From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #548 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, March 24 2008 Volume 16 : Number 548 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster [Christopher Gross ] REAP [HwyCDRrev@aol.com] Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster [Rex ] Re: Twain and Rand (No RH) [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster [Benjamin Lukoff ] you are making my point [Jill Brand ] Re: you are making my point [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Twain and Rand (No RH) ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Real-estatiax [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: Real-estatiax ["Stewart C. Russell" ] RE: Self-pimping [Michael Sweeney ] Re: Real-estatiax [Rex ] Re: Twain and Rand (No RH) [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Real-estatiax [Carrie Galbraith ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:00:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Rex wrote: > That is how everyone seems to have taken it. I don't buy the idea that he'd > wanted to make the speech before the media started attacking him with the > Rev. Wright issue. This was damage control. Brilliant damage control, but > political and disingenuous damage control nonetheless-- So you really think he whipped that speech up in a weekend? Really? I suspect just the opposite is true: knowing he'd have to talk about race sooner or later, he and his aides probably worked up the basics of that speech a long time ago. I guess we'll find out when the tell-all campaign books start coming out next year. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:13:54 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 7:10 AM, The Great Quail wrote: > What attracts me the most to Obama is his ability to think *reasonably.* > I've been following the campaign extremely closely, and I am again and > again > impressed by his ability to apply common sense, reason, and rationality to > a > variety of positions. What's most remarkable to me about his "race speech" > (by the way, the first of *three* consecutive major speeches, but the only > one covered extensively by the mainstream media; perhaps the War and the > Economy are not as juicy as the Wright affair) I'm kind of two degrees separated from just how big a media circus it became, or I had been... I don't really see much of the super-mainstream media so much as I read/hear commemtary about it in the just-barely-not-mainstream media. In any case, I heard plenty about the other two speeches, and was happy that they were as good as they were, and that Obama himself has the good sense not to beat the horse any deader, for now at least. > You cannot run for any office and not "play politics" to a certain extent. > Jeff writes nicely and succinctly about the difference between cynical > politics and realistic politics. I guess it's a YMMV situation again. This was, to me, *very* cynical politics, and my problem with it was that I had never seen that from Obama before. I like a lot of things about Obama, first and foremost among them the fact that he seemed not to play the game like that. Here, he did. > I have no idea where this is coming from. I understand that, as a Hillary > Clinton supporter, you may be disappointed with the kind of campaign she's > run; and in response, you may be holding Obama up to an impossible > standard. At this point I'm not supporting either candidate over the other; I'd hope I don't have to elaborate on my disappointments with the Clinton campaign since we've heard them described fairly accurate many times lately... sometimes more vitriolically than others but the points have been made and I don't see much percentage in quibbling. The "impossible standard" for Obama comes entirely from the Obama supporters camp: over and over again we hear that we finally have a candidate who tells it like it is. But as soon as he makes a disingenuous move (and in my mind, this was a big one), the whole movement shifts en masse to praising him to high heaven for playing politics adroitly, and of course he's a politician, how could you ever believe otherwise? What would have made you think that? That, and the charged nature of the subject matter, have made a clear-eyed look at this thing impossible. I really don't get the media's game with Obama. They tarred and feathered him unduly with the Wright association, then elevated him to a further tier of godhood for a mediocre response to it. I guess it sells papers, or whatever... > But that "race speech" was written *by Obama* recently; in fact, he was up > until 2 am the night before finishing it. I think every human in America knows that. It sort of highlights the fact that his back to the wall and *had* to write it. > The irony (sort of) is that from my point of view, he didn't have jack > shit > > to apologize for. Sentiments like "god damn America" don't bother me > too > > much, free speech and America both being what they respectively are. > > They don't bother you too much, but I assure you they bother the majority > of > voters. And seeing as you are neither running for president, or will elect > the president solely by your own vote, I am not too sure where your sense > of > irony is coming from. I think it's the fact that a real "new kind of candiate", the kind I'd like to see and that everyone seems to believe Obama is, would not have apologized. I woulda liked to see Obama get really