Support NeoGAF

[ClovingWestbrook]

LOL, seriously?

Just seems funny to see someone wanting majority rules no filibuster type government and then turn around and call for riots if his chosen candidate loses. Please tell me I shouldn't have taken the statement literally.

Maybe he was talking about setting the asses of the Dems in the Senate on fire to start playing hardball. At least that's how I took it.

 

[cntr]

LOL, seriously?

Just seems funny to see someone wanting majority rules no filibuster type government and then turn around and call for riots if his chosen candidate loses. Please tell me I shouldn't have taken the statement literally.

Er. Definitely sounds like a metaphor here.

 

[ralexand]

Not that worried about Healthcare passing now. If Brown gets elected, the House just needs to vote for the senate bill and send the bill to the president.

 

[SlipperySlope]

$9,000 a year to drive? That number is very inflated.

I spend about $960 a year in gas (if anything, that's overestimating it).

Cost of car: $25,000. I plan to drive it for 8 years. That's $3,125 per year. Add registration, that's about what now? $400? (I'm being screwed in California).

So, that's $960, $3,125, and $400. That comes out to $4,485.

And this is California, with the highest gas prices and registration (I think) in the country.


So, um, yeah, $9,000 is very inflated. Not to mention that it's impossible for me to take mass transit to work. It'd take like 5 hours each way.

 

[The Chosen One]

The Democrats might not have had this problem had they crafted a health care bill worth fighting for. And the Democrats didn't craft a health care bill worth fighting for because there was no pressure from an organized left movement forcing them too. It spirals downwards. Or rightwards, as the case may be.

Interesting point.

Yeah the healthcare bill has been so watered-down that no one either on the right, left, or special interests groups are fighting for it with a passion. Is there passion anywhere with people saying, "Pass this healthcare bill!!!11"? No there isn't. You just got specials interest groups like the insurance and drug companies who have covered both their bases if it passes or not. The right hates it. Independents are confused. The left is apathetic about the bill after numerous concessions. It's only the Dem partisans and strategist who feel an urgency to pass the bill for political reasons.

The healthcare bill received a critical wound in August, then slowly bled to death during the fall. I really hope not all the blame goes on Coakely for the final nail on healthcare. Obama and Dem leadership are to blame. Obama didn't sell healthcare well enough and the Dem leadership was unable to properly use their majority and let a couple of rural senators control the whole agenda.

It's already a huge mess and embarrassment but if healthcare doesn't pass then it will be a complete catastrophe for the Dems. But hopefully they'll learn from it and fix the structural problems they have with their party.

Sad to say but healthcare indeed is turning out to be Obama's Waterloo...

 

[cntr]

It's only the Dem partisans and strategist who feel an urgency to pass the bill for political reasons.

Oh, really? So you're saying that the healthcare bill has zero or negative benefits, eh?

 

[The Chosen One]

Oh, really? So you're saying that the healthcare bill has zero or negative benefits, eh?

No.

I'm talking about enthusiasm or at the very least urgency. At the moment, it's just some Dem partisans and strategists who have a sense of urgency to get the bill passed. If more progressives were truly excited about the bill then for example race in MA wouldn't be nearly as close.

 

[charlequin]

LOL, seriously?

I meant that metaphorically, but if someone really can get elected in fucking Massachusetts by promising to support a torturing police state and forcing rape victims to give birth to their rapist's children, then our entire fucking country deserves to burn in Hell.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Brown Now Favored to Beat Coakley

Nate Silver's forecasting model now finds Scott Brown (R) as a 74% favorite to win the Senate seat in Massachusetts on the basis of new polling from ARG, Research 2000 and InsiderAdvantage which show worsening numbers for Brown's opponent, Martha Coakley.

