Critical Alert: The Swine Flu Pandemic – Fact or Fiction?
This seems to make sense about the swine flu. And I have to say that when I look at it psychically, the swine flu just doesn't look all that serious to me.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Who's in charge here?
I've been privileged to be the listing agent on a home that is in short sale. It's not something I went looking for, it fell in my lap because of the good reputation I had in the days when I was a real estate broker for a living. The lesson here is: It pays to maintain that license -- you never know when it will come in handy.
The home is in good condition, well-maintained, but it was built in the 1930s, when building codes weren't what they are today. That means that the foundation is considered inadequate, though it held up fine during the 1989 earthquake, the sewer lines are too small by today's standards, etc.
We had an agreement for a purchase price that satisfied both the first and second lenders. The first lender was getting almost all their money back, and under CA law, can't get a deficiency judgment on a purchase money first mortgage. They agreed to this amount because the offer was about the same as the value put on the house by the bank's appraiser. The second lender was getting pennies on the dollar at close, because the first lender knows they won't settle without some payment. Although the second mortgage holder can get a deficiency judgment against the (former) homeowner under CA law, apparently it's common to settle these after the sale, for a few more pennies on the dollar. (I really have to wonder about the financial strength of the banks here, and the efficacy of the stress tests -- I suspect that these junior liens are being carried on the books at a lot more than 10 cents on the dollar.)
It's common for a buyer to try to renegotiate a bit after inspections, when the termite, contractor's and other inspections put a price on the repairs to be done. And usually, you can finesse a few thousand dollars, by everyone kicking in some -- seller, both agents, and the buyer compromising their request. But holy carp! The buyer is asking for a price reduction so big that it wipes out the pennies on the dollar for the second (which they would never agree to in any case), both agents and a huge chunk of the first mortgage. I really don't know if this is posturing, or if the buyer doesn't really want the house, but figures, hey, if I can get it for that much less than the appraised value, hell, then it's worth it.
Here's the weird part: the owner/seller of the house is not in a position to decide what happens, what counteroffer is made. The first lender is. So who really owns the house? Who's in charge here? And in fact, since the seller realizes that the amount that the house sells for won't change his situation one iota, he's pretty neutral. The homeowner here has effectively become the agent of the bank. How weird is that? There used to be an old joke, something people would say when they bought a house with a mortgage, which was that the bank owned the house. In a short sale, it's pretty much true. The seller owns the house in name only, and the banks make all the decisions.
That brings me to the bigger questions. What happens when someone has no equity? And what is equity, anyway? I think that here, equity doesn't just mean housing equity, it means a stake in the economy, a stake in our society.
One can definitely have a stake in society without a financial stake -- that's called community, or emotional connection. But so much of what used to be supplied by community has been replaced by market forces (think restaurants instead of home-cooked food, cleaning services instead of the family cleaning the house, car detailing instead of Dad washing the car, child care centers instead of Mom or Grandma or a neighbor watching the kids), that non-financial equity has declined substantially, over at least the last 30 years, replaced by financial equity -- money, in one form or other.
So as our financial equity declines, we have to/are substituting community again. That substitution, though, has consequences for the economy. As more people are out of work, they are substituting community for things they used to pay for. That puts more people out of work. So the monetary economy declines, while the non-monetary community grows stronger and larger.
But what happens to someone who has no financial equity, and no community ties? Do they become violent, because they're angry, and don't care what happens to them? Do they become depressed and suicidal? And as a society, what do we do about that?
The home is in good condition, well-maintained, but it was built in the 1930s, when building codes weren't what they are today. That means that the foundation is considered inadequate, though it held up fine during the 1989 earthquake, the sewer lines are too small by today's standards, etc.
We had an agreement for a purchase price that satisfied both the first and second lenders. The first lender was getting almost all their money back, and under CA law, can't get a deficiency judgment on a purchase money first mortgage. They agreed to this amount because the offer was about the same as the value put on the house by the bank's appraiser. The second lender was getting pennies on the dollar at close, because the first lender knows they won't settle without some payment. Although the second mortgage holder can get a deficiency judgment against the (former) homeowner under CA law, apparently it's common to settle these after the sale, for a few more pennies on the dollar. (I really have to wonder about the financial strength of the banks here, and the efficacy of the stress tests -- I suspect that these junior liens are being carried on the books at a lot more than 10 cents on the dollar.)
