Good Monday morning to all. We did get into the 80s yesterday. I put the newly seeded tray in the mini-greenhouse and nearly cooked it. I didn't expect the temp under that plastic. The containers didn't get that hot. I think tomorrow, when it is supposed to be dry and sunny, I will shift its position to where it will get morning sun and afternoon shade. If we get sun later today I will put all of the seedlings out under the tents. I don't trust the night time lows so I will bring them in at night.

This story (thanks to Chris Martenson's Blog for the link) is fascinating. UK and Dutch private investors put money into Icelandic banks. Icelandic banks went belly up because of irresponsible practices. The UK government made good those losses to the tune of 2.3b pounds and demanded that Iceland (with a population of about 320k) reimburse them. The measure has been rejected twice by voters and now the UK is threatening to take the Icelandic government to court. This whole thing is a crock (you can guess of what). These were private investors in a one country who invested in a private bank in another. Just because the investors' government decided to make them whole I see no reason why that government should unilaterally demand repayment. But then, we here in the US, have too-big-to-fail private banks that have been bailed out of their irresponsible, private decisions by our government at taxpayers expense. And they have become even bigger in the process. I don't think its better to be raped by your own government than a foreign one. Either way, the costs of private folly have now been transferred to the public and the private actors are free to be stupid again expecting to be bailed out when their stupidity again catches up with them. Additional note, this story quotes a British minister who claims that the rejected deal was 'negotiated.' However, if the matter had to be put to a vote of the Icelandic electorate how can the negotiations have resulted in a binding agreement if the vote is negative?