Maybe my reading comprehension is poor, but consider this exchange:

You quoting me: "[the article] is correct in its main point."

You: "No, it is not.

Do a Google search on "fly or drive environment". Or pick relevant words of your choice.

I mean, come on. This stuff is just basic.

There are articles on how such a choice is apples/oranges. There are articles saying "car". There are articles saying "plane". There are articles saying "stay home"."

...................

I thought you were implying that a google search would lead me to articles supporting your contention that Pablo is wrong. I still think that is a reasonable interpretation of what you wrote.

It is possible to have a conversation in which the participants respond to what each write. For example, you wrote:

But the conditions he assumes are idiotically simplistic. As is multiplying the plane figures by three because there are three people. If you were chartering a plane to take three people -- and only three -- across the country, and comparing that to driving your own car with three for the same journey, that sort of "passenger mile" comparison would make sense. Again, as pointed out above.

But you have not responded to questions as to why it is idiotic. I think Pablo's car trip represents what enough people could be doing to result in less CO2 from airlines flights (reducing flights, etc.) Then finding the CO2 attributable to three people flying, or driving, as he has done, makes sense. Why is this wrong?

that reports of game fixing in the NBA from a few years ago are now being reported?

wrote:

The greatest issue at hand isn't the personal decision of journalists to restrain themselves from cozying up to their sources, it's the problem that journalists feel they will be shortchanged in the future if they don't mindlessly regurgitate what their sources tell them.

Hmmm...I think the evidence says that those who are not cozyed-up work harder for the information they need. This means using the cozyees less and spending effort finding other sources of information. It also means establishing better habits that make one less dependent on the "convenient" source. This is a typical situation where positive feedback is at work; that is, positive in the sense of "pushing you in the direction you are going" not good versus bad. It is kind of like global warming; put enough CO2 in the atmosphere to start a warming trend, and this causes some effect that increases the warming. None of these things are that simple, of course; there are many factors, some causing negative feedback, some positive. But mechanisms that involve positive feedback tend to dominate if significant to start with.

The cozyees can only cut off a reporter if they are sure there will be another willing to play the game. And that works best if no one in the MSM is looking for independent information.

The MSM response, especially talking heads and torsos Sunday, will be interesting. With reference to Glenn's previous post, soon will be a good time to let your favorite media giant know what you think of its biased, shallow, and disrespectful reporting on this important story. Or will I be pleasantly surprised?

Why the sudden push for this? I try to be polite except when I lose control. That happens frequently, of course. When rudeness is the least of the opposition's tactics, why is it required in return?

Shooter, you are an idiot. The only people who would not vote for Obama because of that statement already are not voting for him. Oh, I forgot about you; you said you are going to vote for him. Are you changing your mind, based on one statement from someone for whom you have no respect? Not that I believed you when you said it anyway.

The deaths of these people who did nothing but either take a plane trip or show up to work, or do thier job rescuing others are used to fundmentally strip away Constitutional Rights and expand the power of the President. I fail to see how that's honoring their deaths. It's exploiting them.

Well said, Sue

The ruling came in the latest battle between the executive branch, Congress and the courts over how to cope with dangers to the country in the post-9/11 world. Although there have been enough rulings addressing that issue to confuse all but the most diligent scholars, this latest decision, in Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06-1195, may be studied for years to come.

Are we confused?

Isn't the military draft a more extraordinary act by the Federal Goverment than is holding suspected terrorists in Gauntanamo?

Actually, it is not, if we believe in the rule of law. The legality of the draft has stood for some time. Defining a new class of detainees, enemy combatants, many of whom must be innocent, and holding them for years with no legal recourse is now not within the rule of law.

But you knew that, right? Just as you know that you are doing some race-baiting by bringing up the OJ trial.

Whose votes change because of that statement? What I am interested in is hearing an actual well-reasoned argument that addresses the issue. In response to the requests of some, I would even be polite, not that you care. (I think you called be a creationist the last time you addressed me.)

Since we are extending Constitutional rights to prisoners/combatants, do they get all of them or only some?

Or even worse, will the democratic congress extend FISA to grant private communications to suspected terrorists? The end is near, duck and cover!