tvashtarkatena

He's off to a great start: Tony Rezco William Ayers ACORN Three non-scandals fabricated by the McCain campaign that no one payed any attention to. Yes, yes I think your post supports my statement nicely.

I smell consolation pregnancy Dibs Actually, the second I heard that voice, I nearly clubbed my computer to death. "supposebly". I can only imagine that hubby keeps a pair of sound attenuators next to the bed.

I smell consolation pregnancy Dibs

If she's stays true to her upbringing, Trig could well become a candidate for VP.

Jebus, I've been climbing with a sub-30 year old? I feel so...dirty. Try not drinking on New Year's Eve for a change. I can guarantee that the first 24 hours of the New Year will go much, much better. Nice one, sneaking in a little side post about the new GF, BTW. Oval went well, or is this a new release?

At least Obama will set a higher ethical tone than McCain, who has already been involved in more than his fair share of dirty bidness and doing about faces on key moral issues. The tone the president sets, regardless of how jaded you are, does make a significant difference, as the last 8 years has clearly proven.

Rob, Just walk into the courtroom, rip open your jacket to reveal a belt bristling with cordite, and yell "You wanna piece a this, motherfuckers????!!!!" I guarantee you they'll forget all about the ticket.

I must a victim of arrested development. Never got into guns, although I have enjoyed shooting a few, but I still like da woah-manz.

Let's see...guns, or babes? Guns...or...babes? Can someone help me out here?

National polls today: Poll,Obama's Lead(%),Margin of error(+/-%) CNN, 0, 4 WaPost, 6, 4 LATimes, 3, 3 Fox, 3, 4 Newsweek, 0, 4 Pew, 3, 2 WSJ, 3, 4 API, 9, 4 Gallup, 5, 2 NYT/CBS, 5, 4 Time, 5, 4 USAToday, -4, 4

"This is your captain speaking. We've reached our cruising altitude of 35,000 feet..."

From a percentage of overall human population standpoint, the record is hardly 'replete'. Nearly all societies, even very small populations, fought with each other. In any case, I hardly think Homo Erectus was 'capitalistic', yet this creature was responsible for driving large populations of large game to extinction in a relatively short period of time. Similarly, the plains indians hunted buffalo by driving large numbers over a cliff and picking the best few from the top of the heap. Not exactly living in balance. I'm not saying that other human societies didn't/don't fight with each other or that past human populations didn't exploit their environment (sometimes unsustainably), only that catastrophic convulsions in the environment and the kind of "total war" we're seeing are greater in scale, scope and rapidity than any we've seen in human history. And this period coincides with an historically specific kind of political economy. It's not evolutionary. That would simply beg the question "what species would develop such an obviously destructive strategy?" Nearly all species. The only difference between us and other species is that we have few natural checks to our population growth. In large numbers, human behave very much like bacteria; we eat all the food available in shit in our environment until we can't take it anymore. Desertification due to game driving fires and overgrazing, deforestation, overhunting, soil destruction, pollution, and resource depletion have been going on since humans first began aggregating in numbers. Many large societies have collapsed as a result. It's what we do. That is not to say that that is what we should be doing, however. You've used another basic rhetorical mistake in your arguments; that of equating human nature (our most primal attributes of greed, and altruism, for that matter, which is most certainly a result of evolution) with actual behavior. We are all responsible to resist our more destructive instincts and act in a manner that leaves things better than we found them, and governments should act to limit behavior that is degrades public welfare. I always find it odd that those who place a premium on "higher thought" and science are so quick to revert to a crude biological determinism. The complexity and diversity of human societies resists this kind of reduction. You're making up your own counterarguments here. Have fun. Nope, not saying that at all. Only that capitalist society is unique and that its features (in particular, reward for greedy and avaristic behavior) shouldn't be abstracted to the level of "human nature". The horrors perpetrated in the 20th century alone should make one pause to take another look at this statement. So, Switzerland and Ireland are not humane societies today because Nazi Germany was naughty? Another failed rhetorical device, one that KKK and Co. uses often. Communist and fascist nations participating in 20th century wars just as enthusiastically as capitalist nations. Industrialization made such wars possible; but that can be achieved under any economic system. Capitalism doesn't really seem very unique to me; it does seem ubiquitous, even in the most communist of countries, however, and therefore probably something that comes very naturally to way humans have evolved to interact.

From a percentage of overall human population standpoint, the record is hardly 'replete'. Nearly all societies, even very small populations, fought with each other. In any case, I hardly think Homo Erectus was 'capitalistic', yet this creature was responsible for driving large populations of large game to extinction in a relatively short period of time. Similarly, the plains indians hunted buffalo by driving large numbers over a cliff and picking the best few from the top of the heap. Not exactly living in balance. Humans evolved 'by nature' as social predators. We are fundamentally tribal by nature, and that has nothing at all to do with what kind of economic system we live under. There is little controversy in the anthropological record concerning that conclusion. Modern humans certainly retain some, if not many, of the characteristics of our predatory forebearers, and modern human behavior, across virtually all societies, confirms that. Regarding your 'only in capitalism' statement, are you implying that feudal, imperial, dictatorial, communist, or theocratic societies were/are somehow more humane than our own? Uh...OK. It seems to me that the most humane societies in history include today's first world, capitalistic nations. To say that 'CAPITALISM IS BAD' is as simplistic, and wrong, as saying that 'REGULATION IS BAD'.

