georgesbluegirl

What if DC gets nuked?

Well, that would solve our problem with Congress and the Supreme Court. . . .

Not to mention killing a few million other people.

Yeah....not funny.

Job loss is a lagging indicator, you guys. Even though it looks like this thing might have bottomed out, we'll still feel job hits for at least a little while still. It really doesn't have anything to do with anything Obama has done thus far in office.

That is not the point. Obama claimed that if we went along with the stimulous bill and the bail outs, it would curb unemployment. We spent all that money we don't have and the unemployment rate continues to rise.

Because unemployment rate is a lagging indicator and will always be about six months behind the market no matter what you do. The stimulus plan was designed to a) tide us over to weather the storm and b) increase aggregate demand, thus strengthening the markets (by the way, the dollar is strengthening right now). Unemployment rates will lower as businesses catch up with the market (if it works, which for the intents of this explanation, I'm assuming it will). So it is very much the point that you can't use unemployment rates as a barometer - *yet*. It's just econ 101.

I'm pretty sure they did this last year.

Wonder if Walt would have sign off on this???

Um. Not to comment on the topic at hand, exactly, but -- Walt Disney, at this point, is pretty well known for being a bigot...racist, anti-Semitic, etc. I'm pretty sure the execs these days don't use what he would have "signed off on" as a metric for how to run the park, given that he resisted hiring black people to work at Disney World because he thought it would "spoil the illusion."

These are serious charges. Can you provide some sources to back up those claims?

You've really never heard about this? There was a book that came out a while ago that aired a lot of those grievances, but I guess the more legitimate source would be "Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination," by Neal Gabler. If you're interested, most of the reviews you can pull up in a quick Google mention Gabler's treatment of Disney's well-known biases. His anti-Semitism is mostly inferred from his involvement with several groups hostile towards Jewish people in general, but he's definitely on record saying some pretty choice things about race relations....the "illusion" quote is fairly well known. I mean really, think about the whole company..."What Makes the Red Man Red?" Disney doesn't exactly have a reputation of being the most socially progressive organization when it comes to their films. Even as recently as "Aladdin" there was controversy.

I'm pretty sure they did this last year.

Wonder if Walt would have sign off on this???

Um. Not to comment on the topic at hand, exactly, but -- Walt Disney, at this point, is pretty well known for being a bigot...racist, anti-Semitic, etc. I'm pretty sure the execs these days don't use what he would have "signed off on" as a metric for how to run the park, given that he resisted hiring black people to work at Disney World because he thought it would "spoil the illusion."

Job loss is a lagging indicator, you guys. Even though it looks like this thing might have bottomed out, we'll still feel job hits for at least a little while still. It really doesn't have anything to do with anything Obama has done thus far in office.

Also -- altruism, which is the more technical term for performed compassion, is a pretty hot topic in theoretical biology right now. Lots of good papers!

"It's an amazing coincidence that [Darwin's] views on compassion and morality are identical to the Tibetan Buddhist view," said Paul Ekman, a psychologist whose work decoding so-called micro-expressions is the basis for the new Fox television show Lie to Me.

...What?

Buddhist philosophy is inherently esoteric. Darwin's views are not parallel.

The article is drawing a parallel between how Buddhists view compassion and compassionate practice and Darwin's ideas about the existence of compassion, not likening the entire theory of natural selection to all of Tibetan Buddhist practice. In Tibetan Buddhism, compassion is a keystone -- once you move past the "self" and embrace the idea of emptiness, suffering is no longer "mine" or "yours," it is simply suffering, and thus all suffering is felt by the individual -- so you work to alleviate suffering in general. Darwin was trying to figure out why compassion would be selected for in a population, and so he framed it as action taken to aid another person and thus relieve discomfort in yourself. Hence the comparison. He also recognized the "pre-reflexive" compassionate response, which is something many Tibetan teachers have written about.

My money's on Pioneerof the Nile...I had him at like 50-1 before and now his odds are WAY down, unfortunately (last time I checked he's at 9-2, sigh)...regardless, if he can start moderately well, I think he could have it. He's a really nice looking horse too...anyway, there are a lot of really great horses in this field, so it should be a great race!

I don't think Spector's decision to change parties was the result of soul searching, lack of inclusiveness or any of that bilge that's being pumped out of his office....I believe, much like the proverbial rat, he believes he's jumping off a sinking ship. It's all about staying in office. Unfortunately, for him, I don't think he'll be relected no matter what he does.

