tvashtarkatena

Most folks would describe it as pathological. Close family you got there. Eeeeeewwwwwww.

Well, aren't you a sweetheart.

Even better. 25' deep footings might cost extra, though, as would 12' posts and bracing able to withstand a hurricane's tidal surge.

You KILL YOURSELF for money? I would think that would definitely be piece work.

When you cheat on someone, it's basically a wholly selfish act. a) you're escaping from resolving the problems in your primary relationship b) you're really disrespecting the person you're cheating on, because you don't think enough of them give them the choice as to whether to accept your cheating or walk. You're not treating them as an equal in the partnership. If it's an act of revenge, then why does the cheater stay in the primary relationship at all? And what kind of respect does that show for the (new) person the cheater is using to inflict revenge? Open relationships, where all parties are consensual, are one thing. But cheating is symptom of being unable to put another person before yourself; a condition which prohibits any long term relationship from succeeding in a satisfying way. Justifying such behavior and the damage it does to the person who is supposedly closest to you 'because a significant percentage of other people are doing it' further indicates a person who has not done the work of establishing exactly what their own values are.

What's 'natural' may be more of a philosophical rather than scientific discussion, but studies on long term relationships indicate that the most successful (i.e., long lasting and satisfying for both partners) relationships are built on a foundation of trust (among other things). They also indicate that having multiple partners erodes this trust, and thus the chances for the relationships longevity and satisfaction. It's certainly natural for people to be attracted to other outside their relationship, but it's also just as natural not to act on such impulses and instead choose loyalty to one's long term partner over an attractive outsider. It seems as though people in this society who have multiple, simultaneous relationships tend to also have shorter term, less satisfying relationships. We evolved as tribal creatures, so it seems natural that we would prefer these longer term, more satisfying relationships over shorter term, less stable ones. Stable, satisfying relationships with more than two people may occur, but they are rare. As for cultures that accept polygamy, they all seem to favor men over women. Saudi Arabia, hard core Mormons...I can't think of a culture that allows this practice that isn't male dominated. Perhaps the more egalitarian a culture is, the more monogamous it becomes, because this results in the greatest satisfaction of both of the sexes.

yes, clearly we should turn to the RealWorld and MTV for case studies on sociology and answering the most profound questions of human nature. Um, that was the joke, KKK. Looks like ya didn't get it.

You've already posted the "self congratulatory flourish" line. Hint: it doesn't get more clever with repetition. Furthermore, I have no "centralize authority given carte blanche" fantasy. You seem to be having trouble coming up with your own cogent arguments today; perhaps you shouldn't divert so much of your limited resources in formulating mine.

TRASHTALKINGTINA KNOWS WHAT IS BEST FOR ALL OF US AND HOW WE MUST LEAD OUR LIVES FULFILLING OUR MORAL OBLIGATIONS TO THE PLANET AND OUR FELLOW MAN BEFORE WE DIE AND CEASE TO EXIST. HE KNOWS THE PERFECT MIX OF CONSUMPTION AND LIFESTYLE THAT WORKS FOR EVERY HUMAN ON THE PLANET AND THIS KNOWLEDGE IS INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT SO DON'T EVEN TRY TO ARGUE WITH HIM. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. Stop ignoring me.

Yes, I agree that we should react to disasters rather than plan for their prevention. This is obviously the more prudent and less expensive course of action. I also agree that it's all or nothing. Unless the solution is GUARANTEED TO BE 100% EFFECTIVE, not 99%, not 98%, IT IS NOT WORTH ATTEMPTING. MITIGATION IS NOT AN OPTION! As I said, we're not rational actors. Thanks for proving yet another of my points.

"But, but...JayB's text books say...."

Yes, he's responsible for where he lives. However, he, like thousands of other homeowners, attempted to ameliorate the risk he assumed by paying exorbinant insurance premiums. This otherwise rational decision-making was corrupted by an underlying false assumption that the insurance would actually cover those risks. Fair enough. Again, no disrespect to family intended. I agree that USAA's argument was specious, even ludicrous, in the face of what actually happened. USAA is probably the best insurance company out there in making good on their promises (from personal experience). If THEY'RE balking, imagine how shittier insurance companies are behaving. I do think it would make more sense to shift much of cost from these extra insurance premiums to better construction for the environment that homes must withstand (and stronger regulation as to where a home can be built in the first place). This would result in folks paying for their risky location up front as part of the home price, rather than throwing their money away on something they'll never get back from insurance companies. It would also make them think twice about purchasing in such a location in the first place. "Oh, BTW, local code requires that your home be built on stilts. That'll be an extra $100,000, please."

Nope. That's not a list of names. As I thought, you've just made this up. Prove me wrong.

This is one of your most ridiculous proclaimations to date. Electing to blow our national wad on Iraq constitutes 'allocating resources in a manner than favors the most probable'. People will more often blow their finite resources on shit they don't need; individually and nationally. How about my new Esplanade? 194 billion more for Iraq? No problem! That is why both individuals and this country as a whole face an increasingly worrisome financial future. If your statement was true; if we were truly 'rational actors', we'd be sinking as much money as we could into stopping climate change, and the associated consequences we are now experiencing. Clearly, we are not.

