear always seems to be the same: tip the damn thing over, toss the contents around, and then have at it--outdoor dining at its best or a toddler in a highchair.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
A couple of recent Supreme Court cases (Citizens United vs. FEC and ATM vs. Bullock) have hit the reset button on what is commonly understood by the term person. One also cannot forget presidential candidate Mitt Romney's statement: "Corporations are people too."
I will concede that corporations are persons, but they are not people.
I suggest that we make a distinction between corporal persons and corporate persons. The former refers to you and I; the latter refers to creatures of civil law. The term corporal dates to the 14th century and is defined as "of or belonging to the body." The term corporate dates to the 15th century and is defined as "united in one body."
A corporal entity is a living thing, a human person, a singular and indivisible biological entity, the product of the reproductive activity of the species. Corporal entities, that is, human persons, enjoy rights, privileges, and responsibilities consistent with their nature--"endowed. . .with certain inalienable rights" in the language of the Founding Fathers. These characteristics are recognized in civil society, but are not created by nor the product of civil society. Corporate entities are human creations and as such socially, politically, and legally defined, structured, and sanctioned. As human creations, they are the products of group consensus and civil sanction as to their origination, existence, dissolution, and propagation/division. Corporate entities, that is, corporations, properly enjoy the rights, privileges, and authority inscribed in civil law and only those. Rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and Constitution do not apply to corporate entities unless subsequent legislation explicitly so states.
An example might help or may further confuse my attempt at a distinction with a difference. A marriage is a corporate entity comprised of two corporal entities. The two persons remain intact and viable both within and apart from their identity, rights, privileges, and responsibilities as a married couple. The state views a married couple as a single entity with respect to the joint ownership of marital property, taxation, indebtedness, and self/spousal incrimination. In other spheres, the spouses are individually responsible or culpable, such as, child support, domestic violence, and spousal rape. I offer that free speech within the context of a marriage is a right wholly retained individually by the spouses. It is not abridged by the marital relationship nor is a third "quantity" of speech ascribed to the couple in addition to that which they enjoyed before becoming husband and wife.
Freedom of speech is not a right to be enjoyed by corporations simply because of their status as legal persons or personages. Federal and state legislation, which is responsible for creation of corporate entities in any and all detail, can withhold or limit corporate speech. Just as they have not been afforded voting rights nor the ability to hold elected office. Constitutionally protected freedom of speech is a singular right enjoyed by corporal entities which is not surrendered to nor diluted by the corporate entities in which the corporal entity participates, even when the political speech (read: campaign contributions) of the latter is limited by federal or state legislation.
I will concede that corporations are persons, but they are not people.
I suggest that we make a distinction between corporal persons and corporate persons. The former refers to you and I; the latter refers to creatures of civil law. The term corporal dates to the 14th century and is defined as "of or belonging to the body." The term corporate dates to the 15th century and is defined as "united in one body."
A corporal entity is a living thing, a human person, a singular and indivisible biological entity, the product of the reproductive activity of the species. Corporal entities, that is, human persons, enjoy rights, privileges, and responsibilities consistent with their nature--"endowed. . .with certain inalienable rights" in the language of the Founding Fathers. These characteristics are recognized in civil society, but are not created by nor the product of civil society. Corporate entities are human creations and as such socially, politically, and legally defined, structured, and sanctioned. As human creations, they are the products of group consensus and civil sanction as to their origination, existence, dissolution, and propagation/division. Corporate entities, that is, corporations, properly enjoy the rights, privileges, and authority inscribed in civil law and only those. Rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and Constitution do not apply to corporate entities unless subsequent legislation explicitly so states.
An example might help or may further confuse my attempt at a distinction with a difference. A marriage is a corporate entity comprised of two corporal entities. The two persons remain intact and viable both within and apart from their identity, rights, privileges, and responsibilities as a married couple. The state views a married couple as a single entity with respect to the joint ownership of marital property, taxation, indebtedness, and self/spousal incrimination. In other spheres, the spouses are individually responsible or culpable, such as, child support, domestic violence, and spousal rape. I offer that free speech within the context of a marriage is a right wholly retained individually by the spouses. It is not abridged by the marital relationship nor is a third "quantity" of speech ascribed to the couple in addition to that which they enjoyed before becoming husband and wife.