I mean, he's being pretty frank that his immediate reason is the primary situation. However, two things -- one, Biden's been working on Specter literally for years; apparently they've had the conversation about his possible switch; two, what does Snowe have to gain by saying something like this unless she wants to make a legitimate point from her corner? She's not beholden to him in terms of PR; she's a GOP moderate watching the ideological diversity within her party shrink day by day, and she sees Specter's defection -- and part of that IS his inability to win a GOP primary in PA -- as a real problem.

Olympia Snowe has nothing to gain by making these observations. I don't fault Spector for switching parties either; he's akin to the subway passenger who suddenly realizes, at seven a.m., that he's on the express to the north side of the city and he works on the south side. I do NOT want to hear the press conference angst from him concerning his decision though. Just GO already. He's nearly 80; how much longer can he eat from the public trough anyway?

First rule of politics -- nobody does anything unless they have something to gain.

If being a 'moderate" Republican is so much better for the party, why did it not help the last election?

Moderates arguing for moderation.

McCain had a reputation as a moderate due to truly bipartisan achievements like the Feingold-McCain act, and if he'd stayed THAT McCain he might have had a shot at it. Instead, he bowed to party pressure and turned a sharp right -- and while many on this board, I noticed, generally supported it, the general American public didn't. Looking past the issue of having an ® next to his name after eight years of Bush, that change was what lost him a credible shot at the presidency. He wasn't staying true to himself. Just look at video of his last campaign stumps of October and compare it to the concession speech, which was relaxed, tremendously articulate, and positive -- if he had been that McCain all along, things might have been different...at least closer.

Woot Maine!

From today's NY Times:

IT is disheartening and disconcerting, at the very least, that here we are today

I don't think Spector's decision to change parties was the result of soul searching, lack of inclusiveness or any of that bilge that's being pumped out of his office....I believe, much like the proverbial rat, he believes he's jumping off a sinking ship. It's all about staying in office. Unfortunately, for him, I don't think he'll be relected no matter what he does.

I mean, he's being pretty frank that his immediate reason is the primary situation. However, two things -- one, Biden's been working on Specter literally for years; apparently they've had the conversation about his possible switch; two, what does Snowe have to gain by saying something like this unless she wants to make a legitimate point from her corner? She's not beholden to him in terms of PR; she's a GOP moderate watching the ideological diversity within her party shrink day by day, and she sees Specter's defection -- and part of that IS his inability to win a GOP primary in PA -- as a real problem.

Woot Maine!

From today's NY Times:

IT is disheartening and disconcerting, at the very least, that here we are today

Here we go -- here's an abstract from one of the papers --

Lake Michigan Beach-Ridge and Dune Development, Lake Level, and Variability in Regional Water Balance

John Lichter

Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, 1987 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108

Abstract

A sequence of northern Lake Michigan beach ridges records lake-level fluctuations that are probably related to changes in late Holocene climate. Historically, episodes of falling and low lake level associated with regional drought led to the formation of dune-capped beach ridges. The timing of prehistoric ridge formation, estimated by radiocarbon dating of plant macrofossils from early-successional dune species, shows that return periods of inferred drought, averaged for time intervals of 100 to 480 yr, ranged between 17 and 135 yr per drought during the last 2400 yr. In five of ten of these time intervals, the average return period ranged between 17 and 22 yr per drought. These intervals of frequent ridge formation and drought were associated with the development of parabolic dunes, which is indicative of high lake level and moist climate. This seeming paradox suggests that unusually moist decades alternated with unusually dry decades during these time intervals. Regional water balance probably varied less during the time intervals when ridges formed less often and the lake produced no evidence of high level.

Basically by looking at the pattern of dune-ridge development, you can think in terms of high vs. low variability and cross-reference that with historical air-mass shifts on the North American continent. That had an effect on judging fire regime shifts....I think because you'd see more fires in areas without fire regimes during periods of high variability (and thus shifts in fire-dependent species).

April 21st, 2009

Despite Global Warming, Wildfire Frequency Does Not Increase

Written by Ian O'Neill

One of the key discoveries was that climate change a was less important factor than vegetation changes when related to frequency of wildfires. According to sediment samples over the millennia, despite very dry periods in climate history, wildfire frequency decreases sharply. It appears that during periods of temperature increases, vegetation species change from flammable shrubs to fire-resistant deciduous trees.

“Climate affects vegetation, vegetation affects fire, and both fire and vegetation respond to climate change,” Higuera adds. “Most importantly, our work emphasizes the need to consider the multiple drivers of fire regimes when anticipating their response to climate change.”