"We have traditionally categorized races in which one side has between a 60 and 80 percent chance of winning as 'leaning' toward that candidate, and so that is how we categorize this race now: Lean GOP. Nevertheless, there is a higher-than-usual chance of large, correlated errors in the polling, such as were observed in NY-23 and the New Hampshire Democratic primary; the model hedges against this risk partially, but not completely."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/01/18/brown_now_favored_to_beat_coakley.html

The dream is dead

 

[Door2Dawn]

Welp time to pack it in guys.

Can't wait until this election is over with tomorrow, maybe then we can can moan and groan about something else.

 

[GhaleonEB]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/01/18/brown_now_favored_to_beat_coakley.html

The dream is dead

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/25-0.html

The dream lives on.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/01/18/brown_now_favored_to_beat_coakley.html

The dream is dead

What the hell is up with the massive campaign to claim Coakley is going to lose?

Bogus polls, the media making half-baked predictions and people making up scenarios when the election hasn't even happened yet.

Everything points to a close elections. Yet some people are buying into bogus polls that show a blowout.

 

[mAcOdIn]

Here's why I don't care about health care that much from a national standpoint. Before I start, I know there's people who can't get coverage, like myself, and while I am not the type to see a doctor anyways I understand their position and I won't even begin to try and sugarcoat the bill being defeated(if it happens) as some kind of win for them. In all bills there's winners and losers, there were still losers even with the currently proposed bills so it's not like someone wasn't going to lose something so don't misconstrue what I'm going to say next as me pretending that nothing was given up if we don't pass the current bill, even though I've always maintained that it is a shitty bill.

Politically it's easiest to get things done when the shit has hit the fan, currently health care works for most people, like it or not, but if the situation is really rapidly declining as everyone says it is then the currently proposed bills that would have slowed the bleeding(but not stop it) would have actually set back the clock for real change of the system. If left untouched now the health care industry will continue to degenerate and we will revisit this topic much sooner, rather than much later were the current bill to pass, and with much more urgency and support as well. That's my silver lining in all of this, that despite losing, if it happens, we will instead be setting ourselves up to revisit the same topic once again just with even more public support and depending on how bad things do get in the future a public much more willing to try things more radical, progressive or socialist depending on your favorite buzzword.

I meant that metaphorically, but if someone really can get elected in fucking Massachusetts by promising to support a torturing police state and forcing rape victims to give birth to their rapist's children, then our entire fucking country deserves to burn in Hell.

No fucking way. Seriously? I'm not a fan of abortion, well even proponents of abortion probably aren't fans of it, but seriously? I thought this was one of the few instances where the left and the right had pretty much agreed, ok, in this case it's not so bad. Again, I don't have TV and my internet's slow so I don't keep as up to date, but when you guys say this guy's a "tea bagger," that he really fits the bill, you're not just throwing it around?

 

[platypotamus]

$9,000 a year to drive? That number is very inflated.

I spend about $960 a year in gas (if anything, that's overestimating it).

Cost of car: $25,000. I plan to drive it for 8 years. That's $3,125 per year. Add registration, that's about what now? $400? (I'm being screwed in California).

So, that's $960, $3,125, and $400. That comes out to $4,485.

And this is California, with the highest gas prices and registration (I think) in the country.


So, um, yeah, $9,000 is very inflated. Not to mention that it's impossible for me to take mass transit to work. It'd take like 5 hours each way.

Auto insurance probably adds another $1000 or so, since you're in CA, unless you are much older than I expect. Supposing your car is in good enough shape that maintenance is cheap, and further supposing you do maintenance, that's another 200.

Did you pay cash for that 25000 car, or are there finance charges we should be adding in here?

How about parking costs? Those can get pretty large if you're dealing with any urban areas.

I agree it seems unlikely you are getting to 9k, and I further agree it's possible that you're unable to do mass transit since you're in CA... but (and I know math and data analysis hasn't proved to be your strong point previously in this thread), one shouldn't expect each individual data point to line up perfectly with averages. See, what happens is, some people are above average, and some are below, and when taken in aggregate, you get that average number as being representative of the mid-range of the whole, rather than the actual experience of one particular data point.

