More evidence of global warming.
 

Here's the real bitch of it- global warming won't make the air warming. See lots of us was hoping it'd get warmer in the UK sos our clubs can build on players who grow up playing 365 days like the Brazilains do now. We'd be bringing home the Cups then! Plus the Brazilains would be too f'ing hot except to play in the winter so they'd suck! That's what we were hoping!

What is the measurement error for circa 1950's thermometers? 1 How sensitive were they to ocean pressure? 2 When reading the analog scales what sort of error could be expected? The guy's total increase is .5 degree. You don't think it possible error could be as likely an explaination?

More evidence of global warming.
 

Don't know for sure, but I think for the neocons around here "centrist" means Bush economic policy without all the talking-to-Jesus stuff.

More evidence of global warming.
 

I have often thought this, no more so than when watching Colin Powell in front of the UN with those pictures of RVs in the desert. But it only suits to be skeptical about some things, not others, right?

And of course this guy is the only one who's ever mentioned this global-warming-caused-by-man thing, so he's obviously a crackpot with tin foil on his head.

More evidence of global warming.
 

You don't think it fun they now admit air temps won't increase?

More evidence of global warming.
 

I think anyone who looked seriously at this issue when it first began to be reported understands that global warming doesn't mean it's going to be 85 degrees year round in New York. The serious consequences will be things like stronger and more frequent storm systems and a possible shift in the path of the current of warm water that heats the UK and Northern Europe to a liveable temperature. If the Gulf stream slips a little bit, Glasgow is going to feel more like Greenland, and then how are we ever going to get the good Brazilian players to sign for Celtic? Catastrophe.

George's Record is Safe
 

• WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.
  
  The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.
  
  The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050301/D88I8SPO1.html

More evidence of global warming.
 

Actually, a few years ago they ran a brilliant piece about children on airplanes modeled on it. I'll try to find it.

I wouldn't say they are of the "global warming isn't happening and if it is it doesn't matter" camp. I'd cast them as being of the "it is probably happening, but most of the science on the subject is shockingly bad, and therefore the effects can't be predicted despite Hollywood and the popular press's protestations to the contrary; meanwhile one can accurately predict the negative effects (economic and otherwise) of many of the proposed fixes, which in many cases are likely to do more damage than the predicted warming itself, so it isn't sensible to enact things like Kyoto based on current knowledge: it's like destroying all the chickens in north america and outlawing the poultry industry because there is a meaningful chance that a bad avian flu will jump species at some point in the future."

Or: that article doesn't strike me as unusual in the context of their other climate change pieces.

BR(read it religiously since '92 or so)C

More evidence of global warming.
 

OK, this wasn't the Swift-riff I remembered - maybe Spanky remembers what I was thinking of. Nevertheless, the children/airplanes articles:

Mum’s the word

Dec 3rd 1998
From The Economist print edition

When children should be screened and not heard

WE LIVE in increasingly intolerant times. Signs proliferate demanding no smoking, no spitting, no parking, even no walking. “No blacks” signs have thankfully disappeared—but elsewhere the imperative of denial seems to be ubiquitous. Smoking, once prohibited only in a few train carriages or sections of aircraft, is now banned totally in many offices, on most public transport and even in many bars. Posh clubs and restaurants have long had “no jeans” rules, but these days you can be too smart. Some London hostelries have “no suits” policies, for fear that boisterous city traders in suits might spoil the atmosphere. Environmentalists have long demanded all sorts of bans on cars. Mobile telephones are the latest target: some trains, airline lounges, restaurants and even golf courses are being designated “no phone” areas.

If intolerance really has to be the spirit of this age, The Economist would like to suggest restrictions on another source of noise pollution: children. Lest you dismiss this as mere prejudice, we can even produce a good economic argument for it. Smoking, driving and mobile phones all cause what economists call “negative externalities”. That is, the costs of these activities to other people tend to exceed the costs to the individuals of their proclivities. The invisible hand of the market fumbles, leading resources astray. Thus, because a driver’s private motoring costs do not reflect the costs he imposes on others in the form of pollution and congestion, he uses the car more than is socially desirable. Likewise, it is argued, smokers take too little care to ensure that their acrid fumes do not damage other people around them.