Freedom of speech is not a right to be enjoyed by corporations simply because of their status as legal persons or personages. Federal and state legislation, which is responsible for creation of corporate entities in any and all detail, can withhold or limit corporate speech. Just as they have not been afforded voting rights nor the ability to hold elected office. Constitutionally protected freedom of speech is a singular right enjoyed by corporal entities which is not surrendered to nor diluted by the corporate entities in which the corporal entity participates, even when the political speech (read: campaign contributions) of the latter is limited by federal or state legislation.
Monday, May 5, 2014
In a recent interview, in which former President George W. Bush discussed his work with military veterans, he once again stated his opposition to the use of the term Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He insists that the term be abbreviated to Post-Traumatic Stress. His reason: "It is not a disorder; it is an injury." Whatever his motivation, his apparent aim is to remove the condition and the discussion from the realm of mental health and thereby eliminate the negative connotation so often associated with mental illness. In my judgment, he is de-legitimizing all other mental illnesses in the hopes that his re-definition can foster expanded awareness, greater acceptance, and improved treatment of the one.
In my view, PTSD is not an injury, but the result of an injury. The element of disorder comes into play when the extent of the injury results in an impairment, which meets or exceeds established criteria. Furthermore, the distinction between physical illness and mental illness is very arbitrary. One only has to eavesdrop on a discussion between a neurologist and a psychiatrist to come to the conclusion that this distinction is counter-productive in terms of diagnosis and treatment, let alone public awareness and acceptance.
We will all be better served, if those, who have access to a bully pulpit, would consider the bigger picture. In this instance, that means supporting an awareness of mental illness and treatment with a legitimacy shared with all other illnesses and medical conditions resulting from biological agents, genetic factors, injuries of any kind, environmental teratogens, and/or aging. All of these conditions impact on the biological function, cognition, psychic capacity, and physical performance of the individual sufferer.
Let us all refuse to accept health care under the terms of a zero-sum game.
In my view, PTSD is not an injury, but the result of an injury. The element of disorder comes into play when the extent of the injury results in an impairment, which meets or exceeds established criteria. Furthermore, the distinction between physical illness and mental illness is very arbitrary. One only has to eavesdrop on a discussion between a neurologist and a psychiatrist to come to the conclusion that this distinction is counter-productive in terms of diagnosis and treatment, let alone public awareness and acceptance.
We will all be better served, if those, who have access to a bully pulpit, would consider the bigger picture. In this instance, that means supporting an awareness of mental illness and treatment with a legitimacy shared with all other illnesses and medical conditions resulting from biological agents, genetic factors, injuries of any kind, environmental teratogens, and/or aging. All of these conditions impact on the biological function, cognition, psychic capacity, and physical performance of the individual sufferer.
Let us all refuse to accept health care under the terms of a zero-sum game.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
I am sure that we all have those days when we come away from a brief encounter only to ask ourselves: "Does what just happened say more about me than about him or is it the other way around or does it say anything meaningful at all?"
A few days ago, I was enjoying a cup a coffee and reading my latest read (Baghdad without a Map by Tony Horwitz) in the downtown coffee shop. I was in search of an hour of personal time. My wife had a guest so I left the house after putting up a pot of tea and setting out the last of the oatmeal raisin cookies.
Another patron, whom I have known for some 20 years and with whom I share the same professional credentials in addition to some common activities over the years, stopped to say hello and to exchange a few pleasantries. It soon became clear that he had me confused with someone else. I helped him straighten out persons, places, and things. As we sorted through the mis-facts and facts, it became clear that he did not remember the name of the person with whom he had me confused. This is also someone with whom we both had worked during the past two decades. We left our conversation at that; the dude was "waiting for a phone call." I would wager a cappuccino that he hadn't remembered my name either.
Let me just say that I took the dude's number off my speed dial list.
P.S. The dude's number along with his real name was never on my speed dial list.