 

[mAcOdIn]

Auto insurance probably adds another $1000 or so, since you're in CA, unless you are much older than I expect. Supposing your car is in good enough shape that maintenance is cheap, and further supposing you do maintenance, that's another 200.

Did you pay cash for that 25000 car, or are there finance charges we should be adding in here?

How about parking costs? Those can get pretty large if you're dealing with any urban areas.

I agree it seems unlikely you are getting to 9k, and I further agree it's possible that you're unable to do mass transit since you're in CA... but (and I know math and data analysis hasn't proved to be your strong point previously in this thread), one shouldn't expect each individual data point to line up perfectly with averages. See, what happens is, some people are above average, and some are below, and when taken in aggregate, you get that average number as being representative of the mid-range of the whole, rather than the actual experience of one particular data point.

I think the most important point of that whole thing was that they're mainly focusing on large cities with mass transit to begin with. I mean, I could compare myself but I'd probably end up around 2500 a year, if that, my city doesn't even know the concept of paying to park, but it also doesn't know the concept of mass transit either.

And like you said, the article deals with averages, clearly if a driver bought an extremely cheap car that was great on mileage, just had liability and did not perform maintenance as often as recommended they could come out way below the average, even more so if the places they go have adequate free parking, limited toll ways and the like, and really the could in "could save" gave it all away.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I agree it seems unlikely you are getting to 9k, and I further agree it's possible that you're unable to do mass transit since you're in CA... but (and I know math and data analysis hasn't proved to be your strong point previously in this thread), one shouldn't expect each individual data point to line up perfectly with averages. See, what happens is, some people are above average, and some are below, and when taken in aggregate, you get that average number as being representative of the mid-range of the whole, rather than the actual experience of one particular data point.

Here is where that figure comes from. At the link, you can see all the various different costs associated with different cars/needs.

 

[kzn]

What the hell is up with the massive campaign to claim Coakley is going to lose?

Bogus polls, the media making half-baked predictions and people making up scenarios when the election hasn't even happened yet.

Everything points to a close elections. Yet some people are buying into bogus polls that show a blowout.

There is one poll from Monday that shows a tie. Everything else has Brown ahead by 5 points or more.

That said, this happens with every vaguely important election ever, why is this surprising?

 

[NetMapel]

Problem is that, with the exception of NYC, US cities are not densely populated at all. They are spread out and got major suburban sprawls that make it very unfriendly to public transit. If I live in a US city, I'd probably be driving too. The US need to start looking around other world-class cities for urban planning if they want to establish good and affordable transit system. Maybe even look up north to Canada to see how our 3 major cities got their public transit working rather well for our population.

 

[kzn]

I meant that metaphorically, but if someone really can get elected in fucking Massachusetts by promising to support a torturing police state and forcing rape victims to give birth to their rapist's children, then our entire fucking country deserves to burn in Hell.

Oh, really?

Do you, perhaps, have more support for that particular part of your statement than a Coakley campaign ad?

Because based on about 10 minute's worth of research, I've found the facts which that ad was apparently based on.

In short, if you don't want to hunt through all that, Brown introduced an Amendment to a proposed bill that would require Mass. hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, which would allow those with a "sincerely held religious belief" to exempt themselves from personally providing said contraception.

The Amendment failed, and Brown voted for the bill anyway.

You're worse than O'Reilly.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Oh, really?

Do you, perhaps, have more support for that particular part of your statement than a Coakley campaign ad?

Because based on about 10 minute's worth of research, I've found the facts which that ad was apparently based on.

In short, if you don't want to hunt through all that, Brown introduced an Amendment to a proposed bill that would require Mass. hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, which would allow those with a "sincerely held religious belief" to exempt themselves from personally providing said contraception.

The Amendment failed, and Brown voted for the bill anyway.

You're worse than O'Reilly.

In other words, he thinks it's okay for hospitals to not treat rape victims if they don't want to.

What a class act.