Governments typically respond to such market failures in two ways. One is higher taxes, to make polluters pay the full cost of their anti-social behaviour. The other is regulation, such as emission standards or bans on smoking in public places. Both approaches might work for children.

For children, just like cigarettes or mobile phones, clearly impose a negative externality on people who are near them. Anybody who has suffered a 12-hour flight with a bawling baby in the row immediately ahead or a bored youngster viciously kicking their seat from behind, will grasp this as quickly as they would love to grasp the youngster’s neck. Here is a clear case of market failure: parents do not bear the full costs (indeed young babies travel free), so they are too ready to take their noisy brats with them. Where is the invisible hand when it is needed to administer a good smack?

Child-free zones

The solution is obvious. All airlines, trains and restaurants should create child-free zones. Put all those children at the back of the plane and parents might make more effort to minimise their noise pollution. And instead of letting children pay less and babies go free, they should be charged (or taxed) more than adults, with the revenues used to subsidise seats immediately in front of the war-zone.

Passengers could then request a no-children seat, just as they now ask for a no-smoking one. As more women choose not to have children and the number of older people without young children increases, the demand for child-free travel will expand. Well, yes, it is a bit intolerant—but why shouldn’t parents be treated as badly as smokers? And at least there is an obvious airline to pioneer the scheme: Virgin.


Oh, what a carry on

Dec 16th 1999
From The Economist print edition

Might it be time for airlines to restrict both luggage and children on planes?

“I FEEL about airplanes the way I feel about diets. They are wonderful things for other people to go on,” Jean Kerr, an American dramatist, once quipped. Flying has become safer, faster and cheaper, but it seems ever more stressful. Having successfully fought for increased competition, to cut airfares, The Economist has now shifted its attention to relieving the stress. One frequent cause is the noise that children, especially bored ones, inflict on other travellers. A year ago, we proposed that all planes should have child-free zones, just like no-smoking zones: children (and parents) should be confined to the back of the plane. As yet, sadly, no airline seems to agree that children should be screened and not heard.

Undeterred, we would like to raise another case of what economists call a negative externality: ie, something which is nice for you but imposes costs on others. This is excessive carry-on luggage. In America six out of ten passengers now take a suitcase on to a flight, rather than check it in, three times as many as in 1990. The result is delay, because flights take longer to board. Passengers trying to squeeze 3-foot suitcases into 2-foot overhead bins hold up people trying to board behind them. Some travellers have tried to take refrigerators, television sets and even a stuffed moose-head on board.



Just kidding
The problems of both children and luggage could be solved in one stroke by putting the children in the hold, to make more space for carry-on luggage. But that, we concede, might be unacceptable. Instead, to reduce delays, most airlines are rightly imposing stricter limits on the size or weight of bags that can be carried on to planes. This has provoked outrage as passengers are forcibly separated from their belongings at check-in. Understandably: if you put luggage in the hold, you have to wait ages for it at the other end—if it shows up at all.

Once you have experienced the nightmare of waiting at the luggage carousel until it stops, with no sign of the suitcase you checked in, it is clear why people prefer to lug their cases on board. You took a flight from London to Tokyo; your luggage and your smart clothes decided to hop on one to Los Angeles. Not an externality, but certainly negative.

In America only 0.5% of bags go missing, but if you are a frequent traveller that risk is too high. A survey of 150 frequent fliers found that two-thirds had experienced some sort of delay or loss to their luggage in the previous 12 months. And if luggage remains lost, your likely compensation is paltry—a maximum of $1,250 in America, regardless of whether your clothes were bought at Wal-Mart or Armani.

If airlines are to restrict carry-ons, therefore, they also need to offer better compensation for delayed or lost luggage. At the least they should extend frequent-flier miles to luggage as well as its owner: if your suitcase travels to Tokyo via Los Angeles, you should get triple frequent-flier miles. In addition, passengers could be made to pay if they want to take extra luggage on board. Better still, given the frequent positive correlation between the size of the traveller and the weight of his (yes, his) carry-on, why not take a tip from Papua New Guinea? When flying within the country, a passenger used to be weighed along with his luggage before boarding the plane. Fight the flab and you can bring your bag on board. Aeroplanes and diets would then indeed be closely connected.

More evidence of global warming.
 

