Please get your facts straight. Soybeans are native to East Asia and were grown and eaten since the Neolithic period--at least 7,000 years ago. That's still a short time for evolutionary processes to have weeded out those unable to digest them, much as lactose intolerance in still genetically found in many races. And the fact that researchers tried to feed a leopard a diet of them means nothing. Hamsters die if you give them garlic. Dogs can have heart attacks if they eat chocolate. But we are not leopards, hamsters or dogs, we are humans with our own digestive and metabolic requirements. You didn't really think feeding a predator cat nothing but vegetables was a good idea in the first place, did you? They did not evolve to eat them exclusively.

I understand you may have a soy intolerance, but that is hardly a reason to say that none of the 6 billion people on earth can enjoy their benefits. I love a good thick steak, but I realize we can hardly afford that luxury now, and by the time my grandkids are my age most protein will have to come from the sea, beans or soy.

Womens' tastes can actually change. Mrs. Cdunlea had cravings for Indian food throughout her pregnancy--chicken korma and tikka masala--and we're not even Indian at all. She still loves it. (So does our daughter, the cause of the Indian food craze. Hmm.)

On the other hand, angel hair pasta, which she always loved, repulsed her. I thought she was being dramatic, but she convinced me when she had two bites of it one night, ran into the bathroom and vomited. She swears it's something about the texture. She still loved spaghetti, linguine, etc...

The Germans are very serious about quality, but they are also very serious, as a people, about standards in many aspects of society. The problem with the US IMO is that the concept of acceptable standards--in production, lifestyle, mores, and the way life should be lived--is seen as outdated and quaint. We give lip service to "family values" and religion, yet those are also part of the throw-away culture: disposable spouses, churches you're free to join or quit as you like, a belief in Jeezus without believing what he had to say. With core values like these, it's not hard to see why our business model is the way it is; if 50% of people find it easy to dump their spouse, how hard is it for them to lay off hundreds of workers they've never met to boost the quarterly earnings and get themselves that nice bonus? Or close a mill in Ohio, potentially killing a town off, because they'll work for slave wages in Bangladesh?? Quality standards be damned, and ethical standards don't figure in to calculating stock dividends, amigo.

The natural result is that everything becomes expendable. Our culture is regurgative trash; look no further than Hollywood, which lately only seems to produce anything involving a '60's TV show or superhero. TV is the same thing. Education has been reduced to training worker bees for retail jobs. In the end, people become just another resource to be used or discarded as we see fit, which is why we have the highest homeless, poverty and prisoner rates per capita in the Western world.

(Rant off.)

You're missing the point. A tracking bracelet lets the cops know where you are at all times. A GPS system only does that when it's activated. The poster's point was the TCF framed the concept as an Orwellian imposition, not instead of the lifesaver it could be.

Compared to your analogy, it's the difference between pulling the trigger, and not. All the difference in the world.

Uh, wasn't that an S&M bar??

The payments will create "at least 500,000 additional jobs," he said.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I think that should sum it up nicely.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2008/04/rockefeller_heirs_demand_exxon.php

It seems the Rockefeller family realized that profits like these won't be around for long if we really have hit Peak Oil.

Ah, I see, because you know Cindy...

whatever

At least you admit it (lol). Seriously, though, the credit/housing/jobs issues are beginning to get resolved. While the MBS problems were worse than anyone predicted (not should have predicted, but did), the root of the problem--housing prices--was widely known, at least in my office, since 2001. Every appraiser I knew at and since that time has been incredulous at the sales figures in some pretty marginal neighborhoods, but the numbers spoke for themselves: people were willing to pay $500,000 for a triplex firetrap in Lynn MA, despite the fact that I wouldn't send my worst enemy's kid to public school there (he'd come after me with a Glock someday). So when trouble started coming in, yeah, the lenders put on the brakes in a hurry--maybe too late for a lot of them, but not for all by any means.

Another thing to remember is that the housing crisis is a local one, not a national one. Factors like supply/demand, attractiveness of the area and economic viability are what saves or damns you. The Boston area, for example, has a pretty bright outlook (www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1090902) and the predominant market here is resale, not construction, so supply here has a limit, as opposed to Florida, Arizona or whatever Erik Estrada is pitching this week.

As for jobs, I heard on NPR that many employers had felt there was a recession due for the past couple years, and purchasing managers and HR people had become more cautious anyway, ordering less inventory and hiring fewer non-exempts. The result is less turbulence in the business/employment cycles--which you may be seeing in part from the jobs report.

But who knows...