 

[reilo]

This entire idea that the few of us who want to see the filibuster abolished would have despised a no-filibuster Senate eight years ago is totally asinine. You don't see any of us complaining, bitching, and moaning about the House's procedure the way we do about the Senate's, now do ya?

 

[kzn]

In other words, he thinks it's okay for hospitals to not treat rape victims if they don't want to.

What a class act.

No. In other words, he thinks the government lacks the authority to force someone to provide a treatment they believe is immoral. The Amendment specifically said that in the event of anyone having such a "sincerely held religious belief", it was up to the hospital in question to provide a no-cost referral, even if that required transportation to another hospital.

But nice try.

[edit] To ensure this is abundantly clear, the Amendment is directed at individuals, not at a hospital as a whole. How someone could get that reading out of it I don't know, but might as well cater to the bottom.

 

[cntr]

Brown is a pro-choice Republican.

 

[cntr]

E.P.A. Seeks Stricter Rules to Curb Smog

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday proposed a stricter standard for smog-causing pollutants that would bring substantial health benefits to millions of Americans while imposing large costs on industry and local governments.

The standard would replace one set by the Bush administration in March 2008, which has been challenged in court by state officials and environmental advocates as too weak to adequately protect human health and the environment.

The Obama administration’s proposal sets a primary standard for ground-level ozone of no more than 0.060 to 0.070 parts per million, to be phased in over two decades. Regions with the worst smog pollution, including much of the Northeast, Southern and Central California and the Chicago and Houston areas, would have more time than other areas to come into compliance.

The new rule would replace the standard of 0.075 parts per million imposed by the Bush administration over the objection of an E.P.A. scientific panel, which wanted a tighter limit. The previous standard of 0.084 parts per million was set in 1997 by the Clinton administration.

The Obama administration is also proposing a secondary smog standard that would vary with the seasons to protect plants and trees from repeated exposure.

The agency estimated that complying with the new standard would cost $19 billion to $90 billion a year by 2020, to be largely borne by manufacturers, oil refiners and utilities. But the agency said that those costs would be offset by the benefits to human health, which it valued at $13 billion to $100 billion a year in the same period.

The new standard would force hundreds of counties that meet the current law to take costly steps to get back into compliance. Under the current standard of 0.075 parts per million, 322 counties of the 675 that monitor ozone levels are out of compliance. If the 0.070 limit is adopted, 515 counties would be out of compliance. Only 15 of the 675 monitored counties now meet the 0.060 standard.

In areas that do not meet the new standards, state and local governments will have to impose regulations to reduce the pollutants that produce smog, using technologies that have already cut such emissions from smokestacks, tailpipes and manufacturing plants, or new technology as yet uninvented. The nearly 40-year history of the Clean Air Act has shown that science — and the threat of costly penalties — have given industry the tools and incentive to find ways to cut ozone-producing gases.

Penalties for noncompliance include fines and loss of federal highway financing.

Agency analysts project that if the stricter standard is adopted, as many as 12,000 premature deaths per year from heart or lung diseases could be avoided, along with thousands of cases of bronchitis, asthma and nonfatal heart attacks.

“E.P.A. is stepping up to protect Americans from one of the most persistent and widespread pollutants we face,” Lisa P. Jackson, the agency’s administrator, said in a statement. “Smog in the air we breathe poses a very serious health threat, especially to children and individuals suffering from asthma and lung disease. It dirties our air, clouds our cities and drives up our health care costs across the country.”

Smog or ground-level ozone is not emitted by a single source, but is, according to the E.P.A., formed by a reaction of nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide and methane in the presence of sunlight. The main sources of these pollutants are power plants and factories, fumes from volatile solvents, vehicles emissions and gasoline vapors. Smog is worse in the summer because of heat and sunlight, and can travel hundreds of miles from its source and affect small towns, rural communities and wilderness areas.

The leader of an association of air-quality enforcement agencies welcomed the proposal.

