JayB

I enter: 1-84 Excel reformats this as: 30682. Select the cell, hit Format-->Cell-->Number and none of the options seems to leave the data in the cell alone, which is what I need it to do. What's the secret code for "leave the info in the cell *(&^ing alone" in Excel? Thanks in advance for the help. Word.

I am surprised that you are not willing to address this comparison. I might even accuse you of being closed-minded for thinking that there is some fundamental difference between a 'right to join in holy matrimony in a place of God' and a 'right to smoke.' Or did you mean to imply that the government's restriction on a church's freedom to marry who they please is even less legitimate than its restriction on indoor smoking, because there is not even a health issue involved? No, probably not. ...except for the freedom of religion part. You didn't really address the idea that forcing a church to accommodate the marriage of someone that they don't want to is a denial of that church's freedom of religion. I am just thinking fairly here--if we are talking about constitutional rights, this is fair game. As much as I despise the hand of religion in politics and government, I think it is important that we do not over-correct. Just thought I'd chime in to say that I think that Justin is dead -on here, and it's reassuring to see someone on the political left making these arguments.

I've never owned an Edelweiss rope, but they seem to be on par with Mammut, and they've got a 9.2mm single-rope that would probably be a good fit.

Mammut's been worth the extra money I've had to fork over. I haven 't had to replace a rope in a while, but I'd go for the Mammut Infinity if you're looking for a sub-10mm single. I can't honestly say that I've ever felt like it was the rope holding me back, or that an extra 0.7mm in diameter was going to make the difference for me, so I've generally used a 10.2-10.5 rope for cragging.

But the news isn't all bad - if you own residential or commercial property in hurricane prone areas - your risk will be underwritten by everyone else. "Taxpayers May Face Hurricane Tab By Elizabeth Williamson Word Count: 1,338 | Companies Featured in This Article: Allstate WASHINGTON -- As hurricane season begins, Democrats in Congress want to nationalize a chunk of the insurance business that covers major storm-damage claims. The proposal -- backed by giant insurers Allstate Corp. and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., as well as Florida lawmakers -- focuses on "reinsurance," the policies bought by insurers themselves to protect against catastrophic losses. The proposal envisions a taxpayer-financed reinsurance program covering all 50 states, which would essentially backstop the giant insurers in case of disaster. The program could save homeowners roughly $500 apiece in annual premiums in Florida, according to an advocacy group...." Maybe this is the urgent action regarding climate change that the Democratic leadership was talking about...

"The housing market Dropping a brick May 29th 2008 From The Economist print edition House prices are falling even faster than during the Great Depression “A DESTABILISING contraction in nationwide house prices does not seem the most probable outcome...nominal house prices in the aggregate have rarely fallen and certainly not by very much.” Alan Greenspan's soothing, if rather verbose, words on America's housing market in 2005 rank high on history's list of infamous predictions. But to be fair, most American economists shared his view that it was highly unlikely that average nationwide home prices would drop. That was the sort of thing that happened only during a deep depression, like the 1930s. Unfortunately, new figures this week reveal that house prices have already fallen by more over the past 12 months than in any year during the Great Depression. The S&P/Case-Shiller national index fell by 14.1% in the year to the first quarter. Admittedly, other property indices show smaller drops, but most economists now favour this measure. The index goes back only 20 years, but Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale University and co-inventor of the index, has compiled a version that stretches back more than a century. This shows that the latest fall in nominal prices is already much bigger than the 10.5% drop in 1932, at the worst point of the Depression. And things are even worse than they look. In the deflationary 1930s, America's general price level was falling, so in real terms home prices declined much less than they did nominally. Today inflation is running at a brisk pace, so property prices have fallen by a staggering 18% in real terms over the past year. In nominal terms, the average home is now worth 16% less than at the peak in 2006, and the large overhang of unsold houses suggests that prices have further to fall. If so, this housing bust could well see a bigger cumulative fall in prices than the 26% real drop over the five years to 1933. Most people would call that a pretty destabilising contraction."

Total energy consumption, per-capita:

Also agree with Chuck that high prices are the single most effective incentive for developing alternatives.

