..are all the better options to driving any kind of car where possible. Not only do they forgo potential emissions of the person choosing the option (pretty much, one could factor in electricity etc for telecommuting, subway as well as other factors), but help the people who (I would hope) have a good reason to drive emit less, since traffic is improved and flows better--less stop and go driving.

Regarding biking or walking, it is not possible for everyone, some people have to drive to work and I have sometimes been one of those people. But I find what discourages some people is that they generally have an inflated view of how long city bike trips take. Frequently biking is actually faster than driving in rush hour. Generally many people act shocked that I biked somewhere--and I tell them it took 20 minutes. And the same surprised people will then go and spend 3o minutes on some machine in a gym, and then take 30 minutes driving home.

With the options above you don't have to worry about finding parking. Or paying for parking. Or paying for gas. Everyone is in a different situation, but I think it is irresponsible to not fully consider the alternative transportation options available. So petition your employer for showers, bike racks, telecommuting options--you will be glad you did.

I can't watch living here in India. Finally, a disadvantage to living in India. Now I'm thinking about going back to Canada and the snow. Does this wide screen TV thingy work there?

... but look up Diane Sawyer's interview with Al Gore on YouTube. She might as well have been up front about it "Al, you've got this great new book about the dumbing down of the national discourse--but I've got to ask you about your weight".

I think a collection of dumbest TV political interviews ever would be a fun thing for Salon to do. Maybe set it to a laugh track.

And, sorry larrfirr, but talking about the way the media covers politics is an important discussion to have. These days perhaps the most important discussion.

Blair

The president should be able to lead--the barrista at the local coffee shop may agree with me on everything too, but that doesn't mean I'll vote for them if they ran for president.

That said, Kucinich has the experience and would be as good as any of the mainstream candidates.

Oh yes, and I am:

1. Gravel

2. Kucinich

3. Edwards

..I suspect most people here had those 3 in varying orders. Doesn't necessarily mean that much as the questions are simplistic, and I could only choose one policy when in some cases there were more than one non-mutually exclusive choices that I would have chosen together.

5 year plan, buy $1000, assume it is worthless in the end (recycle or donate):

$1000

5 year plan--buy for $1000 every year, sell for $400

Year 1: $1000

Year 2: $1000 - $400

Year 3: $1000 - $400

Year 4: $1000 - $400

Year 5: $1000 - $400

= $3400

One could also factor in the opportunity cost of not investing the money you could have saved every year by not buying a new computer every year.

I don't think it matters what you buy--just don't buy a new one every year. It will cost you more is bad for the environment.

I won't go into tips on how to make a computer last-there are lots out there--you shouldn't see any major performance degradation over 5 years if you are smart.

...then why did Bush' approval rating go from 60 odd percent down to 25?

Both sides are able to make their arguments on the internet, people got informed, Bush's popularity tanked. (I would like to see a graph that charted the increase in blog activity relative to the decrease in Bush's numbers).

I should concede, however, that there is way too much time wasted by people on political forums (of all political stripes) merely attacking people. Next time anyone out there is thinking about commenting on a debate video by saying "wow, that guy tore him another one", please refrain, it is a waste of everyone's time. And, while I agree that Bush is an idiot, merely pointing that out without adding anything else isn't helping anyone.

And, sorry Mishima666, but, although perhaps not at quite the same level as the angry right-wingers, there are terms used quite often by progressives such as "Right Wing Wackjobs", repukes, repugs, etc.

There is no requirement for a filmmaker to balance POVs in a movie. If the goal is to get inside the mind of a rapist, then that mindset does not include the POV of the victim. A filmmaker explores the topic that they are curious about, and the good ones don't balance for the sake of balance.

Just because rape is different than war, doesn't mean it isn't an appropriate metaphor. In fact, a metaphor would have to something different yet similar, wouldn't it. War is the powerful exerting their power, overstepping boundaries, using violence to mindlessly satisfy their lustful greed.

Gay bashing isn't an appropriate metaphor for specific reasons. The prime reason being there is something more specific and directed about it. The person doing the gay bashing is specific about the reason they are doing it. If you asked the gay basher, I'm sure they would say "becuase I hate gays". The rapist hates women, but I'm sure you would get different answers if you asked rapists after the fact why they did it. Some might actually admit that they hate women, some would say it was there right to do it, that they wanted to get off etc. Kind of like invading Iraq--when asking Americans--everyone gives a different answer as to why America invaded. But ultimately is about asserting dominance and satisfy the greed for oil.

I appreciate responses, it is an interesting topic.