Prove that statement. Names, please.

With all due respect and sympathy to your father, it was partially his responsibility for choosing to live so close to the ocean in a hurricane prone area.

Thank you for driving my main point home. Our entire infrastructure is designed for a very specific climate, and that infrastructure is not at all robust. One slight change in that climate, particularly a dryer one, spells society wide disaster. As this and many other examples (Southern California, anyone? Insurance for you Florida home, sir?) illustrate, the human and financial costs of climate change, which we are just now beginning to enjoy, far outweigh even the most draconian regulation we puny humans could ever dream up. To compare our power to inflict widespread misery by even the most misguided democratic policy making to Mother Nature's is as conceited as it is ridiculous.

THe best earthquake insurance is, if your home is severely damaged in such an event, burn it down. The best insurance is buy a home that's survived a couple of major earthquakes intact, and retrofit it. Otherwise, good luck collecting on your policy after any major natural disaster these days. Incredibly, my 1911 chimney survived the last earthquake. It lost a couple of bricks. When I went up there to check it out, all of the mortar had been reduced to sand by the elements. Rather than replace it with an uglier than hell manufactured chimney, I rebuilt it from the roofline up (the mortar lower down was fine), reducing it down from a rectangle to a square cross section to reduce some of its weight. That was WAY more work than I thought it would be.

Say fuck bush all you want, but don't ever say fuck america. If you don't like America, then you should go someplace you'll be happier. i think he was "quoting" Cuba... For once I say thanks.....I was quoting Cuba. I love America. Gosh, I do too!

I live green in a very high density building. My penthouse view of the environment I'm much doing more than my fair share to preserve is astounding. Almost as good as from my Boxter, which I drive only to and from the coop, of course. From up here, I can see all the little people far, far below; respirating, consuming, and just plain being wrong. What a gorgeous day it is! be green or be lean manziers all the way! Look who's talkin', Tubby Butterman.

I live green in a very high density building. My penthouse view of the environment I'm much doing more than my fair share to preserve is astounding. Almost as good as from my Boxter, which I drive only to and from the coop, of course. From up here, I can see all the little people far, far below; respirating, consuming, and just plain being wrong. What a gorgeous day it is! be green or be lean You're askin' for a bitch tit slappin', buddy.

I live green in a very high density building. My penthouse view of the environment I'm much doing more than my fair share to preserve is astounding. Almost as good as from my Boxter, which I drive only to and from the coop, of course. From up here, I can see all the little people far, far below; respirating, consuming, and just plain being wrong. What a gorgeous day it is!

I wouldn't rely on Grandma Rainbow's naturopathic treatment. If this is a new infection, you'll want to kill this stuff if you can, because it can do very bad things to you if you don't. The web has a bunch of stuff. A sample: BTW: I took Flagyl to get rid of mine. The most common treatment for giardiasis is metronidazole (Flagyl) for 5-10 days. It eradicates the Giardia more than 85% of the time, but it often causes gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea and a metallic taste as well as dizziness and headache. Despite its effectiveness, metronidazole is not approved by the FDA in the US for treatment of giardiasis. The only drug approved for treating giardiasis in the U.S. is furazolidone (Furoxone) for 7-10 days. It is approximately as effective as metronidazole. Tinidazole is available outside the U.S. and is highly effective at treatinggiardiasis(>90%). It also can be given as a single dose and is well tolerated. Quinacrine is very effective for treating giardiasis but is no longer available in the U.S. Paromomycin and albendazole, though effective, are less effective than other treatments. Occasionally, treatment fails to eradicate Giardia. In such cases, the drug may be changed or a longer duration or higher dose may be used. Combination therapy also may be effective (e.g., quinacrine and metronidazole).

So it was this environment that's responsible for your oft-stated desire to nationalize a massive sector of the economy and supplant voluntary interactions with control by a massive centralized bureaucracy, grant the government control over everyone's health care, and your desire to have the same entity micromanage all facets of human activity beyond simple respiration that generate C02 emissions? I realize that your signature debate style is to state your opponents position for them, so I'll give you some special treatment. Requiring reasonable fleet mileage standards, synchronizing stop lights, providing tax incentives for energy efficient vehicle/home/appliance purchases, building out public transportation, regulating industrial emmissions, and other government actions hardly constitute "micromanaging all facets of human activity beyond simple respiration". Providing a standardized single payer system for health care, with the amortization of health care risk for the individual, the ability to switch jobs and maintain continuous coverage, and the ENORMOUS bargaining advantage for drug purchases that would come with it, is a far cry from granting the government 'control over everyone's health care'. Similarly, the government licences and regulates businesses, but does not actually manage (or micromanage) them. As usual, you're grossly overstating your case. Oh, and while we're on that subject, how is that 'cost of regulating CO2 emissions verses the cost of doing nothing' analysis coming along?

Dang. All those golf courses, gettin deep fried. sniff.