I think it's possible that you could cut domestic demand for fossil fuels through a number of mechanisms (rationing, taxation, subsidizing other forms of energy, etc), but measures that dampen demand in the US wouldn't necessarily have an effect on demand elsewhere - and the lower prices brought about in such a fashion could make it cost-effective/rational for others to divert consumption back to (now less expensive) fossil fuels and away from cleaner/costlier alternatives. On balance, it's hard to forsee domestic demand reductions having an impact unless they exceed the magnitude of demand increases elsewhere. I personally think that pulling a Volcker and raising interest rates enough to make using oil (and other commodities)to hedge against the risks of inflation, and a falling dollar a costly, and losing bet would be much more effective than any direct interventions in the energy market. There's more to the story than a declining dollar and efforts to hedge against it, but if you compare oil/commodity price increases in dollars and Euros, the falling dollar is clearly a significant piece of the puzzle. You can thank all of the retards involved in the housing bubble - from buyers to the folks buying the repackaged loans at the end of the chain - for interest rates low enough to fuel inflation and a run on the dollar. Bernanke's version of Scilla and Charybdis - housing implosion on one hand, inflation and a run on the dollar on the other.

Ponzi Schemes. Please research. Not everyfraud in life is exposed, not every crime is discovered or punished. Profound maxims aplenty in this thread. But we're talking about a concrete situation here. The administration made the presence of WMD in Iraq one of the central platforms that the case for invading Iraq rested upon, and made an on-the-ground search for WMD to validate those claims an essential part of their post-invasion plans. If you *know* that there are no WMD in Iraq, there is no plausible post-invasion scenario in which the absence of WMD will not be documented if you fail to discover any there - unless you plan to put them there yourself. Occam's razor time - hell, Occam's stone tool/primate-digging stick time - they thought they'd find WMD there, and they didn't.

Not an elaborate "baroque" conspiracy, just another (well-executed) sell job. I don't think they knew that there were no WMD's, but I don't think they were really that worried about them either. I do agree with Rove or whomever said it that McClellan's stuff sounds right out of a liberal blog. That quote above could have come from me! That's a much more credible summary of what happened, IMO. I'd agree that the decision to go to war revolved around strategic an political considerations that were more extensive than WMD alone. I'd disagree about them not being worried about what would happen if the central argument for the invasion turned out to be based on false information, but you can have a reasonable discussion about that, that's at least tethered to reality.

I can't articulate quite as well as you can, Jay, but it is my opinion that they knew that they were lying, but that they thought they were right (if that makes any sense.) Sort of like the cop who plants evidence because he's convinced the guy is a drug dealer anyway, but just too smooth to get caught honestly.... Well - that's an interesting way to look at it. Just for the sake of argument, if we carry this analogy forward a bit more, wouldn't the "cop" in question also have to realize that he'll be found out and accept the inevitable consequences of such an outcome?

That WOULD be refresshing, KK, but in this case it would be idiotic if by that you mean we shouldn't question their motives or methods in selling the war. I'm willing to cede that they probably thought they were doing what was best for the country, but the history is very clear that they decided to attak Iraq first and made up a justification second. link Look up "aluminum tubes." Try AlQueda in Prague. Niger Uranium purchase. In all three of these specific cases the administration presented "evidence" that they knew was at least questionnable if not downright incorrect. Remember how Condi Rice told us we'd see a mushroom cloud in Manhattan, when the only people who had actually been in Iraq and knew about Saddam's program said he had none? I'm willing to concede that Bush and company probably thought they were making a good decision, but you'd be an idiot if you didn't conclude they lied about it and some kind of blind idealogue if you now argue that it is "right" for them to have lied about it. Whoa - quite a revision there! I was going to respond to your original, and much more sensible statement by saying that while of course discussions of motives have to be left on the table of public discourse, not every idea concerning either is equally sound, beneficial, and useful - nor should anyone expect them to be treated as such. There seems to be a generalized notion floating around there that any idea that anyone puts forward concerning a public figure's motives or methods should be treated as a noble contribution to the national well-being, irrespective of the actual content or merits of the said idea. This is simply not the case. When and if Obama is elected, and if people on the right issue "questions" about his motives or methods on par with what you've introduced for the past eight years ("Bush started the war to enrich Halliburton, etc..", we'll see a tacit admission of this fact immediately when you and others respond to them with the withering critiques that they'll deserve.