“This is exactly what states and localities have advocated for 30 years,” said S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. “This will not be easy to achieve, whichever number the E.P.A. ultimately chooses, but it’s a decision that will ensure that public health is protected with an adequate margin of safety.”

Mr. Becker also said that the projected costs of compliance were likely to be lower than the agency’s estimate. “And the benefits will likely trump the costs many times over,” he said.

The American Petroleum Institute, the oil companies’ chief lobby, criticized the proposal as costly and likely to be ineffective. The group said there was no new scientific basis for changing the standard set at the end of the Bush administration.

“To do so is an obvious politicization of the air-quality standard-setting process that could mean unnecessary energy cost increases, job losses and less domestic oil and natural gas development and energy security,” the group said in a statement issued minutes after the agency’s announcement.

The trade association for electric utilities, the Edison Electric Institute, reacted warily.

“We probably won’t know for a couple of years just what utilities and other emissions sources will be required to do in response to a tighter ozone standard,” said John Kinsman, the institute’s senior director for the environment. “States will have to cast a very wide net when targeting sources for emissions cuts, in part because utilities already have made substantial reductions in ozone-related emissions.”

The E.P.A. will take public comment on the proposal for 60 days and expects to issue a final rule in August with a single standard between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per million. By the end of 2013, states must submit plans showing how areas that do not attain the new standard will be brought into compliance. The new rules would be phased in between 2014 and 2031, with deadlines depending on how dirty the air is in a given region.

Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch, an advocacy group, said that the ozone rule was the most significant environmental action the Obama administration was likely to take this year.

“This will ultimately mean cleaner air all across America,” Mr. O’Donnell said. “This is going to drive pollution control into the next decade and beyond.”

 

[Mgoblue201]

Haven't members of the House said that they wouldn't pass the Senate bill as it is currently constituted if it came to that? I can't imagine they would do that. The fallout from six months of wasted political capital would be far worse than the passage of the bill.

 

[gkryhewy]

Problem is that, with the exception of NYC, US cities are not densely populated at all. They are spread out and got major suburban sprawls that make it very unfriendly to public transit. If I live in a US city, I'd probably be driving too. The US need to start looking around other world-class cities for urban planning if they want to establish good and affordable transit system. Maybe even look up north to Canada to see how our 3 major cities got their public transit working rather well for our population.

There are many US cities which are quite dense and/or surrounded by walkable suburbs where transit works quite well - you'll see many of them in the list posted above. Fortunately, a partial reversal of the sprawl of the last 50 years is a demographic inevitability; there is a surplus of larger-lot suburban housing from the baby boom generation, and not nearly as many 3+ person households interested in occupying them. In the current housing downturn, home values in walkable and transit-accessible places have held up much better than those in sprawling suburbs and exurbs.

The point of those $$ numbers is that if you choose to live in a place where transit DOES work, it can save you a significant amount of money. Whether it's $5,000 or $10,000, it's quite significant.

Too often people look only at home prices when deciding where to live in America (i.e., yeah it's an hour and a half from work, but look at all this space!)... but if they consider transportation costs, that "savings" on the home disappears quite quickly.

 

[charlequin]

In short, if you don't want to hunt through all that, Brown introduced an Amendment to a proposed bill that would require Mass. hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, which would allow those with a "sincerely held religious belief" to exempt themselves from personally providing said contraception.

I'm not really in the mood for playing footsie with some junior shithead today, so I'm just going to note that legally allowing hospitals to deny requested care to victims of violent assault is pretty fucking monstrous no matter what bullshit rationalization you attach to it. Somebody doesn't want to provide people with certain specific kinds of medical treatment, they can fucking get a job that doesn't involve giving people medical treatment.

And, of course, you don't have anything on the torture point because it's Brown's radio ads that are quite unambiguously clear about him being in favor of denying Constitutional protections to anyone you can call a terrorist.

