tvashtarkatena

You have the same liability insurance requirement as for a car in Washington state. Gotta carry that card. As for comp, if you've paid for the bike, that's your decision. If you take out a loan, your lender will probably require it. I have an 800 cc bike, mind you. Don't know about mopeds, etc. My personal, not-even-close-to-expert recommendation would be to get at least a 400 cc machine if you want to tussle with any freeway driving. Another thing that hasn't been discussed yet about motorcycles is maintenance. Three features will greatly reduce the art of motorcycle maintenance: Shaft drive (rather than chain), fuel injection (rather than carberator), and non-adjustable valves. These, of course, are generally available on newer and more expensive bikes. Not a huge deal, depending on your personality, but something to consider.

Uh, just to be clear, I accused others of apathy, not Jim. Here's why: Jim made a simple announcement of a planned protest regarding US sponsored torture and suspension of due process: a pretty important issue. The announcement looked like it was mostly cut and pasted. Some folks apparently read the language as over the top, and immediately attacked him for it from what I thought was the comfort of their armchairs. I called bullshit on that. Whether or not you think protest is an effective way to change things, its a damn important constitutional right that has played a major role in some pretty positive change in this country. Pissing all over the right to protest is, to me, like pissing all over the American flag, and that, well, pissed me off. It's interesting that when the Right gets pissed, they're called 'tough', but when the Left gets pissed, they're called 'self righteous'. Well, I consider myself a (true) conservative, so I'm not sure where I stand in the American political spectrum anymore...probably somewhere out beyond the orbit of Pluto or Sedna or whatever that new non-planet is called. I do have a problem with apathy, but I don't have one bit of a problem with folks choosing to make different contributions than I do. I also have a problem with criticizing somebody just because their trying to make a difference. That's not self righteous, that's just trying to get involved. Finally, I have a problem with reading intent or content in someone's message that just isn't there. If you're going to respond to somebody, emotionally, factually, or otherwise, read what they actually wrote. Pidgeonholing somebody with the Leftie/Rightie schtick is like trying to carve The David with a chainsaw.

That creature that stares back at me from the other side of my medicine cabinet. What is he? What does he want?

The statistics on vehicle accident safety contradict this anecdotal experience. SUV's are actually less safe than midsized autos, for three primary reasons. 1) They roll more. A lot more. Rolling is one of the primary causes of serious injury or death in auto accidents (assuming airbags and seat belts are in use). 2) They are not unibody construction, and so transfer more of the kinetic energy of impact directly to the occupants through their stiffer chassis rather than absorbing it (by crumpling). This is particularly a problem in side impacts, where restraints don't help as much and side to side neck injuries are common. 3) They are less maneuverable and take longer to stop, and so cannot avoid accidents as adeptly as most cars. Back to motorcycles, the key to safety is anticipation. Good motorcyclist must always expect that other vehicles are going to do something stupid. This is particularly true with SUVs and trucks (on this my motorcycling friends unanimously agree), which are too often piloted by the most aggressive and/or least attentive drivers on the planet. It's true that you don't want to go down on a motorcycle. But motorcycles have several advantages, too. First, the anticipation required to ride a bike makes you a safer driver of any vehicle. It's a different, more attentive way of driving, and its definitely not for everybody. Second, with their faster acceleration and narrower profile, you can avoid often avoid accidents more adeptly than in a larger vehicle. If, however, a motorcycle seems more dangerous (than climbing?) than you're comfortable with, then early to mid 90's Honda Civics and (gulp) Geo Metros, get gas mileage in the high 30s, low 40s...if you can find one that isn't ready to give up its ghost!

Excellent. That'll make the job of those of us who are doing something this upcoming election that much easier.

Ditto. 45 to 60 mpg. Easy to park. Cheap insurance. Carpool lanes. WAY more fun than a car. Less resources used in their manufacture. Used bikes are cheap ($1500-3K should get you a decent one) depending on what your looking for. You can get a great new one, powerful enough for the freeway, for $5K-8K. PS: Whimp out and get an electric vest for winter. You won't regret it.

...does this mean there are straight cowboys?