It's common for a buyer to try to renegotiate a bit after inspections, when the termite, contractor's and other inspections put a price on the repairs to be done. And usually, you can finesse a few thousand dollars, by everyone kicking in some -- seller, both agents, and the buyer compromising their request. But holy carp! The buyer is asking for a price reduction so big that it wipes out the pennies on the dollar for the second (which they would never agree to in any case), both agents and a huge chunk of the first mortgage. I really don't know if this is posturing, or if the buyer doesn't really want the house, but figures, hey, if I can get it for that much less than the appraised value, hell, then it's worth it.
Here's the weird part: the owner/seller of the house is not in a position to decide what happens, what counteroffer is made. The first lender is. So who really owns the house? Who's in charge here? And in fact, since the seller realizes that the amount that the house sells for won't change his situation one iota, he's pretty neutral. The homeowner here has effectively become the agent of the bank. How weird is that? There used to be an old joke, something people would say when they bought a house with a mortgage, which was that the bank owned the house. In a short sale, it's pretty much true. The seller owns the house in name only, and the banks make all the decisions.
That brings me to the bigger questions. What happens when someone has no equity? And what is equity, anyway? I think that here, equity doesn't just mean housing equity, it means a stake in the economy, a stake in our society.
One can definitely have a stake in society without a financial stake -- that's called community, or emotional connection. But so much of what used to be supplied by community has been replaced by market forces (think restaurants instead of home-cooked food, cleaning services instead of the family cleaning the house, car detailing instead of Dad washing the car, child care centers instead of Mom or Grandma or a neighbor watching the kids), that non-financial equity has declined substantially, over at least the last 30 years, replaced by financial equity -- money, in one form or other.
So as our financial equity declines, we have to/are substituting community again. That substitution, though, has consequences for the economy. As more people are out of work, they are substituting community for things they used to pay for. That puts more people out of work. So the monetary economy declines, while the non-monetary community grows stronger and larger.
But what happens to someone who has no financial equity, and no community ties? Do they become violent, because they're angry, and don't care what happens to them? Do they become depressed and suicidal? And as a society, what do we do about that?
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Zen Boogie, Part 2
Yesterday, thanks to abnormally warm weather and the glories of the wetsuit, I was able to swim in the Pacific Ocean. There are days when the origin of the name, Pacific, becomes obvious, and this was one of them -- the sea was like old glass, barely rippling, at Linda Mar beach. Body surfing was clearly out, so I decided to swim distance, parallel to the shore. And as always, the ocean had a lot to teach:
- You can never sit still. The ocean is always moving, and because it is so much bigger than you, it will move you, often in unpredictable ways. You may be unaware of your shifting, but it's happening nonetheless. Life is like that, too -- you're immersed in a sea of never-ending physical, cultural, emotional and psychological changes and cross-currents, so your relationship to everything changes, whether you want it to or not. In fact, it changes whether you are aware of it or not.
- You are not in control. If you do nothing, you go where the ocean (the culture) wants you to go. If you swim, you can affect your own trajectory and position, but you are always dealing with the larger force of the ocean -- and it is much more powerful than you are.
- You have to be aware of the larger forces, to maneuver successfully within them. If you don't notice the tide pulling you out to sea, you'll never get back to shore. If you don't notice that people are driving less and wanting more fuel efficient cars, first because of high gasoline prices and then because they realize they've been incredibly wasteful, you'll keep making gas-guzzling cars.
- To keep your bearings, you have to swim toward something. If you keep swimming toward a goal (a landmark on the shore, for example), you'll at least know you're going in the right direction, and you'll be aware of where you are, even if you don't get there. In fact, when you swim in nature, you almost never swim to the thing you are sighting on -- by definition, it has to be big enough to see from water level quite far away, so it's often something tall that you cannot literally swim to, like a lighthouse or mountain peak. You can only swim in its direction; you can never get there, because it isn't at the water's edge. This is why you have to have goals -- you have to work toward something to keep your bearings, even if you never attain your goal.
- Waves arise and break, even on the calmest days. You can enjoy them, or not. You can enjoy that unexpected rise and fall, or you can curse the fact that it put you off course slightly. Your choice, but it's your only choice, because the waves will arise and break either way.