What is baroque in thinking that W went to war in Iraq because he believe it best for the country? He did - he just never bothered to do much research in evaluating what would be good for the country and spent much time dismissing the people who said the war was useless. Your naivety regarding politics is touching. Nothing. How does your most recent statement jive with the following? "You are still arguing they were genuine?" Was it poor planning, execution, etc based on bad and/or incomplete information? Or an elaborate conspiracy based on claims and evidence that they knew were false from the get-go?

I think we will adjust to $4 gas if only it would stay that low. It is anticipated to rise. Bush's support of "exporting" jobs to third world countries has contributed to their increase in oil consumption. Does this sound a bit selfish? maybe, but we do have to look out for number one. It has been debated that rising investing in oil has caused artificial increases in cost, just like with the dot com industry years ago and the housing market not so long ago. Bush's involvement in an unpopular middle east war has not set well with other arab leaders and OPEC. THere are lots of reasons for increased oil prices, and a responsive government could in fact help lower those costs. Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks for your response. For my part, if $4 gas is the price we pay for people that were formerly mired in staggering poverty rising out of it by the tens of millions every year, then that seems like a bargain to me. If they can afford fuel at this price, that means that they can also afford to educate their children, have enough to eat, pay for medical procedures that would have been unthinkable for them previously, stay warm in the winter, etc. I'm not convinced that one can explain the year-on-year price moves on this basis, much less that they can all afford fuel prices that are creating demand destruction in the US - but a higher baseline price as a consequence of increases in demand that outpace supply is perfectly logical. When it comes to a responsive government lowering real fuel prices - what specific actions would you like to see them take? From my perspective, these would have to come in one of two forms - increasing supply, or reducing demand. Is there anything that you think that the government could do that would drive efforts to conserve fuel, and enhance fuel/energy efficiency with more speed and force than higher prices? What would you like to see them do to increase supply? And finally - aren't the net affects of higher prices on US energy consumption an unalloyed positive from a left/environmentalist perspective? I thought this was what everyone arguing from that vantage point wanted to see happen.

This is at least lucid and sane. When it comes to waging wars - there has never been, and never will be a time when a sitting government will not have to make the case for prosecuting the said war in public. Anyone who thinks that Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, etc made the case for the wars that they declared in the absence of opposition or recriminations, before or afterwards, is dreaming. None of them had the luxury of knowing what the outcome would be in advance either. There's a large spectrum of possibilities between easy victory and devastating defeat every time you enter into a war. Poor intelligence, poor analysis, poor planning, poor decision making, poor execution - all fertile grounds for reasonable discussion when wars end "well," much less when they end on unfavorable terms, and none of which require introducing sinister and unproven elements or seance-worthy speculations about interior thoughts and motives into the conversation.

What is the "they" in question here. Do I believe that they knew in advance that there were no WMD's in Iraq, yet persisted in basing their arguments for invasion on this claim, which would invariably be disproven once they had unfettered access to every site in the country? No. In such a scenario, massive and disastrous consequences for their administration, the country, aren't a *contingency* in such a scenario - they're a dead certainty. The fact that a substantial portion of the electorate has chosen to frame major events in terms of baroque conspiracy theories that flatter their ideological precommittments - whether that be the invasion of Iraq, the 9/11 attacks, both recent presidential elections, etc - is quite worrisome.

From your perspective, what's the problem with $4/gallon gas, and what would you like the government to do to reduce the price?

Flesh this out for me a bit, so that I can connect the dots twirling around inside your head. For the sake of argument, let's accept your premise that George Bush knew that all of the statements that his administration was basing its arguments for invading Iraq upon were false. They also somehow knew that this would not undermine their efforts to secure the cooperation and participation of other governments, the Pentagon, Congress, etc, and that no one in the American government that is involved in the plot will subvert their conspiracy - at least not until the invasion had already occurred. What's the post-invasion plan? "Okay - so we invade based on information that we know is false, then after the invasion when there will be enormous pressure to validate our arguments with evidence, we'll say "Whoops" and that'll be the end of it." "Sounds good. Roger that." On one hand, you have these guys conducting the most extensive, intricately orchestrated conspiracy in the history of mankind before the war begins - and after the war commences, these same guys not only don't have a plan to sustain the conspiracy by planting false evidence, they spend a few hundred million dollars and several months documenting the absence of WMD's, etc? Were they calculating and diabolical enough to conduct such an elaborate fraud, yet also somehow (simultaneously) too stupid to forsee the immense damage that would occur to their administration, and that the nation, etc would sustain when the fraud was unmasked, as it would inevitably be?

