Sisyphus

I don't know whether I'm agreeing with you, but under that definition, no one has ever had a non-wasted vote. You would have to vote in a state that decides the election one way or the other, and in that state it would have to come down to a single vote. Otherwise, you're either voting for the loser, or are "above the number of votes needed to win." So there has never been any single person who changed the outcome of a national election with their vote or lack thereof. So while I certainly appreciate your point and I would much rather have a different voting method than the one we have, I also think you're being too broad with the idea of wasted votes, since collective behavior still matters, even if individuals don't. It might not matter who I vote for, but it does matter who people like me vote for, etc. Actually, let me amend that. Even under that definition, in 2000, there were 5 "unwasted" votes.

My parent's house has exactly what it sounds like you're looking for. It's a wood stove in the fireplace with glass doors that can be left open if you want. Pretty much heats the whole house when it's going (not nearly as well as the radiators, but you won't freeze), relatively efficient, finely adjustable with air flow controls, and has most of the charm of a traditional fireplace. It's been there my whole life, and I have no idea who made it originally, but such things do exist. EDIT: Ah, it's something like these: http://www.jotul.com/en-us/wwwjotulus/

Basically because you have the same amount of water passing through through the wide tube and the narrow tube per unit time. Thus if that water has to go through a narrower cross-section, it is forced to move faster, because water is incompressible. A somewhat analogous situation (with cause and effect reversed) occurs with falling water. If you turn on a faucet, the flow of water is constant, so the same amount of water per unit time passes all points in the "waterfall." However, as it falls, it accelerates, so the water near the bottom of the stream is moving faster, and the stream becomes narrower.

Just curious, though, but how do you know so much about this program? How do you know I wouldn't receive what it says? How do you know having a job would make me ineligible (what be the rationale for that?)? How do you know what will and will not count as "community service?" It seems like you're making an awful lot of assumptions. And no, he's not kidding, but don't assume the worst. The details have already changed several times in the last few days in response to feedback.

I'm also not a student. I was kidding.

I have a job...

Huh. Well, hell, I'll do that.

It seems to me that in order to be convinced it's a "choice," then you must have made that choice yourself, i.e., you are gay and denying yourself. Most of us aren't "tempted" to "give in" to sexual acts contrary to our self-identification. If you are, there's a term for that: closeted homosexual. That would also explain why so many vocal critics seem to get caught in embarrassing situations... I say this, of course, with the same qualifications as always. There are undeniably genetic factors at work, and there are undeniably societal factors at work, and neither I nor apparently anyone else is qualified to sort it all out completely. Luckily, we don't need to be, since no matter what causes it, it's still just consensual adults leading happy, responsible, otherwise normal lives, and so any persecution is pointless, straightforward bigotry.

I'm also curious to see how things will turn out. It could be argued that the analogous fissures in the Republican party (neocons vs. libertarians vs. Bible thumpers etc.) are responsible for Bush's spectacular unpopularity, since they tried to satisfy everyone and inevitably satisfied almost nobody. Similarly, at times when the Democrats have been pushed out, it's been because they managed to alienate one or more of their factions. It's probably a main reason why the pendulum effect is inevitable. There is probably no possible approach to government that will long be satisfactory to a majority of a nation of 300 million. And to the unsatisfied, the opposition looks better, even if they will ultimately be unsatisfying for their own reasons.

Yeah, that can't possibly be right. I'm guessing the tax break is proportional to hours put in, up to a maximum $4000, and 100 hours is just the minimum time. But again, that's just a guess.

For my two cents, I don't think it's necessarily a good idea, but I can't really get excited about it, either. What we're talking about is a suggested additional graduation requirement: an hour or two a week of civic involvement, for which will be awarded an apparently generous tax break. Now, you can complain about mandatory school attendance, and I might agree with you, but I don't really see this as any different. So if it's "socialist," then it isn't newly socialist, by any means.

I'm not sure about that. She got a lot of people excited who otherwise wouldn't have been, but she also turned off a lot of people, chiefly moderates (who otherwise like McCain) and conservative intellectuals. I'm only speaking from my own experience, here, but I don't know anyone who was won over by her addition to the ticket, and I do know several people whose votes were lost. Moderates who switched sides or went from undecided to Obama, and even staunch intellectual conservatives who couldn't bring themselves to vote for her and stayed home. For myself (more or less a moderate liberal sympathetic to libertarian conservatism), I wouldn't have been upset with a President McCain, but the thought of a President Palin is unbearable. You apparently had a different experience, out in... Missouri, right? This is probably going to sound extremely snobby, but I don't mean it that way. It just seems like she pushed out the people the Republicans desperately need in favor of the people they should be distancing themselves from.