- Perspective is a result of where you stand. 50 yards from shore, you can't even see those rocks that were so difficult to navigate as you picked your way down to the water. Terns get very territorial when you're in their patch of ocean. Try a different perspective -- go somewhere unusual, or try standing on your head!
- People come equipped with different perceptual abilities. The ocean is pretty murky at Linda Mar, even on a calm day, so you can't see down through the water at all. With a mask and snorkel, though, you can easily see what's under the surface. Yes, this particular improvement in perception is artifical, but it's true for all sorts of abilities -- some people hear better than others, some have a more acute sense of smell, some see clairvoyantly better than others, etc.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
What Are Friends for? Good Health & A Longer Life - NYTimes.com
The most interesting part of this research is that it doesn't matter how far away your friends are, they are still really important.
Well - What Are Friends for? A Longer Life - NYTimes.com
Well - What Are Friends for? A Longer Life - NYTimes.com
The Fundamental Dichotomy of Churches (and Ashrams, etc.)
Churches (here I include ashrams, temples, etc., but for convenience will use the word 'church' to denote all of these) actually have 2 purposes:
The other purpose of the church is to foster community, so we have people with whom to learn, to celebrate, to mourn, to share daily joys and sorrows, to learn, to play, to share food, to raise children.
But for the person who is growing faster spiritually than the community is growing, these two begin to feel like they are antithetical to each other. That is, I want to be part of the community, because of the warm feeling and support I feel as part of it, but it limits my spiritual development, because to stay at one with the community, I have to develop more slowly than I'd really like to develop, or maybe not develop at all. What I choose depends on which is my higher priority -- my development or my participation in the community. So if it's more important to me to grow spiritually, then I'll move on, perhaps to another community, or perhaps to none at all. If it's more important to me to have community, I will either compromise my development, or hide my development.
This dichotomy plays out for the church as a whole, too. Each church member's spiritual development happens at its own pace -- some don't develop at all, others bound ahead, still others grow at a moderate pace in their understanding. So at what rate does the community as a whole develop? Generally not with those who are changing the fastest. Perhaps it develops at the rate of the slowest, or perhaps at the rate of the bulk of the members. Whatever rate it changes at, will not suit everyone.
But community thrives on stability and with numbers -- the more people who are in the community, the more there are for the support of all in good times and bad. The longer they are there, the more trust there is among them, and therefore the group is stronger, too. So it is natural for the community to want to keep people to keep them 'in the fold'. That means keeping them growing (or even not growing) spiritually at the same rate, which will, by definition, be inappropriate for some members. The means people will keep coming and going as they match the spiritual intent/level of the church. But it's bad for community to have constant change in its membership.
- the development of the members' spirituality
- community
The other purpose of the church is to foster community, so we have people with whom to learn, to celebrate, to mourn, to share daily joys and sorrows, to learn, to play, to share food, to raise children.
But for the person who is growing faster spiritually than the community is growing, these two begin to feel like they are antithetical to each other. That is, I want to be part of the community, because of the warm feeling and support I feel as part of it, but it limits my spiritual development, because to stay at one with the community, I have to develop more slowly than I'd really like to develop, or maybe not develop at all. What I choose depends on which is my higher priority -- my development or my participation in the community. So if it's more important to me to grow spiritually, then I'll move on, perhaps to another community, or perhaps to none at all. If it's more important to me to have community, I will either compromise my development, or hide my development.
This dichotomy plays out for the church as a whole, too. Each church member's spiritual development happens at its own pace -- some don't develop at all, others bound ahead, still others grow at a moderate pace in their understanding. So at what rate does the community as a whole develop? Generally not with those who are changing the fastest. Perhaps it develops at the rate of the slowest, or perhaps at the rate of the bulk of the members. Whatever rate it changes at, will not suit everyone.
But community thrives on stability and with numbers -- the more people who are in the community, the more there are for the support of all in good times and bad. The longer they are there, the more trust there is among them, and therefore the group is stronger, too. So it is natural for the community to want to keep people to keep them 'in the fold'. That means keeping them growing (or even not growing) spiritually at the same rate, which will, by definition, be inappropriate for some members. The means people will keep coming and going as they match the spiritual intent/level of the church. But it's bad for community to have constant change in its membership.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Not Enough Bandwidth
I don't know about you, but I feel like I just don't have enough bandwidth!
wordnet.princeton.edu defines "bandwidth" as
'a data transmission rate; the maximum amount of information (bits/second) that can be transmitted along a channel'
What I mean is, there is too much information trying to come in and go out. I am
Perhaps you are in a similar predicament -- you're working, and trying to stay on top of things there, worried about your job or business, and so learning new skills or ways to market your services, not to mention taking care of a home and/or family. Do you feel overwhelmed? Or, like me, do you just have a problem setting priorities? Because priorities are necessary whenever you have limited resources, like bandwidth.