pissed off, honestly; he had every right to. As you say, I'm not the electorate, though, so what Obama did was probably shrewder than that. But shrewdness is not what the cult of personality celebrated the guy for, last week. Irony. Again, your language reveals a certain degree of hostility; I find that > curious, especially seeing how your chosen Democratic candidate has lied, > manipulated, distorted, hectored, and hardballed her way so far long the > campaign trail.... I can't undo my primary vote, but I'm past favoring one of these people over the other. The "race speech" did piss me off in places, mostly because its approach was too scattershot and contradictory to even parse (the racist grandma bit was especially problematic). But the real question is, for such a purportedly historic moment, what comes out of it other than damage control specific to one candidate's campaign? What is President Obama going to actually *do* to make race relations better? Are we just "starting a national dialogue"? How's that going to work and what's it going to do? I'm just confused-- was Pandora's Box opened or closed, and was either thing good or bad? I find myself in a really weird position: as someone who thinks anti-black racism is still very real in America, someone who bristles at almost every ridiculous claim of "reverse racism" from riled-up white folks, someone who thinks affirmative action is not a bad thing, someone who chose to move from an area where racism is prevalent to a community that's about as multicultural and accepting as it gets, am I going to have to become my own worst nightmare-- the guy who starts out by saying "I'm not a racist, but"-- just for not liking a large chunk of what was articulated in this speech? I'm frankly less comfortable about being part of a national dialogue than I was before. Dudes, I am so sorry my grandma was racist. But there's not a whole hell of a lot I can do about it. My parents were more tolerant than that, and I think the way I've lived my life and the things I teach my children are pretty damned progressive (for one thing, I don't take them to any church where anything crazy or hateful might be said about anything, although I'm sure most people would condemn me for that, too)... so why do I feel like I'm having more white guilt thrust upon me than I did back when I lived in the geographical middle of the Rodney King riots? Don't worry, I'll still vote for Obama, but right now I really want Al Gore back. And that's saying something. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:18:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Twain and Rand (No RH) "Stewart C. Russell" wrote: > Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > Anyone ever notice the extreme similarity of Ayn Rand's > > Objectivist Ethics to Mark Twain's "What Is Man?"? > > The difference is that Twain might've seen the joke. Twain almost assuredly saw the joke. And could actually write. "I'm not tempted to write a song about George W. Bush. I couldn't figure out what sort of song I would write. That's the problem: I don't want to satirize George Bush and his puppeteers, I want to vaporize them." -- Tom Lehrer "The eyes are the groin of the head." -- Dwight Schrute . ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:25:53 EDT From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: REAP Neil Aspinall passed away today at age 66. The Beatles announced his death in a statement issued jointly by Paul, Ringo, Olivia Harrison and Yoko Ono. "As a loyal friend, confidant and chief executive, Neil's trusting stewardship and guidance has left a far-reaching legacy for generations to come. All his friends and loved ones will greatly miss him but will always retain the fondest memories of a great man. " **************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:32:00 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Christopher Gross wrote: > > So you really think he whipped that speech up in a weekend? Really? > I suspect just the opposite is true: knowing he'd have to talk about race > sooner or later, he and his aides probably worked up the basics of that > speech a long time ago. I guess we'll find out when the tell-all campaign > books start coming out next year. All of his biggest boosters believe it (see Quail's post), and use it as a selling point. I'm not sure which scenario really casts a better light on it. Whipping it up right away feeds the SuperKennedyJesus mythology, I guess, but the pre-preparation idea speaks to political savvy. I guess that since I'm needing to ease into the Obama-as-slick-strategist view in order to keep my enthusiasm up, I prefer the latter; I fear that the bigger the godhead view of the guy gets, the more damaging the eventual disappointments will be. One good thing, though, is that with all the wiggle room in the world, McCain is not growing into a compelling candidate, and his party seems to know it. Whoops. