Orton's Arm

Your questions weren't helpful to moving this discussion forward. I'm not an expert on the construction of power lines. If you want a detailed plan for how this nation's electric grid could be upgraded to accommodate the demands of electric cars, you'll have to ask someone else. You seem to think that if I can't come up with a detailed plan to upgrade the grid, it can't be upgraded. I suppose that particular form of illogic allows you to dismiss both problems and proposed solutions without really thinking about either.

Compared to me, all other men look like that!

Implying, I suppose, that there is such a thing as a more attractive man than me. I'm not sure how many women would agree with you there. But given what just happened to Nate Clements, I think our chances of extending Mangold would have been at least as good as our chances of extending Whitner.

To me, the Whitner pick was like going out on a date with a 7. She's nice, looks good, and has a brain in her head. But you had to say no to a 9 to go out on that date. In the end, was it really worth it? The Bills could have traded down, and used their first pick on Mangold. Given that Mangold is already one of the best centers in the league, they could have had a (thus far) better player than Whitner, plus a second round pick. Then there's the chance Whitner would have been there later in the first round. I'd have taken Mangold anyway, but that's just me. Those who disagree with the Whitner pick feel Marv fell in love with one particular player, and therefore wasted the opportunity to maximize the benefit of that pick.

His was actually a very interesting article. It's just that we're learning a lot about Mars from unmanned missions anyway. While manned missions are somewhat better, they're a lot more expensive. Instead of putting tens of billions of dollars into--possibly--learning slightly more about global warming, I'd rather spend the money doing something constructive to actually solve the problem of fossil fuel dependence. Massive solar satellites could transmit electrical energy to the earth; thereby curbing our dependence on coal, natural gas, and even nuclear power. And we could recoup at least part of the investment by charging people for the resultant electricity.

I don't really know where to begin. You say that the U.S. isn't being absorbed into the Third World, despite the fact we're allowing ourselves to be colonized and populated by Third World nations. You say Third World immigrants don't represent an environmental problem, despite the large population increase they're causing, and despite the fact the average American is responsible for far more greenhouse emissions than the average Third World denizen. You say nuclear waste can't be shipped from Maine to Arizona, despite our decades of experience in shipping nuclear waste from one place to another. You say that fossil fuels will be the best available energy source until they've all been used up. However, it's likely demand for fossil fuels will keep going up, while the quantity of oil collected globally will begin to decline. The combination of these two factors will cause oil prices to continue to rise, until alternative sources of energy start to make economic sense. You say basis for eugenics has been scientifically disproven, despite the fact that arguments against eugenics are based on political considerations, and not scientific knowledge. You imply the power grid can't be upgraded to accommodate the demands of electric vehicles. Yes, Europe has a much bigger energy problem than we do. They also rely far more heavily than us on mass transit, their passenger rail service is light years ahead of ours, and the vehicles they do use are typically more fuel efficient. You question whether electric vehicles will be viable in our lifetime. Phoenix Motorcars is currently developing an all-electric vehicle with a 250 mile range, that can recharge in ten minutes, with a maximum speed of 95 - 120 MPH, and that can accelerate from 0 - 60 in ten seconds. It uses a non-toxic, NanoSafe battery. Initially, the vehicles are expected to cost around $45,000. I could easily see the price coming down once they start manufacturing these things in serious volumes. Electric cars don't need oil changes. They don't have transmissions, spark plugs, exhaust systems, catalytic converters, or even engines for crying out loud. Every 10,000 miles, you need to check the brakes of an electric car, and maybe rotate the tires. That's it as far as required maintenance. You have no idea how many fewer moving parts there are in an electric car than a gas-powered vehicle. An electric car doesn't require repairs much more often than any other electric appliance. So yes, this is a direction in which we should be moving.

Plays soft? Has all the tools to be very good, but isn't motivated? Considered a draft day bust? Moved from RT to G? Hated by all his team's fans? Struggles against speed rushers? I was going to make a Mike Williams comparison, but based on what they're saying over on the Raiders board, Mike Williams was significantly better at run blocking than this guy.

The bigger the government department, and the more people they hire, the more membership dues come the union's way. Typically, public sector unions lobby for measures which create larger, less efficient government agencies. As far as I'm concerned, public sector unions shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Your excuse is just as lame as Bungee Jumper's! Two peas in a pod . . .

Why do I feel like I'm talking to an eleven-year old?

Your arguments are weak, and interspersing personal insults makes them seem even weaker. For example, you've characterized the problem of nuclear waste as "100 local issues" despite the fact the nuclear waste could be shipped to one central nuclear waste dump. The creation of such a central repository is already underway. I'm fully aware replacing legacy fossil fuels with renewable energy will require economic change and technological advancement. That's why I want the necessary changes to begin as soon as possible, instead of the passive waiting you seem to propose. Let's say that in ten or 15 years, light sweet crude hits $200 a barrel. Wouldn't it be nice to have the technology and infrastructure in place to transition to an oil-free economy? By beginning the transition now, we leave ourselves less vulnerable to future price spikes for oil or other legacy energy sources. You accuse me of "retreating into a protectionist shell" whenever "practical solutions" to Third World problems are proposed. Other than allowing the U.S. to be absorbed into the Third World--which isn't a long-term solution to anything--what "practical solutions" to the Third World's problems have you seen me oppose? You claim environmental issues are being addressed. Unfortunately, that claim is untrue. There is no systematic effort in play to cause us to be more environmentally responsible. Our automotive policy (or lack thereof) is an excellent case in point. The only bright spot I see are (generally small, start-up) companies which are developing better solar cells, potentially viable electric cars, and many of the other things we need. But we won't be getting much more nuclear power anytime soon, thanks to overly alarmist views codified into law. Nor will we be getting the solar power satellites we need, and which are too expensive for a private company to create. We're getting a manned mission to Mars instead! Nor are we taking the easiest and most obvious step to curb the demand for energy in this country--immigration reform. Greater levels of environmental responsibility are coming from start-ups, and these (potential) improvements are coming despite an almost breath-taking level of government-level indifference to the environment.

