Jim

I'd agree that the progressive movement hasn't "moved" things too far, but at least they haven't been co-opted into the plutocracy that masquerades as a two party system. Many people don't vote because they don't see too much difference between the two parties. One wants to rape and pillage, the other has no spine. Progress from the inside? Yea, the evidence to date compares to trying to wear down Gibraltar by having a hummingbird sharpen its beak against it once a day.

If it were a real crime most of the Congressional Republicans would be behind bars.

...and a necessity if watching baseball to make it interesting.

F**kers!!! Why aren't you at work!! Very jealous. Looks like a great day!

...or at least if you do sabotage it, and are made aware of it, then fix it. Prior to a bad accident.

Just like the weather in Montana, wait long enough and it will come around.

Another vile low regressive jackboot attempt to change the real subject Jim. We expected more from you. Pfft, LOL! I thought I stumbled by mistake into the eternal jackbooted thug vs liberal blowhard thread. Oh, wait.. who the fuck are you to decide what part of JayB's or Hugh's discourse I am going to answer to? Dude. Less caffine. It's not a first ammendment thing. It's the friggin' internets. You can spout on any tangential thing you want. I can duly comment on how within 3 pages every post in spray will end up here.

Another vile low regressive jackboot attempt to change the real subject Jim. We expected more from you. Pfft, LOL! I thought I stumbled by mistake into the eternal jackbooted thug vs liberal blowhard thread. Oh, wait..

What the hell has this to do with the topic at hand?

I think that folks are expecting, and not seeing, some systematic change in how government operates and events like this do little to build their confidence that their money is being spent wisely. Particularly in this economic environment.

I saw a car recently with two bumper stickers: 1) No one cares that you telemark (?) 2) One more car

My first reaction was - why was he riding across the grated bridge deck when there was a safe option? I regularly ride over that bridge and the University Bridge and have seen bicycles ride over the grated portion on a handful of times,and even then wondered why take the risk. But - I was not aware of the history. Really - if WSDOT had other accident reports then do one of two things - 1) post a sign that requires bikes to use the sidewalk, or 2) fix the dang thing with cheap epoxy; which is what the did - too late. Option 1 likely would not avoided a lawsuit. But for the rider, a little common sense goes a long way.

It's a bear. Trust me, I'm a professional. FYI- I've seen blonde black bears up there that have a resemblance to Mr. Griz. Doubtful that you saw griz, but you can never say never.

Not arguing either way. I just personally avoid those grates where ever they are, particularly when there is an off-road option. ....but if they knew about as you say they should have spent the what? $500 or so to just fix it.

Feel bad for the guy but all the bikers I know avoid those metal grates like the plague and just ride on the cement walkway for bikes and pedestrians. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013265574_gendler27m.html

I think this is the best. Almost makes me want to sign up for cable! http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-25-2010/npr-staffing-decision-2010

This is about as succinct as it gets. These gross generalizations aren't very helpful. A minority of regressives control the political process because citizens are disenfranchised and it's difficult to blame them for it considering the repeated betrayal by Democrats. I think it's true - people don't seem to be able to think critically anymore.

Hmmm. I thought his job was a news analyst. He decides to go moonlight and spout off opinions that NPR deems interfers with his job. Yes, they can fire him. No, there are no free speech issues here. He can go ahead and spout anyplace he wants; NPR decided it did not mix with how he was employeed. It was in their view, unprofessional and recurrent behavior.

Agreed. NPR was exercising it's perception of Juan's job as a news analyst vs. a commentator. He can now go do what he wants to at Fox. You may not like the outcome but there are no First Amendment issues involved.

This is about as succinct as it gets.

Point taken. But the same generalization.

"Racism is a lazy man's substitute for using good judgment ... Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me.” ----- Juan Williams ...but that was then, and now is, well, now.

I'll try a pair on, thanks.

There are a number of issues that need to be carefully considered, but I don't have a problem with limitations on contributions and imposing a requirement for full disclosure. Otherwise, with the money=speech scenario, corporate interests will have a louder voice, much louder. There is no reality based information to suggest that somehow Unions and contributions by individuals is going to keep up with the moneyed interests. Yes, I have concerns regarding how free speech is constrained but what we have now is the more money you have the more you have access and the more your message is out there. Take a look a the quote I posted at the beginning of the thread - does anyone actually belive that is a true statement?