(1) Every article in the Economist is an editorial. They don't try to be objective

(2) I should have been clearer last night. All this article says is that one scientists think there is minor global warning. So I think the Economists position is they still are skeptical about whether or not there is climate change, but they are open to the fact that there may be a slight tempature change, but they still don't think anything should be done about it if it effects economic growth.

The fact that they are now open to the idea that there is a chance that there might be some man made impact on the tempature is a huge editorial shift.

In the nineteenth century the Economist argued that absolutely nothing should be done about the Irish potatoe (did I spell that right - where is Dan Quayle when you need him) famine. They argued that the government should provide no subsidies or help to the starving masses. The market should fix the situation, and all the death is the price you pay for economic efficiency. They have subsequently apoligized for that article (it took them about fifty years) but that shows how far to the right on economics this magazine goes (however, they are not supply siders - they believe deficits are worse than low taxes, where our concervatives believe high taxes are a bigger problem than deficits).

Also back then supportes of the Adam Smith' view were considered liberals, and the government interventionists were considered conservatives. I wish the popular definition did not change in America. I would like to be able to say I am a liberal - I think the government should stay the hell out of economcy, out of my wallet, out of social policy and out of my bedroom.

That is so charming! Do you think that guy is available, and above the age of consent? I'm jealous of ABBA and gwnc.

Huh. I didn't know they'd been around that long, but that is fairly unsurprising. The British financial establishment's reaction to An Gorta Mor ensured that generations of Irish have been extremely skeptical of the market model and its promoters.

Hank's Soccer Fun Fact Corner: Rangers supporters throw potatoes onto the pitch when playing Celtic to mock the club's Irish roots!

Seems misplaced. The skepticism should have been directed at the British, who saw the Famine as a way to deal with the Irish Problem, and not at the market model. It's like blaming gravity after Hank throws you out of the plane.

Don't worry - there's plenty of that, too. But the belief that efficient markets will cure every ill (eventually, after some unfortunate collateral damage) isn't limited to stuffy old guys in muttonchops.

First They Came for Broadcast and We Did Nothing
 

• WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said on Tuesday he would push for applying broadcast decency standards to cable television and subscription satellite TV and radio.
  
  "Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television and radio affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters."

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...&w=RTR&coview=

Maybe a Tax Cut or 10 Would Help
 

German unemployment rate hits 70 year high

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4307303.stm

Maybe a Tax Cut or 10 Would Help
 

It's like a little political NFH.

Maybe a Tax Cut or 10 Would Help
 

I thought you'd eat eggs for breakfast so that the sweet donut at mid-morning break would be a different taste- then you started talking about French toast and syrup. If you eat French Toast, do you still have a donut mid-morning break, or do you go for the less sweet like a scone or muffin?

First They Came for Broadcast and We Did Nothing
 

I'd be surprised if decency standards applied to subscription media would survive judicial challenge. Not everyone can see those things.

Maybe a Tax Cut or 10 Would Help
 

I passed up the french toast, silly. Pay attention!

First They Came for Broadcast and We Did Nothing
 

Seems a stretch. You must make an affirmative opt-in (by paying a fee) in order to get the signal - so, no argument about exposing innocent viewers to outrage, which is what the purpose of the protection is supposed to be.

First They Came for Broadcast and We Did Nothing
 

Which would suit the Ted Stevenses of the world just fine, since they'd probably rather be told by a court that they can't protect the American public from indecency.

First They Came for Broadcast and We Did Nothing
 

I hear ya, but I was similarly surprise when the S. CT ruled that descrimination is OK, at least for the next 25 years.

Point is, the fact that he thinks he's got this power is frightening. Does the FEC have the power to approve or disapprove licenses for paid channels? Seems to me the answer is no for entities like HBO, but doesn't TNT, for example, have broadcast licenses? And if so, I wonder whether TNT would join in a challenge when that could risk the approval process for its acquisitions of further stations.

First They Came for Broadcast and We Did Nothing
 

Worse, Stern* keeps saying he would have a great case if only the stations would challenge the fines- they don't. Who's to say that cable might not be similarly afraid.

*he says he's been fined for crap Oprah also said etc. The fines do seem pretty subjective.

