of all that aerobic exercise. Although unfortunately, bikers breath in more pollution on roads simply because they breathe heavier. What I'm hoping is that the densest urban areas emulate european cities and completely close the downtown core to car traffic.
But whatever you do, don't wear a helmet. I know, this seems absurd. I actually agree with it, for a few reasons:
1. Risk of injury/fatality has to be quantified as a product of frequency and potential damage. If you're twice as likely to get hit wearing a helmet but are only half as likely to die if you are, you're no better off by wearing one. Actually worse, because you still got hit. The relative frequency factor is why there are no laws requiring pedestrians or non-racecar drivers to wear a helmet.
2. Bike helmet laws place a burden on the cyclist, whose mode of transportation is less inherently dangerous, not to mention environmentally friendly. Helmet laws should not be an excuse to avoid putting in bike lanes or restricting traffic.
3. Styrofoam is a noise dampener. Bike helmet companies may claim it doesn't impede your hearing, but I swear it does.
4. It's an added expense and is inconvenient. Of course this seems trivial when compared to the consequences of brain injury, but the whole idea is to get more people to ride bikes. It will help if people don't have to jiggle a bunch of stuff from the racks to their office.
These arguments don't apply to off-road activities like mountain biking, where traffic psychology is not a factor. Since you're much more likely to fall off while mountain-biking, wearing a helmet is a no-brainer.
I applaud her and Bill for the effort. My disappointment with her stems from pieces written by a Democratic congressment (from TN I believe) at the time. He had put together his own healthcare plan and painstakingly built support for it. He explained how Hillary's task force ignored him and his input, and tried to ramrod their own plan through. Then Dole threatened to filibuster any version of it, which was kind of a douchebag move but one that he wouldn't have made if the Republican caucus weren't unified against it. Then the Clintons lost the support of decent if somewhat conservative southern Dems like Sam Nunn.
There was plenty of popular support for universal healthcare back then. I blame the Clintons for their poor management and leadership on the issue, not simply because it failed to pass.
Add the vote totals of DNC-sanctioned contests (not banana-republic-like no-campaigning sham elections where in once case one candidate removed his name from the ballot and the other stated that the votes wouldn't count) and Obama beat Clinton.
Not, of course, that it mattered who won this imprecise non-metric, but he did win it.
non-scandal (Hillary's comment about it taking LBJ to pass civil rights). I would say the remark was true and a valid point, if a little petty under the circumstances.
But c'mon, it's not a "mortal sin in liberal-land" to work with Republicans on bills. The causality between Hillary's comment and the Kennedy endorsement is weak. There were several reasons he could have endorsed Obama.
I want a president with Kennedyesque oratory and LBJ's skill in passing legislation. So far, the primary campaign has taught me that Obama has the former, and that Clinton doesn't have the latter (see healthcare debacle, 1993 and botched fruntrunner campaign, 2008).
you must have read my posts upthread. Other than his overwillingness to compromise, I've often stated in my comments on this site that I find his "yes we can" and "change" rhetoric vague and thin on substance. I got to ask him in person whether he had a "Lyndon Johnson side" and whether he was tough enough to overcome Republican scorched-earth tactics. He could trim a few "uhs" out of his sentences too. Does that answer your "question"?
You do the Democratic party a disservice by claiming Obama's following is cult-like. He's inspirational to many people, is all. You're too lazy to quote comments from dKos or elsewhere to support your silly claims. It sounds like you simply want him to lose.
since 2005. I know what the general tone of the posts are like. You're ignoring the multiple posts Markos himself has made criticizing Obama on substantive issues, even rating the overall progressiveness of his policies below Edwards' and Clinton's. I'll look up the link as soon as you find some comments from non-trolls supporting your ridiculous canards. Oh, and in case you hadn't noticed, throughout most of 2007 the reader poll had Edwards first around 40% and Obama 2nd with 25%-30%. Some cult.
About the only thing Kossacks and Redstaters agree on re: Hillary Clinton is that she's too power-hungry.
However, if you went around calling Kossacks "little Stalinists" and "Obamanauts", it's not too surprising you got a few hide ratings.
Clinton's still a US Senator. Does she care about FISA? How about she take a stand on filibustering the immunity provision? Obama has torturously tried to explain his nuanced position (not to my satisfaction), but at least he isn't ignoring the issue. I would hope Clinton has better things to do that gloat at Obama's problems with Democratic activists right now.
than "a couple of million" readers. In case you didn't understand me, I don't trust your motives on this. I believe your trying to sow dissent from either a PUMA or a McBlogger perspective, not that it matters.
Yes, I'm disappointed with Obama's stance on FISA. But I'm voting for him anyway.