 

[The Librarian]

I'm not really in the mood for playing footsie with some junior shithead today, so I'm just going to note that legally allowing hospitals to deny requested care to victims of violent assault is pretty fucking monstrous no matter what bullshit rationalization you attach to it. Somebody doesn't want to provide people with certain specific kinds of medical treatment, they can fucking get a job that doesn't involve giving people medical treatment.

And, of course, you don't have anything on the torture point because it's Brown's radio ads that are quite unambiguously clear about him being in favor of denying Constitutional protections to anyone you can call a terrorist.

:lol

 

[schuelma]

Don't worry demgaf, I'm now getting the feeling that the dem machine will pull it out for Coakley. By all accounts they are fully engaged and there have been some encouraging anecdotes (the note reporting that in Boston, absentee ballots were 5:1 dem/republican).

 

[Tamanon]

I'm not entirely sure that a filibuster would lead to the end of the bill. In fact, I'd argue that a filibuster would be the worst thing the GOP could do. Their whole platform thus far for the midterms is repealing legislation, but if you make them sit at Day 33 of a filibuster on a health care bill while unemployment still runs rampant, you start to run into them becoming more interested in "talk" than helping people. Theoretically it would shift spotlight from what appears to most folks as the Dems just bickering amongst themselves for concessions to a party that's actively trying to make sure that people are getting help from the government.

And yes, a filibuster would hit the floor, it's the only possible outcome for Reid that wouldn't lead to him being thrown into the Potomac, he wouldn't be able to just not put a bill up for a cloture vote and shelve it.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Brown is a pro-choice Republican.

Who is endorsed by pro-life groups.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Too often people look only at home prices when deciding where to live in America (i.e., yeah it's an hour and a half from work, but look at all this space!)... but if they consider transportation costs, that "savings" on the home disappears quite quickly.

Well, it's not just the price of the home. It's also schools, public parks, access to shopping, and tax rates. Quite often, those four factors swing it back to the suburbs.

I can't speak nationally, but in Ohio, the cost for building a new home inside city limits is 8000-12000 dollars more than building outside of it. To move into an existing structure the homes inside city limits are often 50-80 years old whereas homes built in the suburbs are all post-WWII structures.

 

[schuelma]

Oh and this is going to suck- no exit polls It is going to be a loooooooong night.

 

[Dooraven]

Who is endorsed by pro-life groups.

Who are they going to endorse if not Brown?

Oh and this is going to suck- no exit polls It is going to be a loooooooong night.

Where did you get this piece of info from? and when do the polls close?

 

[schuelma]

Where did you get this piece of info from? and when do the polls close?

Its being reported everywhere, but I saw it on Time (I think the Swampland blog). Polls close at 8. The good news is I read that there are no paper balloting in the state, so it should be quicker than other states.

 

[Tamanon]

Don't some states have laws that prevent "exit polling" as in you can't ask someone who they voted for?

 

[Sirpopopop]

Who are they going to endorse if not Brown?

They can always choose to endorse neither candidate.

Not to mention the whole audacity to even propose the "rape" amendment in the first place. Yeah, that just gives one the warm fuzzies that he's "different" even though he's affirmed himself as a Tea Bagging candidate.

 

[Dooraven]

They can always choose to endorse neither candidate.

The political right is putting huge amounts of energy into this race. Yes, they could endorse neither, but why would they?.

Not to mention the whole audacity to even propose the "rape" amendment in the first place. Yeah, that just gives one the warm fuzzies that he's "different" even though he's affirmed himself as a Tea Bagging candidate.

I know that Brown is pretty far right, I'm just saying that endorsements don't really stand for a politician's stand on issues.

 

[schuelma]

Don't some states have laws that prevent "exit polling" as in you can't ask someone who they voted for?

From what I read this is a case of no news organization paying a group because up until a week ago no one thought it was going to be a race.

 

[Tamanon]

From what I read this is a case of no news organization paying a group because up until a week ago no one thought it was going to be a race.