Never said unions were to blame for "all our ills," but thanks for putting words in my mouth. Unions have, however, contributed to the following problems: Management not being allowed to fire lazy or incompetent workers Looooong contracts which restrict what workers can do (ex. you have to be an electrician to change a light bulb) Unionized American companies losing market share to non-union foreign competition Advancement due to seniority The National Educators Association is one of the reasons why America's public school system is a failure Government unions in general lobby for a higher level of government spending The theory of unions sounds like it could have potential. At first glance, a union seems like nothing more than workers banding together to obtain more bargaining power collectively than they would have had individually. Yes, unions have sometimes had that effect. But there's a lot more to unions than that, and the "extra" stuff unions do is almost always harmful. So much so, that if you're a unionized company going up against a non-union competitor, you almost may as well close up shop right now.

That's your excuse for using name-calling instead of engaging in intelligent debate?

I'd add Bungee Jumper and Ramius to the list of those who prefer name-calling to intelligent debate.

Has anyone told you how very annoying it is to have a conversation with you?

It looks like we're on the same page WRT the Third World population explosion. To address your other point, I realize that phenotype (one's actual traits) is the product of genotype (relevant genes) plus environmental influences. Darwinism works by selecting those with the "best" phenotypes; but any sort of Darwinistic improvement is achieved through the genotype. Unfortunately, the average stupid person has far more children than does the average smart person. The fact that "stupid" and "smart" refer to the phenotype does not, as you seem to imply, mean that there are no negative consequences to the genotype.

I'm sorry, but there was nothing at all in my post to justify your desire to call me an idiot. My displeasure with current human activity stems from the changes we're making to the Earth's atmosphere, especially CO2 levels. Nuclear power isn't a perfect solution, but at least whatever problems it would create would be local. Nobody wants to return to a 1940s-style living standard. But there are prudent actions we could take that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions without the dire consequences to our living standards you've described. We need new nuclear power plants, improved pollution standards for existing coal plants, improved fuel efficiency requirements for 18 wheelers, light trucks, and SUVs, a more tax-friendly situation for freight trains and other non-automotive means of locomotion, even satellites to beam solar energy to the Earth. We also need to be doing a much better job of helping the Third World control its catastrophic population boom. Collectively, these measures would not only improve the environment, they'd probably give us a higher standard of living than simply sitting around and ignoring the environment would.

The article's author is very obviously intelligent and well-informed. That said, he makes some implicit assumptions which which I'm uncomfortable: Funding pressures almost always cause scientists to overstate the effects of global warming Inaccuracies in predicting artificially-created "weather" on a small scale mean that predicting global climate is far more uncertain. It's easy to predict that an increase in the sun's brightness will result in a warmer earth. It's very difficult to predict whether the warmer sun will make it more or less likely for Omaha to receive rain in the first week of March. In other words, climate may be easier to predict than weather. We should wait around for better climate data before making any major investment decisions designed to curb global warming. With all due respect to Schmitt, we know that human activity has significantly increased the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. We don't yet know whether said change will result in no ecological damage, an outright catastrophe, or something in between. Nor do we know how much (or how little) time we might have to avert said catastrophe if in fact it's coming. If I told you that the berries you ate every morning may or may not produce severe long-term brain damage, would you wait until a double-blind medical study had been concluded before searching for alternatives? Why should we be prudent about protecting our own health on the one hand, and completely cavalier about protecting the entire Earth's ecosystem on the other?

You're implying the Darwinistic forces I described earlier are "nonsense." Your confidence is interesting, given that any real support for your position is political, not scientific. But no, this isn't about that. It's about the way the populations of places like India and Latin America and other Third World nations and regions are expanding. If--for five minutes--you could overcome your desire to bite my head off, and actually consider the likely effects of this expansion, you'd experience sobering realizations. The Third World's population expansion is driving the destruction of the rain forests, it's resulting in more pollution, and it's set us on a long-term course for global famine.

Your post is funny, but also a depressingly real portrayal of the way NYS's government works. Or fails to work, in this case.

It took you a week to come up with that?

Your overall premise may well have merit. That said, Kordell Stewart was hardly "passed by." TD used a second round pick on him; and later allowed Neil O'Donnell to walk in free agency so that Stewart could be the starter. Stewart was given all the tools he needed to succeed, yet he failed in Pittsburgh and later Chicago.

An excellent article. I don't understand why the superintendent is completely unwilling to discipline these kids or to maintain a safe school environment.

I respect him. It takes courage to admit he was wrong, as he did WRT nuclear power. But if in the past he overstated the immediacy of the dangers of population growth, he's now erring to the other extreme. The Third World's population boom may not cause an immediate global famine, but if left unchecked its long-term consequences will be bleak.

Eric Moulds is probably done. Even if he has a little gas left in the tank, there's no sense in him using playing time to build chemistry with Losman. Moulds would be a one-and-done deal anyway, so the chemistry created in 2007 wouldn't carry over to 2008. You'd have to start from scratch with some other WR.