When my friends bring up the subject of media bias, my response is "who cares?". All media, by nature, have some bias embodied in both what they choose to report and how they choose to report it. Any human endeavor does. I try to resist my natural tendency towards being a dumb-ass by triangulating news from those sources that maintain high journalistic standards. These publications (not much on TV that fits this category) vett their stories, frown upon reporter opinion, go in depth, offer a array of viewpoints on their Op Ed pages, and don't dumb down their stories so your cat can understand it. The quality of a publication, however, doesn't absolve the reader from consuming it with a critical eye. The US is the best place on earth to find any kind of news you want, from Al Jazeera to the New Republic. Ultimately, it's the consumer's choice as to how well informed they want to be. Having said this, I think we should do two things regarding media: 1) Enforce a resonable journalistic standard (for news) for media that control a public resource via an FCC license. Note that cable doesn't apply here. 2) Protect our free press at all costs. Without it, we'd never know WHAT our government is doing! The current wiretapping program has targeted foreign journalists, several of which have filed suit. Not a good democratic precedent. Trying to 'reform' media is a bottomless rathole. Buyer beware. An activist's time would be much better spent on more specific and doable projects, such as getting out the vote, or, of course, spraying on this forum.

Uh, sorry, I hit the ignore button on Fairweather when he started ranting about commie puppetmasters...after pulling the 9v battery from my kookiness alarm. He's just here to recreationally liberal bash...without Ann Coulter's cleavage. Boring. I suspect that what he really needs is a hug. At least Underworld makes an attempt to defend the administration's actions by inserting some doubt into our assertions of impropriety. That, and he can sort of remember what we're talking about. What strikes me here is that all of this speculation would be removed if we would just return to good, old fashioned, effective law enforcement based on constitutional due process. Its a much admired and much copied system that works. Then professionals would be figuring all this stuff out for us, and we'd be happy in our beds knowing that our constitution was not being used by our-less-than- trustworthy leadership to line the cages at Quantanamo. So far, no one on this thread has convincingly stated why that would not be a good idea.

Man, you need to get back on your Ritalin. Your ADD is preventing you from staying on the thread again. OK, let me spoon feed it to you again. My argument has always been for A) Due process and B) against torture. Pretty simple. The fact that a few detainees were released after being abducted and tortured as irrelevant to the these arguments. Second, the US has not admitted to making any mistakes regarding Mr. El Masri (or any of the other mistaken torture victims, for that matter). It has not even admitted to abducting him. That is why he has filed suit: to obtain that admission and an apology. And finally, if you'll actually read Mr. El Masri's account, you'll see that Americans were complicit and present every step of the way from his abduction onward. The fact that an Afghan or other foreign national actually inserts the broomhandle up a detainees anus (as happened in the case of Mr. El Masri), does not excuse the American operatives and policy makers who arranged for and ordered such treatment in the first place. Extraordinary Rendition is an American policy.

Back to the original question, my understanding is that gas prices have gone down due to three factors: 1) Seasonal demand (predictable). 2) Moderate new discoveries in proven oil reserves 3) Faster than predicted return of refinery capacity after Katrina. I'm not sure a poll from a population where nearly one out of every two believes that Saddam had WMDs when we invaded is instructive, here. I'm sure that some in the GOP would love to be able to manipulate gas prices, but the enormous loss in profits to energy companies that such a manipulation would entail would be, to say the least, prohibitive even to the most GOP-loving board member. GOP-inspired policies have had a significant effect on oil prices (and the resultant record profits) over the longer term...by invading Iraq and destabilizing the Middle East.

You're right. Mr. El Masri probably just went on a gambling binge for four months, then beat himself up repeatedly and dropped himself off on a mountain road at night in Albania to cover the whole thing up from his overbearing wife. Are morons like you born, or do you have to work at it?

Along the same lines, here's a personal account of an innocent torture victim, in this case a German citizen, just to clear up any ambiguity about what our government is doing. http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/25552prs20060512.html Mr. El Masri has filed suit, but so far such lawsuits have been thrown out by federal judges on grounds of 'national security'. The catch all phrase for out times. A different subject and regarding a recent post, I thought people who climbed were called climbers and people who wrote were called writers. Is there a special term for 'people who climb but don't write' that I should know about?

Wow, this guy IS a time machine! I think I'll just slip off, crank up some Commander Cody on the HiFi, light up a fatty, and try to git that old Microbus runnin' agin'.

