foraker

These are the same people who, when election time rolls around, are lauded as being extremely clever and intelligent and rational human beings who will clearly see through all guile and subterfuge and make the right choices for both their own selves and their nation.....

Hey, buddy, the prez already told us that discussing/debating the war is helping terrists [sic]! Why do you want to see America destroyed?

JayB, sorry to disappoint but the answer is 'futures markets'. Maybe you can give us a dissertation on why the Republicans have effed up their chance at greatness so badly? I mean, they lusted after total power for years, they have it in spades, and they can't do anything except start misguided wars and sell our future off to the Chinese. WTF? Feel free to write a separate version on the failings of the Democrats while you're at it. At the very least, it'll keep you in school a few more years.

A route near Canberra, where I learned to climb, had a one line description: "Hideous if you're short".

Being a little sensitive there, aren't you, honey? Reminds me of this girl I worked with in Boston who thought I was being racist when I said 'Boy, it's a little nippy out today'....... Ah, Cambridge, MA....where girls won't go through doors if you hold them open because they think you're oppressing them.

From a comedian I once heard: "And once again, I refer to what's become the catchphrase of my marriage: 'Yes, dear. I'm sorry. I was wrong.'"

At the same time, the timing is more than a tad suspicious, coming on the even of an election that might (or might not) see a shifting in the balance of power in DC. Then there's the fact that they are trying to push it's use in schools. If it's not factually based, pushing it on the schools is just plain wrong. There are also a fair number of Republicans who are a bit taken aback by the 'liberties' taken with the facts.

And you, dear sir, have a serious case of rectal optolitis. Why Peter! You're just bumping up against the credentials of a critical, open-minded thinker - with a doctorate, no less! (As we're reminded so often.) Bow down you small, small man. Don't worry yourself so you poor jealousl little man. You can have one too! While I actually had to earn mine, you can send in a check and get one too. I get spam email about them all the time. I'll just start forwarding them all to you now and, soon, you can have a PhD from Bob's School of Quantum Mechanics or some other fine institution of higher learning. No need to spend your life toiling in some low end job with no social prestige. BTW, in case you hadn't noticed, it's possible to be quite clever without having a doctorate. It's just your unfortunate fate that you're not very good at it.

Forgive me, everything's just peachy....

Kind of puts Bush in a bind: does he kowtow to cheap labor business leaders or to the anti-immigration advocates? The interesting thing is that the environmental orgs haven't come out against illegal immigration since the impact of such is felt most strongly in the West where available resources such as, oh, water aren't in large supply. But that's the political cost when you forge alliances with other groups in order to gain strength.

More tired, overused rhetoric from a Kool-aid drinking DittoHead.

All those who ran out of benefits and are no longer statistics appreciate your enthusiasm. As do all those who went to college and are now working as waitresses or Wal-mart greeters.

Sorry to disappoint Fairweather but you're simply bumping up against my scientific credentials, not any inherent ideological bias. Whenever I read studies like this, especially when announced in 'press releases', they instantly raise more questions than not. Do I question anything that bumps up against my ideological mindset? Sure I do. You might have heard of it. It's often referred to as 'critical thinking'. You might try it sometime. Except for one instance, you've been pretty bull-headed about your opinions. Do you have some particular problems with the questions that I raised or do you simply have problems with the fact that I asked them? Anyone interested in seeing such a study validated would be interested in seeing such questions answered. I think you are being a trifle over-defensive. If a controversial study actually solidly proved, after much scrutiny, that bias indeed exists then I'd be the first one to quote it. At this point, the article hasn't even been published yet. The fact that it made it through peer review isn't 'proof' that the results are valid. Doesn't the fact that I'm interested in reading it and getting other's opinions indicate an open mind on the issue? I still think my point about the amount of bias indicated by the study is likely to be small even if, as claimed by the authors, it is 'statistically signficant'. That would depend on their survey methodolgies, their statistical methods, etc. Why don't you try something for me: try looking at evidence of your own biases a little more critically for a change. Try looking at this study a little more critically, ask some hard questions about it rather than just swallowing it because it validatees your prejudices. You wouldn't believe the things I have on my bookshelf that I buy because they purposely challenge my thinking (though I admit I will never own anything by Ann Coulter or her ilk, or Al Franken for that matter). You ought to try it sometime.

