We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
UPDATE: A reader emails: “‘If people are neighborly, they need the state less.’ You have unwittingly provided every ’social-service’ bureaucracy with a motivational slogan to be posted prominently in parts of the building where the public is not allowed.” I don’t think it’s anything they haven’t figured out already. . . .
I've always felt that bottled water as a normal beverage was kind of silly. We provide it for our classroom students because it's convenient for them -- easier to keep a case cold in our fridge than for them to try to keep a re-usable bottle cold.
So now I can't decide which is sillier: using bottled water or banning it. Yes, I can -- banning is almost always sillier.
Re the WaPo article "New Analysis Brings Dire Forecast Of 6.3-Degree Temperature Increase" the first thing I noticed was the graph: it might be just an artefact of scale, but where is the 1999-2008 (and widely expected to go to 2030) flat-line/decrease? And the statement that nothing currently under consideration for reducing CO2 will help much or at all - well, why not shift from All Gory's idea that anyone who has less than several million dollars in the bank should live (or more likely die) without electricity-transportation-refrigeration-etc to Prof. Lomborg's ideas about actually doing something constructive - which, by the way, would not only be considerably cheaper but useful whichever way global temperature goes up or down? Instead, they continue to call for CO2 to be stopped regardless of their concluded non-value of doing so and/or the potentially horrendous costs greater than those of decreasing more gradually and practically (eg nuclear now, wind/solar when and where practical, etc eventually replacing fossil fuel power generation). Too, with all the emphasis on power generation, what about other things such as concrete/cement manufacture, which can't be replaced by wind farms? And those wind farms: just today, it was noted in the Chinese press that a major wind project (12.7 Gigawatts, HUGE) was in trouble because the developers acknowledge that a fossil-fuel backup (at least 9.5 Gigawatts, BIG) will be necessary. Which is the same thing as in the UK, where the E.On wind farm (immensely subsidized) simply won't work without a fossil-fuel (or nuke?) backup (largely to pay for itself), but the likes of Dr. Hansen are willing to destroy property to keep the backup from being built.