Great, that means we'll be dealing with shoddy, last minute, partisan exit polling as the day wears on.

 

[schuelma]

Great, that means we'll be dealing with shoddy, last minute, partisan exit polling as the day wears on.

"I voted in Boston today and there was no one there. BROWN BY 20"

"I just got back from Boston and it was absolutely swamped. Really feel good about Martha's chances now."

 

[gkryhewy]

Well, it's not just the price of the home. It's also schools, public parks, access to shopping, and tax rates. Quite often, those four factors swing it back to the suburbs.

I can't speak nationally, but in Ohio, the cost for building a new home inside city limits is 8000-12000 dollars more than building outside of it. To move into an existing structure the homes inside city limits are often 50-80 years old whereas homes built in the suburbs are all post-WWII structures.

1. It's not as simple as cities vs. suburbs. There are many American "cities" that are functionally just big auto-oriented suburbs (such as Phoenix, Orlando, etc). It's more "mixed-use and walkable" vs. not. Mixed-use/walkable will also be transit supportive. Secretary LaHood's definition for "livability" is pretty nice. There's the twelve-word version:

If you don't want an automobile, you don't have to have one.

And the slightly longer explanation:

A community where you can walk to work, your doctor’s appointment, pharmacy or grocery store. Or you could take light rail, a bus or ride a bike.

Really, it's about having meaningful transportation options, wherever you live.

2. Fair point, and taxes will vary depending on your state/locality. Here in the Philadelphia region, property taxes in the burbs are **much** higher than in the city for a comparably-valued home.

3. You have access to schools, parks, and shopping in cities and walkable burbs as well; you just don't have to drive to them. As private investment increasingly flows toward these places (which again I think is a demographic inevitability), the quality of schools will necessarily improve. At some point, there's a critical mass or tipping point.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Brown-51
Coakley-47

That's my final prediction.

 

[teruterubozu]

Looks like Kennedy could make and break Obama.

 

[gcubed]

Rooftop Solar Installations Growing Faster than Utility-Scale Solar

what is the purpose of putting such a low cap on non-utility solar powered production? I understand it takes money out of a companies pocket, but most of the US is underpowered currently isnt it? I would assume it would be cheaper to allow people to help the grid then to build and maintain more power plants, companies may just need to change the compensation rate for consumers storing in the grid

 

[empty vessel]

No. In other words, he thinks the government lacks the authority to force someone to provide a treatment they believe is immoral. The Amendment specifically said that in the event of anyone having such a "sincerely held religious belief", it was up to the hospital in question to provide a no-cost referral, even if that required transportation to another hospital.

Many once believed that segregation and race-mixing were moral issues. Indeed, I'm sure some doctors and nurses in the 1950's South would have believed treating a black person in a white hospital would have been unethical. In short, the framing of doing some act A or refraining from some act A as a moral issue has no bearing on whether that act should be respected. The belief it is immoral to medically treat a rape victim with emergency contraception deserves no respect or protection in the law.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Brown-51
Coakley-47

That's my final prediction.

Yea, that would be my prediction too.

 

[eznark]

What is the over/under on how long it takes for the legal challenges following todays election to end?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

3. You have access to schools, parks, and shopping in cities and walkable burbs as well; you just don't have to drive to them. As private investment increasingly flows toward these places (which again I think is a demographic inevitability), the quality of schools will necessarily improve. At some point, there's a critical mass or tipping point.

This is a problem for me in Florida. If there was a light rail built in my county, there's no way in hell anyone could walk to the groceries, mall, etc.. Also, the buses suck here and traffic is too congested. There are over a million people living in Pinellas County.

 

[CrazedArabMan]

Hey PoliGAF, I know you guys are busy worrying about the election and all but I ran across this story and just wanted to know how you people felt about it, it kinda falls into the political/religious/military category and could probably use it's own thread, but I'm too lazy to start one.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794&page=1

I'm just curious on what people think of this, not really wanting people to go all out, just some basic opinions, that's it.