That's how they spel it on Krypton.

Tv's a factor, but I don't subscribe to the common assumption that it is the root of all evil. There is more availability of a full range of media and viewpoints than ever before. People choose their media, not the other way around. Before the Iraq war, fully half the country thought it was bullshit; the fact that Saddam didn't have any WMD was well documented and the information publically available. People either chose to pay attention or believe the President, who, surprise of surprises, turned out to be a fucking liar. The question is, why do people chose one way or the other? I think it's due to a normal genetic variation in large populations. About half of any given population will tend towards conservative thought and a desire to either return to the past or maintain the status quo; they're wired with a basic discomfort with unanswered questions and an environment of change. The other half, the liberal side, is more comfortable with, or even excited by, such an environment. Every society's population exhibits this spectrum, although shifted one way or the other by an overall cultural bias. Everyone seeks information that will reinforce their world view and make them feel like they're more on track. Conservatives seek FOX news; it's like a lullaby that sings them to sleep, all safe and warm. America, the world's largest cradle. Fuck Yeah!Progressives tear through Common Dreams like predatory birds looking for capitalistic maggots. Nader has the answer! Ron Paul has the answer! Libertarians watch the meth channel. A certain percentage of a given population is conservative. A certain percentage likes to be vomited on. That's just the way things are.

The long term goal of our military (often advertised when I was in the service) was the ability to fight two major conflicts somewhere around the globe at once. We'll, we're now spending half a trillion a year, about 40% of the world's total arms expenditures, and 59% of our discretionary federal budget on the military, and we got what we wanted: Two major conflicts in remote parts of the world simultaneously. What wasn't part of the stated goal was losing them both, despite such a massive waste of our national treasure. It's true, Russia, and any other country in the world, can do what it wants without any real fear of retribution from a weakened United States. I don't view this as a bad thing at all; we've been assholes who have proven that we cannot wield power responsibly or wisely, so a weaker United States is good both Americans, who may even learn a lesson from all of this some day, and for the rest of the world, who pretty much wishes we would get back on our meds.

It depends on the job market, demand for credit (interest rates), and other factors. It seems like both interest rates (due to our exploded debt) and inflation (due to the world running out of cheap energy and a growing demand for stuff from an exploding world Middle class) will result in more renters and fewer buyers, even as prices continue to drop, which would probably mean a greater concentration of real estate holdings among fewer people. It might also mean a degradation of neighborhoods, given that owners tend to improve things more than renters.

Natural human tendency? This statement borders on a kind of religious faith (especially in this country), something I wouldn't really expect from you. Given the extinction of large fauna on every continent soon after the arrival of humans or their precursors, coupled with a long history of human exploitation of resources and other humans, a relatively objective observation, I'd say that greed and avarice are a natural human tendency that requires little faith, wouldn't you? Just calling it like I see it.

Cool. We've got a jumar race course, then.

Deregulation really got kicked off under Reagan. This resulted in the Savings and Loan crisis (inwhich McCain played such a dubious role as part of the Keating 5, along with his wife, a major Keating investor). Clinton reestablished some controls; Bush rolled enough of those back to set the country up for the current debacle. The GOP has been adept at selling simple, uncomplicated maxims to its constituents so that it can cater to its hyper wealthy business base. REGULATION IS BAD is one. Regulation, of course, is neither bad nor good, of course; it depends on the policy's intent and effectiveness, and unintended consequences. Regulation is certainly necessary to protect public health and safety, the environment, prevent monopolization, exploitation of labor, and a host of other ills that unfettered capitalism has wreaked upon the American public in our history. In short, regulation is necessary to check the natural human tendency towards greed and avarice, you know, what McCain's been talking about (without, of course, mentioning any increase in regulation. His plan is one of 'voluntary' greed reduction). Such ideas are a vestigial holdover from the 19th century, a time devoid of any regulation. Price gouging railroad monopolies medicines full of cocaine, opiates, and alcohol, tainted meat, 12 hour x 7 day work weeks, dead coal miners, the permanent destruction of America's natural resources, and child labor were the result of such an unfettered price mechanism. That conservative wing of the GOP never went away; it's alive and well, and still needs to be contained, same as a century ago.

We'll need another set of jumars, (complete with biners, slings, etc) then. I'll bring one pair. Anyone else? Racers can use there own, of course, but we should have a pair for those who don't have them.

If prices come down to the point where mortgages can be covered by rents, they will probably stabilize. At that point the supply in excess of what is wanted for primary residences will be purchased by real estate investors, if for no other reason than to park their money somewhere that's not the stock market. There's still a lot of people out there wondering where to safely put their money.

One is perfect. I'll set up two half rope length lines for people to go mano a mano on. I don't think it'll be too hard on the rope; no Tiblocs!

Does anyone have an oldish 11mm rope (not so old that it'll snap) they wouldn't mind a bunch of wankers jumaring on?

And the idea that people are somehow less careful in the wilderness because they can always call in for a free rescue is absolute shite. People are better prepared, educated, and equipped for wilderness travel than ever before. There are more calls for rescue because: There are more people now (fucking duh). There are more cell phones with which to make the calls. These are made not by alpinists, who are usually out of cell phone range, but by people in situations closer to urban areas; stuck 4x4s, etc, lost hikers on Tiger, etc. Perhaps we should charge for the right to carry a cell phone in the backcountry.