A few days ago, I was enjoying a cup a coffee and reading my latest read (Baghdad without a Map by Tony Horwitz) in the downtown coffee shop. I was in search of an hour of personal time. My wife had a guest so I left the house after putting up a pot of tea and setting out the last of the oatmeal raisin cookies.
Another patron, whom I have known for some 20 years and with whom I share the same professional credentials in addition to some common activities over the years, stopped to say hello and to exchange a few pleasantries. It soon became clear that he had me confused with someone else. I helped him straighten out persons, places, and things. As we sorted through the mis-facts and facts, it became clear that he did not remember the name of the person with whom he had me confused. This is also someone with whom we both had worked during the past two decades. We left our conversation at that; the dude was "waiting for a phone call." I would wager a cappuccino that he hadn't remembered my name either.
Let me just say that I took the dude's number off my speed dial list.
P.S. The dude's number along with his real name was never on my speed dial list.
Friday, April 18, 2014
I guess it is possible to be a subversive grandparent, that is, to undo, at least in part, some of your adult children's best efforts at acting like fit parents.
A friend recently related an example of his own having to do with peanut butter sandwiches. Number two son and his two sons were visiting. Unbeknownst to grandpa, son in his dad role had packed the standard peanut butter sandwich lunch entree for his children. Thinking that the young ones were lunch-less, grandpa offered to make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches all around. The grandkids quickly took up grandpa's offer and could not be swayed when their dad insisted that the lunch he had so dutifully brought from home would do. The grandkids held their ground that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches made by grandpa were far superior to anything coming out of their home kitchen. This matter required further exploration and verification. Were the grandkids just trying to butter up grandpa in order to set him up so that he would be in no position to reject a petition at some future date or were they speaking truth to power--rightfully acknowledging a superior PB&J sandwich?
As grandpa went about the culinary task of assembling the sandwiches, the differences quickly became clear. The grandkids were given the opportunity to observe the creative process first hand and the crucial components of a superior PB&J sandwich were promptly noted. First off, there was a new ingredient--butter--applied to the bread prior to the application of peanut butter. Secondly, there was the choice of peanut butter. The co-op brand of peanut butter was not to be seen in grandpa's kitchen. This is the kind that is all peanuts and nothing but peanuts. In grandpa's kitchen, Skippy remains the unchallenged lord of the nut butters. True to the tasteful memories of his own childhood, grandpa refuses to transition away from the taste acquired during his own childhood--nut butter augmented by some ingenious particular process and some secret and other not so secret ingredients. Apparently, the bread and jam components were not contributing elements in the superior rating of said sandwiches.
I hope to discover at some future date, if there has continued to be two versions of the PB&J sandwich for these youngsters--the home kitchen version and grandpa's kitchen version--or if one version becomes the standard for both kitchens. I am putting my "ants on a log" on grandpa's version.
A few years back, when I was dispatched to do the grocery shopping in advance of a grandson's visit I augmented the cheerios on the grandma prepared list with a small box of Trix. A little color is a celebratory thing. At grandpa's house a cheerios snack was thereby able to take on added pizazz. What happened to the last of that box of Trix? They were commingled with cheerios in a small zip lock bag for snacking in the car during the trip home. That becomes another level of subversiveness, when grandpa proposes to exercise influence beyond the confines of grandma and grandpa's house.
A friend recently related an example of his own having to do with peanut butter sandwiches. Number two son and his two sons were visiting. Unbeknownst to grandpa, son in his dad role had packed the standard peanut butter sandwich lunch entree for his children. Thinking that the young ones were lunch-less, grandpa offered to make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches all around. The grandkids quickly took up grandpa's offer and could not be swayed when their dad insisted that the lunch he had so dutifully brought from home would do. The grandkids held their ground that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches made by grandpa were far superior to anything coming out of their home kitchen. This matter required further exploration and verification. Were the grandkids just trying to butter up grandpa in order to set him up so that he would be in no position to reject a petition at some future date or were they speaking truth to power--rightfully acknowledging a superior PB&J sandwich?