Read the full article here

You're speaking my language! Fire regimes are SO COOL.

There was a neat study done about fifteen years ago in some Illinois lakes looking at dune complexes as a history of climate variability that led to some interesting speculation on fire regime shifts in the west and midwest over time...I'll try to find it.

I mean, her response is actually incorrect. We DON'T live in a country where you can choose same sex marriage or "opposite marriage" (...), unless you live in one of a handful of states. So I might bust her simply for being wrong.

The Bears have been in need of a QB, so this should really help their offense. I am not convinced Cutler has proven himself to the point of being an elite QB yet, but he is a major improvement from what the Bears had. This loss will be devistating to the Broncos. Had they been able to get Castle away from the Patriots, they would have been in good shape, but who do they turn to now? I think Denver made some major blunders in the way they handled things, and they are going to pay for it this season.

Orton's a solid pickup, and two first round draft picks? Denver got Cutler's worth and maybe more, depending on how he does this season. I don't know how he's going to look -- I don't think he's as overrated as others I've talked to seem to think, but at the same time he doesn't have any WRs to work with in Chicago, and they just lost two tackles. I like the OP -- we'll see, eh?

Oh also -- I just saw that you highlighted my comment about sexual assault....that was meant to be a reminder, not a direct response. I just feel like it's something that gets ignored when this issue goes up for this kind of debate.

What about those who are married and one spouse has aids or any other STD? That is the only reason why condoms should be around, so the unaffected spouse does not become affected. No other form of birth control will do anything for this problem. To really ensure safety, they should consider on doubling up on their protection, since condoms sometimes break.

You're trying to judge other people's contraception decisions, though, and that's problematic. Some women have extremely averse responses to hormonal BC...a couple might decide to rely on condoms for any number of reasons.

And once again: please don't forget the issue of sexual assault when we talk about EC. It is always the elephant in the room.

I understand the reason behind the OP, which only speaks little on sexual assault, but about making "Plan B" available to minors. Still, that was not what I was asked by RG, and the reason behind my post.

I speak only for myself on this matter and realize that I will get a whole lot of slack for my stance, and that is fine with me. As for the piece you quoted, how does your reply tie into what you quoted? Does other birth control practices stop sexual diseases?

Again, my ending statement: To me, and I say this personally, trying to justify why someone should have a tool to help them live safely in sin is a sin itself.

I'm confused about what you're asking....my reply was directed to your comment that preventing disease was the only reason a couple should be using condoms and not other BC. My point is that couples might choose to use condoms as BC for any number of reasons that they decide on their own.

So then back to your ending statement -- bringing more unwanted children into the world or losing the chance to prevent more abortions is a bad thing? I don't like bombs or think killing people is a good thing, but I'd rather we make smarter war technology that can tell the difference between a tank and a schoolkid so that in the course of a bad thing (war), we don't hurt a life innocent in the conflict.

What about those who are married and one spouse has aids or any other STD? That is the only reason why condoms should be around, so the unaffected spouse does not become affected. No other form of birth control will do anything for this problem. To really ensure safety, they should consider on doubling up on their protection, since condoms sometimes break.

You're trying to judge other people's contraception decisions, though, and that's problematic. Some women have extremely averse responses to hormonal BC...a couple might decide to rely on condoms for any number of reasons.

And once again: please don't forget the issue of sexual assault when we talk about EC. It is always the elephant in the room.

Okay, once and for all -- quote from a really good OPR Princeton EC one-stop website (ec.princeton.edu):

Studies show that both types of emergency contraceptive pills can prevent or delay ovulation (the time in your cycle when your ovaries release an egg). If you take emergency contraceptive pills before fertilization (the point when the egg and sperm meet), they may interfere with the process of fertilizing the egg, for instance making it harder for the egg or the sperm to travel (and meet up) in your reproductive tract. It

I'm not sympathetic to your cause.

I am sympathetic to the cause of those that work on college campuses for the very things you listed, these people need Christians to be in their lives more than ever, yet we turn away and say "oh well, you made your choice, now face the consequences of it".

We have Christians on these boards who have said "let them get STDs or AIDS, it is the consequences for their actions". Does this sound like something Jesus would say?

Is that really the way we are going to bring people to Christ?

If we can prevent the spread of STDs, AIDS and slow the tide of unwed pregnancies and abortions, shouldn't we do it?

I think we should be sympathetic to the cause of the lost, that is what we are here for.