Jim, you, you, you COMMIE, you! My god, that is old school. Bizarre, even. Meanwhile, back at planet Earth: Here's the ACLU's list of reforms for the Torture Bill, for those who want more specifics as to what is wrong with this legislation. http://www.aclu.org/natsec/gen/26861leg20060925.html

Bush is not a strong leader, he is a strong-minded weakling. As Commander in Chief he's losing two wars in backwater countries, one if which we already defanged 13 years prior. Under his watch we've never been in a weaker negotiating position abroad. Remember the days when other countries took what we said seriously? Financially we're in hock. And our future prospects as compared to our rivals aren't promising. Real strong leaders create a compelling vision of the future, get the country behind them, and realize them. The strength of their leadership is measured by results, not bluster. Compare Bush to Washington, Lincoln and FDR using this measure and have yourself a sad little laugh.

A couple of issues ago the New Yorker ran a good article about the effect that removing the Taliban had on Al Qaeda. According to intercepted emails between, for example, Osama and his son, the organization suffered greatly from the loss of their safe haven in Afghanistan. Then Iraq happened. Now Al Qaeda, which has become a worldwide movement, has more recruits than it can handle, as is apparent in Iraq. And the Taliban is back throughout a large section of Afghanistan. Iran is on the rise. Hezbollah has never been more popular and powerful. Islamic fundamentalism has never had more followers. What was probably an appropriate and effective response after 911 was transformed by Iraq into a fountain of fuel for the enemy's fire. Bush's performance as President should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with his career. He's fucked up virtually everything he's gotten his hands on. He has a long history of not following through and not processing current information effectively. Commenting on his intelligence is a parlor game, but his poor record of success speaks volumes about his incompetence. What interests me about the whole 'Bush the Strong Leader' schtick is the implied assumption that someone else wouldn't have been just as strong up front and done a much better job on follow up. Take Clinton: excellent outcome to a horrific situation in Bosnia and Kosovo. Who's to say Gore wouldn't have been able to pull of the same strong initial response without the diversionary fuck up afterwards? Or John I-actually-volunteered-for-combat-duty-rather-than-skating-through-my-national-guard-service Kerry? Frankly, at this point, who's to say Johnny Knoxville wouldn't have done a better job in the long run?

In 5 or 10 years you'll probably be the last American, excepting those in comas, who still ponders the answer to this question. The evidence, at this point, while it may not be infinite, is overwhelming. Just how much more information do you need? In any case, we don't have 5 or 10 years to find out. We need to change direction now, based on the grim information we have available.

Back to the torture issue, which is how this all started, I'd like to take SS's idea, which I wholeheartedly agree with, a bit further. It seems quite a few Americans now accept the idea of torture as a necessary evil...as long as someone else does the dirty work, of course. Well, I'd like to see a new policy, like that Florida mandatory gun law, where everyone is required to participate. Why should the CIA have all the fun? It works like this: You sign up for your weekly slot, go down to your local detention center, where you're issued some rubber hose, sound attenuators (for the 130 dB white noise...plus, some of those assholes really have a set of pipes!), surgical protection, and a dry suit for the water sports portion. Torture is a strenuous business, but if we all just gave an hour a week of our time, we'd get a workout and provide some relief to our already overworked torturers, particularly after this new legislation spikes the number of terrorists in need of a good talking to. From what I've read, torture is a little rough at first for the inexperienced interrogator, but after a while, you really get into it.

1) He's really shown those uppity Iranians and North Koreans who's boss. 2) He created the largest National Monument in our history...in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. I can't wait to take my 165 foot yacht there. 3) He's greatly improved America's knowledge of Middle Eastern geography. 4) We're going to Mars! 5) Condi's pretty hot, when viewed from the back. 6) He really gets behind his people, even when they get behind their pages. 7) He kept his domestic spying, torture, and CIA prison programs secret so we would have to worry our purty lil' heads over 'em. 8) After this amazing summer, I'm beginning to like his take on global warming. 9) He got Saddam. Jesus, I just couldn't sleep at night. 10) He's finally learned how to pronounce 'nuclear'.

This conservative will respond to you with this: Since 911 we've had well over 2000 Americans die and more than 20,000 wounded by terrorists...in Iraq. All directly and avoidably as a result of this administration's policies. Nice accounting trick. Too bad Enron's no longer hiring. Plus, you might read up on the National Intelligence Estimate's most recent conclusions about our security. But of course, what do those whiny CIA liberals know?