As grandpa went about the culinary task of assembling the sandwiches, the differences quickly became clear. The grandkids were given the opportunity to observe the creative process first hand and the crucial components of a superior PB&J sandwich were promptly noted. First off, there was a new ingredient--butter--applied to the bread prior to the application of peanut butter. Secondly, there was the choice of peanut butter. The co-op brand of peanut butter was not to be seen in grandpa's kitchen. This is the kind that is all peanuts and nothing but peanuts. In grandpa's kitchen, Skippy remains the unchallenged lord of the nut butters. True to the tasteful memories of his own childhood, grandpa refuses to transition away from the taste acquired during his own childhood--nut butter augmented by some ingenious particular process and some secret and other not so secret ingredients. Apparently, the bread and jam components were not contributing elements in the superior rating of said sandwiches.
I hope to discover at some future date, if there has continued to be two versions of the PB&J sandwich for these youngsters--the home kitchen version and grandpa's kitchen version--or if one version becomes the standard for both kitchens. I am putting my "ants on a log" on grandpa's version.
A few years back, when I was dispatched to do the grocery shopping in advance of a grandson's visit I augmented the cheerios on the grandma prepared list with a small box of Trix. A little color is a celebratory thing. At grandpa's house a cheerios snack was thereby able to take on added pizazz. What happened to the last of that box of Trix? They were commingled with cheerios in a small zip lock bag for snacking in the car during the trip home. That becomes another level of subversiveness, when grandpa proposes to exercise influence beyond the confines of grandma and grandpa's house.
Monday, April 7, 2014
There are any number of issues which could be the topic of a post. I haven't been able to organize the chatter that has been tumbling in my internal revolving drum. The bits and pieces include:
A Thousand Splendid Suns
The Unknown Known
Flash Boys
Ukraine
Syria
Ebola
MA370
Afghan elections
NCAA Men's and Women's Tournaments
Minimum wage legislation
McCutcheon vs. FEC
Baseball's opening games
Drone warfare
Senate Intelligence Committee Report on CIA Interrogations
NSA Surveillance
Vermont's single payer health care program
Yesterday afternoon I decided to make a batch of oatmeal raisins cookies rather than sort through this clutter and put together a post. Here's how that turned out. I misconfigured the recipe and made an error in reconfiguring sticks of shortening (roughly half butter and half margarine) into cups. Rather than 1/4 cup plus 6 tablespoons, I started with 1/2 cup plus 6 tablespoons. That is the difference between 1 and 2 sticks plus the tablespoons. Come to think of it, I am not sure why the recipe is so particular. Wouldn't 1/2 cup work as well as 1/4 cup plus 6 tablespoons? That is only the difference of 2 tablespoons. We aren't making a piano (as a former boss would say) or mixing rocket fuel. The end result is a batch of soft cookies which browned up real nicely. They also balanced out well with the way-to-healthy wholewheat muffins that I made on Saturday morning.
Let's see. Chop suey is on the menu for supper. I best clear my mind so that I don't end up serving pork vegetable soup.
A Thousand Splendid Suns
The Unknown Known
Flash Boys
Ukraine
Syria
Ebola
MA370
Afghan elections
NCAA Men's and Women's Tournaments
Minimum wage legislation
McCutcheon vs. FEC
Baseball's opening games
Drone warfare
Senate Intelligence Committee Report on CIA Interrogations
NSA Surveillance
Vermont's single payer health care program
Yesterday afternoon I decided to make a batch of oatmeal raisins cookies rather than sort through this clutter and put together a post. Here's how that turned out. I misconfigured the recipe and made an error in reconfiguring sticks of shortening (roughly half butter and half margarine) into cups. Rather than 1/4 cup plus 6 tablespoons, I started with 1/2 cup plus 6 tablespoons. That is the difference between 1 and 2 sticks plus the tablespoons. Come to think of it, I am not sure why the recipe is so particular. Wouldn't 1/2 cup work as well as 1/4 cup plus 6 tablespoons? That is only the difference of 2 tablespoons. We aren't making a piano (as a former boss would say) or mixing rocket fuel. The end result is a batch of soft cookies which browned up real nicely. They also balanced out well with the way-to-healthy wholewheat muffins that I made on Saturday morning.
Let's see. Chop suey is on the menu for supper. I best clear my mind so that I don't end up serving pork vegetable soup.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)