As a scientist, these stupid little press releases often raise more questions than they answer. I like how they say "Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman". It's funny, too, since Lieberman is widely viewed as Bush's liberal lap dog. That's basically saying most outlets are centrist or slightly right of center.... The other fun point is noting that NPR is not nearly as liberal as the right claims it to be. Of course, if this study has bias to the right, that makes NPR even more centrist/slightly conservative in reality (mattp is vindicated on this one) How did they "compensate for disproportionate representation"? They're counting the Drudge Report as news? It's odd that one of their primary metrics is references to thinktanks in articles and in speeches. Since the right controls Congress and the Whitehouse, there's no real reason for conservative think tanks to be quoted. Typically, the news is looking for reactions to lawmakers decisions. Thus, one would indeed expect that given the current balance of power in DC for the last 10 years, it's not surprising that reporters are seeking commentators from opposing views, in this case the left in order to provide 'balance'. In my view, this is kind of a zero sum game. The mention of a conservative piece of legislation and comment by the sponsor should balance the comment by some liberal think tank. Anyway, these details aren't given. Perhaps they were more sophisticated. Still, if true, the numbers don't indicated that the media is as strongly liberal as the right is constantly trying to impute. "If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," Yes, all equally bad. :-P It'd be interesting to see their statistics and experimental protocols. Did they have multiple people evaluating the same article in order to check for observer bias? If anyone finds it and reads it, let us know.

Gee, Jens, you forgot "Buxom blonde nympho with a bad memory".....

Irrespective of the Plamegate story, quoting a WaPo oped is pretty much the same as quoting an apologist for the Bush administration.

You mean, like the Cato Institute or Brookings or the Heritage Foundation? Hmmm.....

That's a great pickup line? Did you get laid? Who needs pickup lines when you're married? For that matter, who needs pick up lines? Probably only those without any real conversation skills. Anyway, do you really dream about getting laid by a software engineer? My condolences....

My comment to a cashier after watching her deal with four goobers in front of me: "High school dropouts or software engineers....sometimes it's hard to tell the difference isn't it?"

Meanwhile, America has changed her alert levels from "Run With Scissors" to "If You Aren't Guilty, Then You Have Nothing To Worry About...Maybe".

This from the man who buys the deep biogenic origin of oil...

The ability of a planetismal/planetary sized body to become molten would depend on the mass infall rate (energy to melt things, depends on attractor size on availability of impactors) versus the rate that energy could radiate away from it's surface (cooling). If the infall rate were 'too small', a planetismal would not have to be 'spherical' per se, just lumpy. Fortunately, in the early solar system, infall rates were high and proto-planets were likely surrounded by an insulating gas/particle cloud. This would have helped the silicate planets to be initially molten (even without it, they probably would have melted simply because of the high infall rates) . The icy planets would have no need to be actually melted, I think, as two effects would help to 'melt the ice'. First, you have impactor energy. That should simply melt things upon impact which would then seek an equilibrium with the geoid. Second, as the planet grows, the internal temperature of the planet will rise due to the effects of compressibility. I'm not sure, but this is probably too weak to initiate anything but very slow overturning in the ice mantle. For things like the Jovian moons, you also have things like tidal forces from the main planet providing energy to melt things.

I got an email here at home about how the SWAT team was outside my office building in Pioneer Sq and that we should 'be aware' of that when we left......as if the dudes in black camo with automatic weapons and the snipers wouldn't give it away.... Good thing I left early.

Let me guess: Your job is to write those pithy little 'introductions' to all those horrid displays of 'publically funded 'art''. You know, those ones that look like a someone nailed a bunch of Coke cans to a rotating metal pole and then you write some blurb about how it represents 'the essential organic tension between modern technology and lost ancient goddess cultures blah blah blah'. Meanwhile, you and the 'artist' are sitting at some spendy cafe (after picking up your checks from the Publically Funded Art Dept) bemoaning modern American culture. Nice work if you can get it.

Maybe if they avoid using the word 'subluxation' and don't have any posters up showing the relationship between nerves and your ability to ride a fixie or eat a peanut butter sandwich.