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:39:52 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Self-pimping On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Michael Sweeney wrote: > Hi Fegs! > > This came out a few days ago, and I forgot to pimp it past you guys... > > I did an attempted-humorous piece for Time Out Chicago magazine's "real > estate" issue on the relative "joys" of being an advancing-age domicile > renter. > Nice piece; humorousness achieved! I'm right there with you on most of it, too, even as a family man... unless you make a shitload more than the wife and I do, you can forget buying anything other than a real crappy house around here (which would equal a lowering in the family's quality of life across the boards, from creature comforts to neighborhood school eligibilty, and on down the line). Can't do that. And no amount of people telling me that buying something is the only smart financial decision is going to make me want something I fundamentally don't want, such as owning a shitty condo in Glendale instead of living in a large, nice-ish house right on the reservoir in Silver Lake within walking distance to a very good elementary school. - -Rex - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:56:33 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Twain and Rand (No RH) On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > Anyone ever notice the extreme similarity of Ayn Rand's Objectivist Ethics > > to Mark Twain's "What Is Man?"? > > The difference is that Twain might've seen the joke. I'm not so sure Twain was joking--have you read "The Mysterious Stranger"? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:08:51 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Frank Rich on the forthcoming disaster On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Rex wrote: > I find myself in a really weird position: as someone who thinks > anti-black racism is still very real in America, someone who bristles at > almost every ridiculous claim of "reverse racism" from riled-up white folks, Reminds me of this passage, especially the last sentence. "In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time. "Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism. "Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:02:35 -0500 From: Subject: I sorta liked the speech. :::unlurking for a few scant moments::: Rex did say: >That is how everyone seems to have taken it. I don't buy the idea that he'd >wanted to make the speech before the media started attacking him with the >Rev. Wright issue. This was damage control. Brilliant damage control, but >political and disingenuous damage control nonetheless-- that was, to me, >trasparent in the way BO threw a whole bunch of different, sometimes >contradictory, takes on the subject at the wall to see what would stick. >Frustratingly, all that stuff was interspersed with a bunch of stuff to >which I couldn't help but say "hell yeah". It was as whiplash-inducing >a thing as I've ever encountered. I found myself doing something similar. So Bam-Bam said stuff that made sense to you. It happens. >> Of course he didn't - but politicians are always required to apologize and >> take responsibility for shit they have nothing to do with. I think there's a >> line between not *cynically* playing the game of politics and not playing it >> at all: the first is a viable route, the second political suicide. >And that's the riddle of Obama, isn't it? Beloved for not playing politics, >and then celebrated for it. It's like he's the Jesus of two mutuallly >exclusive domains. It's not a particle physics problem. People of contrarian points of view must find a way to work together. In some cases, there is no answer-- that was the crux of this speech. It wasn't "how I keep my pastor on a leash so he doesn't damage my political aspirations," it was, "how my pastor's views differ from mine, and his differing views do not make him any less a leader or a friend". >> Not to mention hey, funny how McCain's crazed, froth-foaming, gaybaiting, >> Catholic- and Jew-hating minister doesn't require McCain to apologize... But >> that's because, you know, all black people in America know one another and >> are responsible for what each and every one of them does, whereas white >> people are all individuals and utterly independent of one another. >I really can't fathom how-- unless I missed it-- *someone* didn't do >exhaustive profiles of everything Clinton and McCain's respective pastors >might have said over the past few years. The whole manufactured Rev. Wright >thing was media hypocrisy of the highest degree. God damn America indeed. In a slightly off-topic diversion, did anyone see this on Sunday: "McCain Offers Soothing Tones in Trip Abroad" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/us/politics/23mccain.html?ref=politics So, while the dems are in the midst of infighting (they must need to do this about once every 40 years to clear the air), McCain goes to France, smooches (and is smooched by) Sarkozy, and gets to ride the Presidential Huffy bike around the block, with the training wheels still on. "Mr. McCain spoke in Britain and France about the need to take action to reduce global warming, a welcome stance in much of Europe, which accused Mr. Bush of doing too little in that area. And in an opinion article that ran in Le Monde and The Financial Times, Mr. McCain called for a "successor" to the Kyoto treaty on global warming, which Mr. Bush had opposed, an act that angered much of the world." Pandering to the Europeans? If McCain becomes President, there's no chance we'll ever sign on to a Kyoto II (prediction: "We support the document in principal, but we feel that there are several areas where vital economic interests would be jeopardized," said Dana Perino the Next at a White House Press Conference in 2010.) The only way that a Republican Administration would even consider signing on would be if the UN, led by the EU, started spanking