I agree on both counts about Romney, but at least he's obviously smart. I still think you're greatly overestimating Palin. She's not her ditsy caricature, but she's not Presidential material, either. I've watched the Alaska gubernatorial debates. She's the only one at the table not saying anything. She's just "sassy." She seems to have won her elections almost entirely with wedge issues (mostly abortion - for a small town mayor's office!) and innuendo to appeal to the socially conservative base, like implying her opponents weren't "real Christians." Maybe that shows a good political instinct, I don't know. That stuff worked, after all. She would probably come off better if she was more experienced in broader issues, it's true, but the thing is, I don't understand how an intelligent person, especially an intelligent person who claims to be interested in politics (or, you know, is governor of a state), could be that "unwordly." That said, she has managed to hold on to a lot of supporters, which tells me it's possible she'll get very far. I very much doubt she'll be the nominee, but the farther she gets, the more likely it'll be that I puke.

20 states plus Puerto Rico and D.C. have closed or semi-closed primaries like that (including mine, New York). 17 have open primaries, and the remainder are other systems, mostly various forms of caucus.

Polls for 2012 mean absolutely nothing for 2012 at this point, but its still interesting that people feel that way right now. It seems like the Republicans are split between blaming McCain for not playing dirty enough and blaming Palin for being embarrassingly stupid. Apparently the rumors about tension between McCain and Palin staffers were entirely true.

iNow, I was responding to the suggestion that civil unions and marriages be awarded exactly equal rights. My suggestion was to simply call everything "civil unions," and give that the same legal status that "marriage" has currently, and remove "marriage" as a legally significant term.

This question was asked and answered three years ago...

Maybe they should, but that's not really the point. (I already think commuters are insane, let alone automotive commuters - who knows what will actually discourage them.) That's a road that carries several hundred thousand vehicles per day in some places, and it's pretty much expanded to the maximum physically possible already. Repaving is done in the middle of the night only, and it's still a major inconvenience. Effectively removing a lane more or less permanently would be absurd. I'm not saying that method shouldn't be done more often, of course. It probably makes sense in lots of places. But not everywhere.

I agree, except there's no need for the "separate but equal" institutions. Just make "marriage" have no legal significance whatsoever. Under law, everyone has "civil unions," for which orientation doesn't enter into it. People are free to call it whatever they like.

Oh...

There has been some rumblings lately, mostly from Congressional Democrats, about reviving the Fairness Doctrine. For background, it was an FCC policy that existed from the 1940s up through 2000, that stated that broadcasters had to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. In 1969 it survived a Supreme Court challenge on First Amendment grounds with an 8-0 decision, with the stipulation that it could never actually restrain speech, it merely had to give a "chance to respond." It would also only apply in cases of "limited channels." In other words, it applied to radio and broadcast television because there are only so many frequencies, but not to newspapers, cable TV, or the internet. Personally, I'm firmly against it, and I hope Democrats don't try to revive it. We already have libel laws, and it just doesn't seem necessary, especially in the internet age, while being needlessly constrictive. I also agree with critics that the interest in revival is mostly just a partisan attack on conservative talk radio, which is precisely not the kind of shit they should be pulling right now. Still, it has prominent support, including the likes of Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry, as well as (according to a recent poll) 47% of Americans, with only 39% opposed. There are no current plans to introduce a bill. Barack Obama, for his part, is not a supporter. Said his press secretary: That being the case, I think we're probably safe. I don't know whether he would actually veto legislation (as GWB vowed to do), but without the President's support, it probably won't get off the ground. And if it did, I doubt they'd get a majority in Congress.

Did he? Pay attention to what he says, not what people say about him. He's been the object of crazy levels of adoration, and lots of people probably have very unrealistic expectations. That's true. But his rhetoric has remained consistently and even amazingly humble, considering everything. He's always been completely frank about the difficulties we're facing, even as it's been framed in defiant optimism (or "audacious hope," if you will). Look over that acceptance speech again. The whole speech. Seriously.

1) Agreed. I can't justify different status for homosexuals, and the whole thing goes squarely against the principles of free egalitarian societies. Really, the whole argument shouldn't even be happening. Rather than arguing over the legal definition of marriage, it's time to recognize that government shouldn't be defining marriage at all. There are benefits to recognizing legal partnerships (i.e. civil unions), so I can see that argument (though I'm not fully convinced either way), but it needn't have anything to do with chromosomes or who we happen to be boinking. 2) Per the out of state thing, it's very annoying, but it's legal. It is, after all, Californians who did the voting. 3) It does seem like a violation. This should probably go to the Supreme Court.

I'm having a hard time imagining the person saying they're going to close down a lane of the Long Island Expressway for three months not getting lynched.

Yeah. It's crazy. I do have some theories, though, which might be worth a few rambling paragraphs of Sisyphus-style, wildly speculative analysis.