The first thing to remember is how much you are trying to do in how little time. So forgive yourself for not getting it all done right now. Take a deep breath.
Remember, there is a difference between urgency and importance. Urgent things have to be done now or calamity ensues (does it really?). Important things will make a huge difference in the quality of your life down the road. What is really important here? What will make the biggest difference in your life down the road?
When I think about setting my own priorities, they look like this:
Second, in some cases, things are out of your control and you're working with probabilities. The commission on the short sale is not insignificant -- but it's very iffy. The buyer and the seller have agreed on the price, and both of the shorted lenders have signed off. (This took a full 30 days.) But the buyer has to approve the inspections of the property, which are scheduled a mere 4 days before the lenders' approvals expire, and close within those 4 days, 2 of which are Saturday and Sunday -- or we begin all over again with the lenders, and this time, they could reject the agreement. So how much sense does it make to put a lot of time into this?
The standard business school way of evaluating an iffy proposition is to multiply the expected return from a positive outcome by the percentage chance that that outcome will happen, and use that to compare outcomes. What's the percentage chance of success? This is where intuition comes in -- you make an informed guess. (Or you can call me to 'look' at it with you.)
wordnet.princeton.edu defines "bandwidth" as
'a data transmission rate; the maximum amount of information (bits/second) that can be transmitted along a channel'
What I mean is, there is too much information trying to come in and go out. I am
- checking out a new market for my psychic/coaching services
- learning several new types of software,necessary to my work
- channeling every morning with a friend, and
- representing the seller as a real estate broker on a short sale.
Perhaps you are in a similar predicament -- you're working, and trying to stay on top of things there, worried about your job or business, and so learning new skills or ways to market your services, not to mention taking care of a home and/or family. Do you feel overwhelmed? Or, like me, do you just have a problem setting priorities? Because priorities are necessary whenever you have limited resources, like bandwidth.
The first thing to remember is how much you are trying to do in how little time. So forgive yourself for not getting it all done right now. Take a deep breath.
Remember, there is a difference between urgency and importance. Urgent things have to be done now or calamity ensues (does it really?). Important things will make a huge difference in the quality of your life down the road. What is really important here? What will make the biggest difference in your life down the road?
When I think about setting my own priorities, they look like this:
- Things that will keep me healthy (e.g. sleep, exercise, good food, maintaining good relationships), because without good health, I can't do anything else
- Things that will bring in money today, including keeping my on-going commitments (scheduled clients and classes)
- Things that are are most likely to most positively affect the bottom line in the future
- Everything else (like bookkeeping)
Second, in some cases, things are out of your control and you're working with probabilities. The commission on the short sale is not insignificant -- but it's very iffy. The buyer and the seller have agreed on the price, and both of the shorted lenders have signed off. (This took a full 30 days.) But the buyer has to approve the inspections of the property, which are scheduled a mere 4 days before the lenders' approvals expire, and close within those 4 days, 2 of which are Saturday and Sunday -- or we begin all over again with the lenders, and this time, they could reject the agreement. So how much sense does it make to put a lot of time into this?
The standard business school way of evaluating an iffy proposition is to multiply the expected return from a positive outcome by the percentage chance that that outcome will happen, and use that to compare outcomes. What's the percentage chance of success? This is where intuition comes in -- you make an informed guess. (Or you can call me to 'look' at it with you.)
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Monday, April 06, 2009
Mind over matter -- for pain, too!
Throw out those painkillers: the secret to solving physical aches may lie in using a pair of binoculars the wrong way round, claims research performed at Oxford University.
The study, published in Current Biology, reveals how powerfully pain and even swelling can be a product of our mental attitude.
Researchers asked ten people who suffered chronic pain in one arm to move the limb around while looking at it through a pair of binoculars that were either the right or wrong way round;
When they saw their arm magnified to double its size, the patients reported that their levels of pain increased, but when they exercised the arm while watching a minimised image of it through
inverted binoculars, their pain levels were cut significantly.