us with sanctions. No way that'll happen. "But Mr. McCain remains perhaps the biggest booster of the unpopular Iraq war (though he was critical of the Bush administration's conduct of it before last year). How he winds up being viewed abroad, as at home, will most likely depend on what happens there. At nearly every stop this week Mr. McCain told listeners that the situation in Iraq was improving, and that "Al Qaeda is on the run, but not defeated." Pandering indeed. I wonder how seriously the Europeans take the assessment of a Presidential candidate on the Iraq situation. Particularly in light of McCain's gaffes and misstatements. Finally, the picture from that article just makes me annoyed as all hell-- right there, next to McCain is Joe Lieberman. Fittingly, he's on the right of McCain. Why doesn't that little toad just come out and say he's a Republican? He'll get more tongue from the President. >But Obama's response did too much pandering to too many factions to be >anything other than off-putting to me, and I wanted to like it. I really >wanted it to mean something. But it didn't. You give up wayyy to easy ;-) The problems of race and gender in this campaign will not be sorted out in a single speech. The best that anyone can hope for is simply summing up a position: either you agree with it, or you don't. This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:16:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Jill Brand Subject: you are making my point HwyCDRrev@aol.com wrote: "i think you've missed the point of Howard Stern" I make it a point of missing the point of Howard Stern. BTW, who are you? You are on the Kinks list as well, but I don't know what to call you in that you don't have a name or a screen name or a "handle" (that's CB talk, right). There are maybe 4 or 5 people on this list and on the Kinks list, I think (me, Chris K., Benjamin Lukoff, ???) And speaking of the Kinks, I'm going to Ray's show in Boston, but it's for sentimental reasons, really. The new CD leaves me with the feeling that Ray should maybe not put out any more. Still, he was my god for so many years that I will always see him when he is in my neighborhood. My years of following him around are most probably over for good. We got HBO for free this weekend, and I rediscovered Bill Maher. Too bad that I won't be seeing his show again anytime soon. Jill ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:29:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: you are making my point Jill Brand wrote: > We got HBO for free this weekend, and I rediscovered Bill Maher. > Too bad that I won't be seeing his show again anytime soon. You can download the audio as a podcast from iTunes, usually the Tuesday, but sometimes as late as Thursday the week following the original broadcast on Friday. "I'm not tempted to write a song about George W. Bush. I couldn't figure out what sort of song I would write. That's the problem: I don't want to satirize George Bush and his puppeteers, I want to vaporize them." -- Tom Lehrer "The eyes are the groin of the head." -- Dwight Schrute . ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:40:04 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Twain and Rand (No RH) Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > I'm not so sure Twain was joking--have you read "The Mysterious Stranger"? No. I know he saw himself as a self-made man, but he was very seldom entirely serious. The only things I know he was utterly stone-cold about are: 1) Copyright extension - he basically believed in eternal copyright, mainly because he wanted his descendants to benefit for as long as possible. 2) the utter ridicule and destruction of the Church of Christ (Scientist) - he really didn't like the Christian Scientists one bit. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:41:55 +0100 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Real-estatiax - -- Rex is rumored to have mumbled on 24. Mdrz 2008 11:39:52 -0700 regarding Re: Self-pimping: > Nice piece; humorousness achieved! I'm right there with you on most of > it, too, even as a family man... unless you make a shitload more than the > wife and I do, you can forget buying anything other than a real crappy > house around here ... > instead of living in a large, > nice-ish house right on the reservoir in Silver Lake within walking > distance to a very good elementary school. I managed to buy a condo without paying significantly more in mortgage rates than I previously paid as rent. I wonder why that doesn't seem to work where you guys live. One aspect in my case were the low interest rates at the time (they have increased a little in the meantime), but I'd guess that with the current market in the US interest would be low there as well? FWIW, I'm paying a little more than 4 percent interest on my mortgage (fixed for 15 years). - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Am alten Stellwerk 22, 50733 Kvln, Germany http://www.uni-koeln.de/~a0620/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:58:12 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Real-estatiax Renting would be about 3x what we pay in mortgage here. Plus, I'm Scottish - we don't have the rental gene. It was *really* not-so-bright of us as a couple with no kids to unwittingly buy a house close to one of the best junior schools in Toronto, mind. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:25:57 +0000 From: Michael Sweeney Subject: RE: Self-pimping Rex-- Thanks for the kind words! Yeah, I'm on literally one of the top 5 blocks in the city (across from park/zoo; used to have former state governor AND current ward alderman (city councillor) as next door neighbors). And while the nearly unimaginable bargain that this was ($400/month in 1990!) has gone up considerably, for most of those years, it was a bargain...and now it's STILL below market (since, as a longtime resident, they don't raise me as much as new vacancies go for new tenants)...(Plus, I'm lazy...not all that ambitious, etc.) ...On a completely diff. topic: Hey, Pandora internet radio -- what's the friggin' deal with playing (just now, as I was typing the above 'graph) "Good Girls Don't" by the Knack on my (ostensibly) Soft Boys (and music like 'em / connected to 'em) "station"? (For guidance / context, after the Knack, it was the much more reasonable / "I can see that" selections of The Pixies and The 'Mats.) Oh well -- whattya want for nothing -- rubber biscuit? (Pardon my Elwood there..) Michael "R.I.P. 'Norm and Shake' -- with Neil now joining the long-departed Mal" Sweeney Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:39:52 -0700From: spottedeagleray@gmail.comTo: m_l_sweeney@hotmail.comSubject: Re: Self-pimpingCC: fegmaniax@smoe.org On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Michael Sweeney wrote: Hi Fegs!This came out a few days ago, and I forgot to pimp it past you guys...I did an attempted-humorous piece for Time Out Chicago magazine's "realestate" issue on the relative "joys" of being an advancing-age domicilerenter. Nice piece; humorousness achieved! I'm right there with you on most of it, too, even as a family man... unless you make a shitload more than the wife and I do, you can forget buying anything other than a real crappy house around here (which would equal a lowering in the family's quality of life across the boards, from creature comforts to neighborhood school eligibilty, and on down the line). Can't do that. And no amount of people telling me that buying something is the only smart financial decision is going to make me want something I fundamentally don't want, such as owning a shitty condo in Glendale instead of living in a large, nice-ish house right on the reservoir in Silver Lake within walking distance to a very good elementary school. - -Rex - -Rex _________________________________________________________________ Test your Star IQ http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_HMTAGMAR ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:30:53 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Real-estatiax On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Sebastian Hagedorn < Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de> > I managed to buy a condo without paying significantly more in mortgage > rates than I previously paid as rent. I wonder why that doesn't seem to > work where you guys live. We could, if we had the down payment (which we don't). But mainly, we don't want to live in a condo. (The rent on our house is also artificially low, since my wife has been there for a long time, so that helps). - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:47:43 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Twain and Rand (No RH) On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > > > I'm not so sure Twain was joking--have you read "The Mysterious Stranger"? > > No. I know he saw himself as a self-made man, but he was very seldom > entirely serious. The only things I know he was utterly stone-cold about > are: > 1) Copyright extension - he basically believed in eternal copyright, > mainly because he wanted his descendants to benefit for as long as possible. > 2) the utter ridicule and destruction of the Church of Christ > (Scientist) - he really didn't like the Christian Scientists one bit. It is my understand that toward the end of his life he became more jaded and cynical, and that is when these pieces I refer to date from. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:59:27 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: Carrie Galbraith Subject: Re: Real-estatiax - -----Original Message----- >From: Rex >Sent: Mar 24, 2008 1:30 PM >To: Sebastian Hagedorn >Cc: fegs >Subject: Re: Real-estatiax > >On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Sebastian Hagedorn < >Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de> > >> I managed to buy a condo without paying significantly more in mortgage >> rates than I previously paid as rent. I wonder why that doesn't seem to >> work where you guys live. > > >We could, if we had the down payment (which we don't). But mainly, we don't >want to live in a condo. (The rent on our house is also artificially low, >since my wife has been there for a long time, so that helps). > I have friends who bought a condo a few years ago, at the peak of the real estate insanity so they paid too much, and they complain all the time about the Home Owners Association dues and how they keep rising. They also have rules about their yard, what they can plant, what colors they can use, etc., etc. Seems pretty strict. I bought my house with 5% down so I had, on top of the mortgage, to pay an added fee for "private mortgage insurance," as well as all the other insurance I had to have. Let's just say that it was pretty steep monthly, and that was 15 years ago! - - c ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #548 ********************************