First They Came for Broadcast and We Did Nothing
 

Next they'll come after the internet. Fuc . . . I mean, yay!

First They Came for Broadcast and We Did Nothing
 

I'd rather have an idiot windbag Alaskan cowpoke like Teddy Stevens around to make sure we get the right kind of judges and justices and lower taxes.

I can always using my tax cut money to buy porn on DVD. regardless of what they do to cable.

First They Came for Broadcast and We Did Nothing
 

Are you going to have that sock made a mod? I've been lonely.

Maybe a Tax Cut or 10 Would Help
 

Wait a second, this impossible, how can massive socialism result in an unemployment rate so high? This must be more of the Bush lies!

However, if true, perhaps they can hire JFKerry to implement one of his plans to help save them. Or they can try the French model of a 24 hour work week with 4 months of vacation and lower that UE rate to 10%.

Eitherwhichway, these soursocialistkrauts dug their own hole by telling us to fuck off over Iraq so I say let it burn. Now is the time for Rummy to pull all of the bases out in one clean shot. Move em to Poland.

No more suckling at Uncle Sammy's Tit!

Maybe a Tax Cut or 10 Would Help
 

In defense of Germans (I can't believe I just typed that), much of the gain was from reclassifying a ton of "I don't feel like getting up today so I must be permanently disabled" slugs from "unavailable" to "unemployed", as they try to limit or shrink the forever-entitled class.

(Disturbing images of transgendered old flabbies . . . )

Maybe a Tax Cut or 10 Would Help
 

Sounds like the bratwurst and beer have gone to your head billmore. Watch who you listen to or you may end up like this patsy:

http://www.joebrower.com/PHILE_PILE/...and_castro.jpg

Maybe a Tax Cut or 10 Would Help
 

Oh, this post is so hot!

Maybe a Tax Cut or 10 Would Help
 

Who knows? Once Schroeder decides to take a look at the superior American model, they may adopt the "no longer actively seeking employment" classification and those pesky employment insurance numbers (and unemployment numbers) will come right on back down, too.

Maybe a Tax Cut or 10 Would Help
 

I am probably stating the obvious (and of course my opinion comes from the Economist) is that Europe has such high unemployment, especially Germany, because it is so hard to fire or lay someone off in Europe.

It is so hard to get rid of employees, employers don't hire anyone until it is absolutely necessary. I used to work in Paris, and it was absotuley impossible to fire anyone. My secretary faxed confidential documents to the opposition (yes-believe it) and they could not get rid of her. The hiring process took forever (tons of interview, background checks, handwriting analysis - yes that is hand writing analysis) because the firm knew that once they hired someone they were never going to get rid of them. Germany is the worst offender at this.

I don't know why it took the Iraq war before people realized France was the enemy. My father was provost marshall at Templehoff airbase in Berlin (before the wall). If any of his troops got out of line he would threaten to send them to an American base in France (this was before De Gaulle kicked them out) and that was enough to scare anyone straight.

He was there right after the war, and the Germans, who we had bombed into the stone age were very friendly to Americans, and the French were jerks.

When Billy Crystal went to Moscow during the cold war he said that both countries did not see who the real enemy was: France.

That is why I had a bumper sticker made when I was living in Paris that said "Make Spain an Island".

stick to the economist.

aV

I feel like I'm being lectured to. The Word, according to Spanky. Received wisdom. Thank Spankyness he's here!

board motto?

What do you mean by "French"? The only “French” I know of is a salad dressing, and a not so tasty one at that.

LOL!

Seriously, France is a nation of unhygienic ungrateful anti-semitic socialist 250 flavor cheese eatin’ pussies.

Ironically, my dad was stationed in France when De Gaulle quit NATO and kicked the US military command out of the bases in Saint-German-en-Laye.

At that time my two sisters and I were living in Paris attending a French school, where coincidentally we were each the top student in our respective class. I have to admit I enjoyed living in Paris as a youth, but hated the smelly frogs who made up the local populace. Not dissimiliar to living in Boston and having to put up with Red Sox and Kerry and the Kennedys.

Eitherwhichway, in another 20 years the French will be an afterthought as the country now known as France will by then be the Hezbollah Republic of Merde.
http://civilwarclipart.com/Clipartga...ncordTower.jpg

Pay attention. You might learn something.