Slight mod: suit of armor + leisure suit + kielbasa duct taped to your leg = boogie knight

The main difference between this administration and past ones is that this one, as I've outlined, has actually created problems that weren't there before (Iraq) or greatly exacerbated problems that could have been resolved in a much better fashion had it not executed its agenda (Iran, Katrina). BTW, you misquoted my on the blame for global warming again. Not true at all. Clinton left a 200 B surplus. Actually, you can, because of 911. Bush should have started working on energy independence to get us out of the Middle East for good the day after the attack. He's done virtually nothing so far. and that's what it would be, a single personal opinion. Every government and media postmortem comes to a very different and remarkably unanimous conclusion: That the Katrina response would have been much better if a) FEMA hadn't been gutte b) The feds would have recognized the seriousness of the threat (yes, it was well known and predicted years beforehand for Cat 4 storms) and evacuated the city, and c) the administration hadn't grossly mismanaged the funds during the aftermath (as, BTW, it has done in the Iraqi 'reconstruction'). You're dreaming, partner. Purely economic incentives, whatever that means, will lead to burning the cheapest, most plentiful domestic fuel possible: coal. That will accelerate global warming very rapidly. Public policy and incentives on a global scale are what are needed to tackle this bad boy. That's not to say it has to trash the economy, it doesn't. But certain sectors of the economy will have to shift focus. We're not the dominant political force in the Middle East by a long shot. Islamist fundamentalism might be, but there is no one dominant player in that regard. Iran isn't yet because they're still going at it on their own, but they are close. And as for our nukes, you and I both know they're utterly useless because we can't and won't use them and no one believes that we will. They have no deterrent capability and offer no negotiating leverage in this game...unless, of course, we want to sell them. Check out a statistics book. What I outlined is simple risk analysis 101. You previously implied that we are now more at risk, and so need to throw our constitution out the window, than we were during the Cold War. My analysis appropriately showed your argument was bunk. If you won't stick to your line of logic, I guess I'll have to do it for you. Fair enough, but putting arguments and words in your opponents "you probably think that..." mouth is also disrespectful. What's more, you're almost invariably wrong about what the other person thinks about the side issues you tack on. Unless I tell you what I think, you don't know, and visa versa. Fair enough?

There's no better way to meet a pregnant nun.

It appears that you have trouble reading simple english. You also seem to have a problem with recent history. What I stated was that this administration has left us unprepared to deal with these challenges. Our military is completely tapped. Our deficit has never been higher. Our credibility has never been lower. Three years ago, Iran came to us in good faith to negotiate, and our vice president responded with Fuck You. In six years we've failed to even start to build a real alternative energy infrastructure. FEMA was gutted, which directly resulted in the horrificly bad response to Katrina. We shat all over Kyoto. We backed out of our nuclear non-proliferation treaties. These are all direct failures of this administration alone. Sure, human caused global warming started 5000 years ago with the first flooded rice paddy. But this administration has failed not only to deal with the problem, it has failed to even acknowledge it. And if you think Iran is weak, you haven't done your numbers, pal. Iran has the second largest proven crude oil reserves in the world. It's developing close ties with China, which, of course, wants that oil to become the dominant world power. It will most likely have a nuclear capability soon. It's a mountainous country of 60 million, nearly 3 times the population of Iraq, which, last time I checked, we've spectacularly failed to pacify or rebuild. We post no CREDIBLE threat to Iran, as is apparent by their behavior. Let's just say we bomb Iran (our only military option, since we can't spare a single extra soldier). Their response? Flood Iraq with Iranian insurgents. That'd work out real well for us. No, far from being weak, Iran will undoubtedly be the dominant player in the Middle East after we've withdrawn, with China right at their side. You might try getting out more. And finally, a little lesson on risk, since you don't do too well at that subject, either. Risk = outcome x probability of outcome. 911 = 100% x 3000 people. Fair enough. Nuclear holocaust during the cold war = 49% x 80 million people = 40 million. Yes, we came that close...4 times. Consider yourself damn lucky that mummy and daddy didn't fry. The US and USSR went to Defcon 4 (our highest state of alert) at least 4 times during that period. Both Kruschev and Kennedy were very seriously considering a preemptive nuclear strikes during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If your going to credibly debate, man, get some historical knowledge under your belt. Back up your statements with at least a supporting statement or two. If I wanted pure horse piss I'd tune into the O'Riley Factor.