But it was not only their perceived pain levels that changed, says the lead researcher, G. Lorimer Moseley. Their levels of physical swelling in the affected areas were also reduced through using the backwards binocular trick.
Moseley says he is not sure how this phenomenon works in terms of specific neurons firing, but he believes that The brain changes its protective responses according to its perception of danger levels. if it looks bigger, it looks sorer, therefore the brain acts to protect it,” he explains.
In effect, the binocular trick offers a much simpler and cheaper version of a pain-lowering brain-scan.
Moseley hopes that the optical-trick discovery will lead to a practical method for lowering pain and trauma levels in hospitals.
[This was sent to me by a fellow hypnotherapist, hat tip, Seth-Deborah. Link here.
The study, published in Current Biology, reveals how powerfully pain and even swelling can be a product of our mental attitude.
Researchers asked ten people who suffered chronic pain in one arm to move the limb around while looking at it through a pair of binoculars that were either the right or wrong way round;
When they saw their arm magnified to double its size, the patients reported that their levels of pain increased, but when they exercised the arm while watching a minimised image of it through
inverted binoculars, their pain levels were cut significantly.
But it was not only their perceived pain levels that changed, says the lead researcher, G. Lorimer Moseley. Their levels of physical swelling in the affected areas were also reduced through using the backwards binocular trick.
Moseley says he is not sure how this phenomenon works in terms of specific neurons firing, but he believes that The brain changes its protective responses according to its perception of danger levels. if it looks bigger, it looks sorer, therefore the brain acts to protect it,” he explains.
In effect, the binocular trick offers a much simpler and cheaper version of a pain-lowering brain-scan.
Moseley hopes that the optical-trick discovery will lead to a practical method for lowering pain and trauma levels in hospitals.
[This was sent to me by a fellow hypnotherapist, hat tip, Seth-Deborah. Link here.
Mind over matter -- for pain, too!
Throw out those painkillers: the secret to solving physical aches may lie in using a pair of binoculars the wrong way round, claims research performed at Oxford University.
The study, published in Current Biology, reveals how powerfully pain and even swelling can be a product of our mental attitude.
Researchers asked ten people who suffered chronic pain in one arm to move the limb around while looking at it through a pair of binoculars that were either the right or wrong way round;
When they saw their arm magnified to double its size, the patients reported that their levels of pain increased, but when they exercised the arm while watching a minimised image of it through
inverted binoculars, their pain levels were cut significantly.
But it was not only their perceived pain levels that changed, says the lead researcher, G. Lorimer Moseley. Their levels of physical swelling in the affected areas were also reduced through using the backwards binocular trick.
Moseley says he is not sure how this phenomenon works in terms of specific neurons firing, but he believes that The brain changes its protective responses according to its perception of danger levels. if it looks bigger, it looks sorer, therefore the brain acts to protect it,” he explains.
In effect, the binocular trick offers a much simpler and cheaper version of a pain-lowering brain-scan.
Moseley hopes that the optical-trick discovery will lead to a practical method for lowering pain and trauma levels in hospitals.
[This was sent to me by a fellow hypnotherapist, hat tip, Seth-Deborah -- but did not include a link. Sorry.]
The study, published in Current Biology, reveals how powerfully pain and even swelling can be a product of our mental attitude.
Researchers asked ten people who suffered chronic pain in one arm to move the limb around while looking at it through a pair of binoculars that were either the right or wrong way round;
When they saw their arm magnified to double its size, the patients reported that their levels of pain increased, but when they exercised the arm while watching a minimised image of it through
inverted binoculars, their pain levels were cut significantly.
But it was not only their perceived pain levels that changed, says the lead researcher, G. Lorimer Moseley. Their levels of physical swelling in the affected areas were also reduced through using the backwards binocular trick.
Moseley says he is not sure how this phenomenon works in terms of specific neurons firing, but he believes that The brain changes its protective responses according to its perception of danger levels. if it looks bigger, it looks sorer, therefore the brain acts to protect it,” he explains.
In effect, the binocular trick offers a much simpler and cheaper version of a pain-lowering brain-scan.
Moseley hopes that the optical-trick discovery will lead to a practical method for lowering pain and trauma levels in hospitals.
[This was sent to me by a fellow hypnotherapist, hat tip, Seth-Deborah -- but did not include a link. Sorry.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)