So at $6-7 are BC taxpayers going to start wondering why millions were pissed away into the sea to sky instead of the EXISTING rail infrastructure? I heart the Sea-to-Sky expansion, but if we're talking fantasy here, high-speed-rail from Seattle-to-Whistler would be even better.

Actually, we're not quite there yet. Gas in Squamish is currently around $1.28/litre, or about $5.25/USgallon, and that's only happened very recently - like within the last month or so, so I wouldn't expect it to have transformed our lifestyles just yet. But the early effects are showing - sales of trucks and RVs are hurting badly, and smaller cars and/or hybrids are becoming the vehicles of choice. People are in fact starting to drive less: I saw a report this morning excerpted from a US DOT study that showed Americans' vehicle use has been down each month since Novemeber(?) compared to the same months previous year, a decline that hasn't been recorded since the 70s. There haven't been any seismic shifts in peoples' lifestyles yet, but we may be approaching a tipping point. There was a discussion on CBC Radio last week that I was unable to listen to all of, but the basic question was "at what point do we start to see demand destruction as gasoline gets more expensive?" I think they were talking about $1.50/litre as being an important psychological barrier. That roughly equates to the $6-$7 / gallon that's being discussed for US consumers. My hunch is that in the US, you start to see hints of demand destruction at anything over $3/gallon, the effects become more apparent at $3.50/gallon, and the seismic shifts commence once you cross $4/gallon for any length of time. I could be wrong, but my sense is that prices in Canada have been over $3(US)/gallon for quite some time. My other speculation was that Canadians just got used to these prices, and more or less wrote them off as a "price of doing business (e.g. living)" in Canada. At the tail end of this chain of unfounded speculation lay my assumption that the percentage of household expenditures on fuel was set at a higher baseline for folks in Canada, and that net disposable income per-capita was proportionately reduced (and no one seemed to mind too much, perhaps on the assumption (not sure if it's accurate or not), that they'd make up the difference in out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures. Anyhow - I think that for a variety of fairly nebulous reasons, the threshold for demand destruction is a fair-bit lower in the US. In any event, I doubt that you're sweating it too much in the Smart-Car, unless the number of people asking what kind of mileage you get, and where they can get one is getting annoying at this point. This is probably more controversial, but I'm of the opinion that when and if things get to the point that substantial numbers of Americans can't pay for their energy, their aren't many people around the world that will be able to either (even accounting for the decline of the dolero). At some point, demand destruction goes global - but I fear that when we can't afford to drive, there will be a couple of billion people that can't afford to eat. I'm also of the opinion that these changes in the price of energy are small potatoes relative to what we'd see under the most aggressive plans to curtail C02 emissions by fiat. Curtail emissions at a rate that exceeds gains in conservation/efficiency and you cut total power consumption, which will invariably lead to declines in total output - which won't hurt the guy in the 10,000lb Canyonero on 22 inch rims nearly as much as the guy trying to eke out an existence on $2.20 a day....

New handle = long_and_naked (unhedged)?

Gas been that expensive in Canada for quite some time, and neither the lifestyle nor the average fuel economy of their vehicles seems to be dramatically different at a result. People will still drive, likely in smaller cars - and have less disposable income if the high fuel prices persist. Different story for the world's poor. For them, higher energy prices will translate into much more significant hardships.

Doubt anyone over here: http://www.professorpaddle.com/ is anything but stoked about the weekend. Diversify, people.

I'm not sure how best to tackle the problem, but perhaps enforcing existing laws against public drunkenness, defecation, etc and making the "sentence" a visit to a supervised shower/bathroom facility, with the option to exchange their existing garments for a set of clean clothes from goodwill, and a compulsory visit with a social worker who gives them the run-down on treatment options, shelters, etc would be more cost effective than a set of robo-shitters. I expect that if the police got the message out that they'd be strictly enforcing the laws against such behavior, the population would divide into two subgroups. Those that will respond to help, and those who won't. I think that if they gave everyone that they arrested for such things the option of taking a free bus ticket to anywhere between 200 and 1000 miles away instead of another cycle through the delouse-and-lecture circuit, a fair number of the non-responders would clear out, and the offenses against basic public order and hygiene in the worst parts of Seattle would diminish dramatically.