For example, the Daily Kos blog which is known as a progressive blog and calls itself a "reform blog" apparently was not much concerned with reforming the male dominant government by supporting or at least respecting a woman presidential candidate. The Daily Kos administrators allowed non-stop and frequently vicious and sexist attacks against presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. And yet when bloggers wrote mature, helpful, polite criticism of male presidential candidate Barack Obama the administrators would often ban those bloggers (I was banned for politely criticizing Obama).
Apparently? State your convictions. It's easy to cut and paste diary exerpts and comments from the dKos archives. Let's see what you're actually talking about. May as well show us your "polite criticism" of Obama that got you banned too.
And since when does a blog have a consciousness of its own? There are near 150,000 registered users on dailyKos. Nasty comments of all stripes can fall through the cracks of the autobanning feature. People such as Bill O'Reilly like to dredge up the most trollish comments written by got knows who, blow them up and claim them to be representative of the site. Well, at least he bothers to actually find some.
The majority of daily Kos front-pagers and poll respondants did not support Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries because, in essence, they thought she ran a crappy campaign. You can write that off as lack of respect for a woman candidate, but then ponder this: we're the more liberal, social-progress oriented party. Over half of the primary electorate were women. If this sexism/misogyny/disrespect for a woman candidate were so widespread, why didn't it backfire?
They took Obama's every word as gospel; any hint of criticism was attacked in a hilarious panic. Obama was the second coming...if you weren't 250% on board, according to those with this cultish mentality, well then, f*ck you!
The hell we did. Stop building stupid strawmen. You make us all sound like Karen Hughes, infatuated with Dubya. We can see Obama's flaws; his overwillingness to compromise was a concern for me from the very beginning.
How this has anything to do with Hillary Clinton laughing somewhere is beyond me.
Religious groups do some awfully good work out there. IIRC, studies show they get a lot more accomplished with a lot less than many secular government-funded programs. The conscientious religious groups must understand what they can and cannot do with public funds. The government could send a rulebook along with the cheques and create a first-amendment-protection hotline for complaints about proselytizing or discrimination.
Of course, administring such a program honestly could turn out to be a nightmare. There was a stink a while back about a government-funded Catholic group in MA denying adoption services to gay couples. Since it was in MA, the good guys won (Romney got some egg on his face).
I'd personally prefer these groups raised and spent the money locally, but that's not always feasible. The politicized faith-based corrupt program we have now must be done away with, but that doesn't mean churches can't render unto God and Ceasar effectively at the same time. I'm merely arguing that in with better national leadership and administration, religious groups can be made to understand that their own religious freedom is at stake if they misuse taxpayer dollars.
had sued to get the FL felon purge list declassified (as they did in 2004), or if the lady who called a FL news station early on election day to complain about the butterfly ballots was taken seriously, or if the media had accurately reported the "invented the internet" myth, or ignored earth tones, or given a little more airtime to the Bushisms, or if Gore had sighed less, won NH (where Nader votes were also decisive) or TN, or if O'Connor and Kennedy were less partisan and more ideological, or if a slightly smaller percentage of American voters were fucking retards.
Take your pick. Though of all of those "what ifs", the most forseeable one was clearly the spoiler effect in a first-past-the post system for electoral votes. Nader could have kept his campaigning to safe states, not run at all, or picked the same slate of electors as Gore's.
But no, he had to claim there was no substantive difference between Bush and Gore, and gather just enough of the pissed-off anti-corporate vote to plunge us into this nightmare. Gore may have run a crappy campaign, but he tried hard to win it. Nader intentionally harmed the chances of whom he must of known was the far better candidate.
can make solid, interesting points. Then the next day they write some vile poorly-reaserched koolaidish rightwing douchebag piece and make me hate them even more. I've swarn off reading Brooks several times now. Same goes for Bob Novak, although his extra partisanship is moderated by the fact that he does more homework.
Yes, I hate echo chambers too. I'm with Greenwald in the Olbermann spat. The Dean-Olbermann fallacy in their line of thinking that they'd rather a president Obama going after the Telcos criminally than a junior Senator casting protest votes jumps to the conclusion that taking the principled stance can cost him the election. But I'm open to having my perceptions challenged.
in terms of net votes, with something like 23% being more likely to vote Democratic if she's on the ticket and 23% being less likely.
She would bring more than her poll numbers in terms of money and organization, but could also easily distract from important issues during the campaign.
I believe the most solid choice would be a not-too-flashy newcomer with executive experience and proven cross-party appeal. Being from a red state and female would be icing on the cake. Which is why my money is literally on Sebelius (online gambling still legal in Canada).