j_b

I find entertaining how "freedom" is claimed to be central to the arguments of both the extreme pro and con regulations points of view. On the one hand, the anti-tax types fuel the regulation fire with the "not on my tax" demagoguery and on the other hand, we have the "climbing is free" types who say that it should never be regulated no matter the circumstances. I figure some people seamlessly switch camp according to the issue at hand.

Reagan's legacy is more than just the War on Drugs: the war about drugs

More likely that Clear Channel would take many kinds of money right now: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN0746283620091007 because, in the past they refused plenty of ads from people ready to pay. Mostly from progressives of course. A few examples: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/04/votevets-censored/ http://www.ipi.org/ipi/ipipressreleases.nsf/8c02a55cef2c77558625763a007650d3/bd0a05691caa09088625763f005a2ffd?OpenDocument http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/nyregion/12billboard.html The notion that corporate media will run anything that makes money is a myth.

Too late dude. I already got the job.

Not only does the neo-liberal thatcherite want developing nations to ride it out but since he belongs to the church of the free market he shoves externalized costs under the rug hoping nobody will notice. "The reason we use carbon-based energy is not the political power of the oil lobby or the coal industry. It is because it is far and away the cheapest source of energy at the present time and is likely to remain so, not forever, but for the foreseeable future." What about the 1 trillion dollars and 2 more trillions we just committed to controlling Iraq's oil reserves? or the 100's of billions per year in environmental/resource destruction and human health factor involved in coal production?

Well, at least, Santa has the scoop on the greatest scam of all time:

if you expected some extreme display of macho posturing, you were bound to be disappointed.

Wow Jake, where is that image from?

Fear-mongering about change is strategic to right-wing politics. This is what PP has been saying about me for years, in the meantime he merely supported numerous wars of aggression that probably killed millions. Another personal attack by the always sweet and charming J_B.....but Right, let's not tell the truth just to be sweet and charming until next time PP decides to red-bait a progressive to cover up his support for warmongering and corporatocracy. "pretty please, let it be a low turnout so that our 25% dead-enders can win"

Fear-mongering about change is strategic to right-wing politics. This is what PP has been saying about me for years, in the meantime he merely supported numerous wars of aggression that probably killed millions.

I want that job! Best trundling ever.

Happy solstice PP. I am sure you'll find a pair that fits for your fingering endeavors: I also hear that Birch Society membership is highly prized among tea-baggers, and if you haven't joined yet perhaps you'll get the spray crew to spring a dime or two.

No internal consistency is needed in wingnutia. ANything will do to obstruct change, seed confusion, and protect corporatocracy.

Arguing with you people is like getting kicked in the balls...in the brain. PP only wants you to "educate" him and "elevate the discourse" when you answer his regurgitation of conservatives talking points.

Spare us the drivel PP. The only ideas he needed for Copenhagen were to commit to reducing significantly GHG emissions by 2020 and to funding clean technology transfers toward developing nations (nothing "new" in there). He simply didn't want to do that, similarly to previous administrations.

Nothing in these polls suggest he has lost the center. The polls suggest his support from independents is decreasing. Lo and behold, there are many independents on the left as shown by many polls such as this one:"Meanwhile, if the public option and Medicare buy-in are added, 58 percent of people support the idea. The number of Republican supporters drops to 22 percent, but independent support rises to 57 percent and Democratic support to a whopping 88 percent." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/18/poll-health-care-reform-w_n_396990.html Nope. Obama's appeal was because he told people he was going to fight for single payer healthcare, to re-regulate wall-street, to end wars, to end the revolving door between gov and business in washington, to end torture, etc ...

Depending on your purpose, it's more or less useful to compare casualty rates on Washington to that of mountains without road access.

Besides wishful thinking by right-wingers and corporate media pundits, there is no evidence that Obama is losing the center. Not only is there no evidence of it, but there is no reason for it since Obama hasn't done anything to rattle the center. He compromised way too much in the name of bi-partisanship. Bi-partisanship that isn't attainable with the party of obstruction no matter what Obama does. The only way Democrats are going to win in 2010 and beyond (assuming the wingnuts don't split up first), is by governing resolutely to the left and giving to the 2/3 of Americans who wants progressive policy a real reason to go vote.

not too worry. When thuggery is one's entire political tradition, it is certain to eventually feature prominently in one's interventions. linky And PP to regurgitate quasi meaningless numbers spewed by Murdock's media empire. According to the poll, 2% more of the people polled would want a republican majority than in March (39% in March versus 41% in December), and 5% more than last October. The margin of error in the poll is 3%. But, hey, keep "catapulting" the propaganda, PP.

The problem with computing death rate with number of attempts in the denominator is that some ascent take part of a day (Hood) while other take over 2 days (Rainier). Amount of time spent on the mountain per ascent is probably the most important variable besides difficulty (technical + weather) in determining frequency of accidents. Hood should thus be expected to have significantly fewer accidents than Rainier (considering they have similar number of attempts per year), and according to the numbers I cited in an other thread it appears to be the case.

could they be proportionally equal? According to wikipedia, Hood had 130 climbing fatalities in 100 years, while Rainier has 3 climbing fatalities per year. So if we believe the preceeding and assuming that the number of summit attempts was similar throughout time, the death rate is ~twice as great on Rainier. Considering the difference in difficulty, the numbers tend to make sense?

What do activists think they are going to accomplish by breaking into the summit? Do they really think delegates can be harassed or intimidated into making an agreement? Or is this just another act in the political theatre? It's political theater meant to show that Copenhagen is political theater. Now that the pretense of a far-reaching conference has been established and that power players are ready to agree to do next to nothing (in term of what is needed), the rabble is asked to get out of dodge (as in ngo's have been refused entrance to the conference)

Oh boy, the Institute for Economic Analysis tells us that climate scientists committed fraud and the closet denialists are buying it. Why do we need climate scientists when economists can do everything so well. I mean just look at the state of the economy. Stop "catapulting" corporate propaganda PP

Rainier has 12,000 attempts per year. What about other mtns worldwide? Are there more accidents on Hood than Rainier?

White males already are a minority.