This too.

That got alarmingly personal very quickly.

Also, Hunter, I don't know where you've been getting information, but EC works via the same mechanism as other hormonal BC, which basically convinces your body it's already pregnant and thus prevents ovulation.

Also, an ova doesn't live 24 hours...it's sperm with the short life span, as you mentioned. An ova just gets fertilized, or not. Menstruation is the product of the body not having an egg (that has been fertilized) implant in the uterine lining, not the death of the egg.

This is mostly what I want to say --

Now had she said she was doing everything she could to teach other young women the folly of an immoral sex life I would have supported her 100%.

Did she mention praying with these girls who had gone thru hell or trying to lead them to the Lord...no...she just complained how they couldn't get the pill.

The morning after pill is just another tool that reinforces bad behavior.

Please back off a little. You really do not know these circumstances, and you really should not jump to conclusions (and I guess you weren't reading very carefully, because I was actually being thankful that these women COULD get Plan B). This is the problem -- so many people think of Plan B as unnecessarily foolproofing the mistakes of "irresponsible young women," and forget the other major reason why it needs to be available: sexual assault. When I say the situations I was privy to were hell, you need to believe it. So please, please, don't jump straight to judgement, and don't try to judge my value as a friend.

This is another scary thing happening in synch with the rest of the craziness.

Under this law, a minor can get the "morning after" pill to cause an abortion without notifying their parents, without going to see a doctor, and without even getting a prescription.

This is a very dangerous drug to be taking with a physician attending....and much more dangerous for minors taking it without a doctor present

And this law would help hide the evidence of those who molest under age girls since a visit to a doctor or hospital wouldn't be a legal necessity

This horrible ruling from the court in New York will likely increase abortions and medical complications for attempted abortions drastically...but we may never know the numbers because it allows total anonymity

Okay.

I understand that some people here are of the mind that Plan B causes abortions because if taken at the later end of the 72 hour window it may caused a fertilized egg not to implant. However, this is NOT how it normally works -- it prevents ovulation. AND a lot of recent studies have cast doubt on the idea that it actually could create an "inhospitable womb" and prevent implantation. So even taking your argument that by interfering with implantation, EC causes an abortion, at its very strongest, EC can still only *rarely* be considered an abortifacient.

Second point, leaving behind the debate over the pill itself -- it needs to be taken within a very small window to be effective, so having it over the counter is just plain horse sense. I will come back to this point in a moment.

Thirdly, the fretting about molestation and minors is a tad dramatic considering that the ruling only extends to 17 year olds. In many (most, I think) states, 16 is actually the first "age of consent"....usually it's a breakdown like 16 is the age of consent with a partner up to 23, and then 18 is the full age of consent. It isn't exactly like a 12 year old will be able to walk up to a counter and get Plan B with no questions asked, no parent involved.

Finally, it's definitely not "a very dangerous drug." At all. Some people experience painful side effects, but most people just go through some cyclical irregularity. It's really just like taking a bunch of normal birth control pills at once. You might be one of the unlucky minority who throws up, but most people just get nauseous, if anything. And I am on a college campus (in a state where it's over the counter, no less), so I'm around this issue a lot.

My feeling on this is if a woman needs it, you should make it as easy as possible for her to get it, as quickly as possible (just as a side thing -- couldn't you argue that the whole process is slowed down by needing a scrip, therefore making it more LIKELY that you prevent a fertilized egg from implanting after all, if you accept that posit? just a thought). I have been a party to more than one situation where somebody went through hell and needed it, and have always been glad that all they had to do was go to our Health Center (free there), or buy it from Rite Aid.

What you are going to find is that T.O. was not the problem

Parcells left for 2 reasons; He didn't want to deal with the personal problems and circus atmosphere of having TO but his main concern was TR. Tony Romo, for as talented as he is, is constantly making bad decisions and causing turnovers. Parcells was quoted saying something about Tony costing him his job after that fumble for the field goal in the Seahawks playoff game

I agree...I think TO has started to shape up in terms of maturity, both on the field and off... this is a good move for both him and the Bills. Between this and picking up Lee Evans, and maybe Marshawn Lynch having an awesome season, the Bills might blaze straight into the postseason next year. I have a pipe dream (just as a general NFL fan, I'm a Ravens kid, team-wise) that Cutler will wind up there and their offense will straight up dominate. But we'll see. More likely he'll be at the jets with Rexy and my boy Bart Scott (sigh, should have been beating down the door trying to keep him in Bmore) instead....