Trenchant analysis, Ben. You're absolutely right, reading a blog is not going to save the Republic.

How did you come up with that? What was your first clue?

Gore was a pompous, lying bore and Kerry was an awkward flip-flopping weakling.

That's so cute, like you thought that was going to get people all riled up.

What's up next, "your momma's so stupid, she couldn't read an audio book?"

I mean, seriously, do you really think invective is a reasonable substitute for argument?

The commenter ondelette is male - the term, IIRC, is akin to "wavelets" in stochastics.

With respect to the point in dispute, Sol, I don't see how you made your case that ondelette was relying on bivalent logics in his response to your statements about chakras.

Maybe there's something of subtlety I missed in your retort, but it seemed like your argument was "that's what you are, but what am I."

n/t

From Shooter's link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble):

One possible cause for the collapse of the NASDAQ (and all dotcoms) were massive, multi-billion dollar sell orders for major bellwether high tech stocks (Cisco, IBM, Dell, etc.) that happened by chance to be processed simultaneously on the Monday morning following the March 10 weekend. This selling resulted in the NASDAQ opening roughly four percentage points lower on Monday March 13 from 5038 to 4,879--the greatest percentage 'pre-market' selloff for the entire year.

The massive initial batch of sell orders processed on Monday, March 13 triggered a chain reaction of selling that fed on itself as investors, funds, and institutions liquidated positions. In just three days the NASDAQ had lost nearly nine percent, falling from roughly 5050 on March 10 to 4580 on March 15.

Another reason may have been accelerated business spending in preparation for the Y2K switchover. Once New Year had passed without incident, businesses found themselves with all the equipment they needed for some time, and business spending quickly declined. This correlates quite closely to the peak of U.S. stock markets. The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000 (closed at 11,722.98, with an intra-day peak of 11,750.28 and theoretical[6] peak of 11,908.50)[7] and the broader S&P 500 on March 24, 2000 (closed at 1,527.46, with an intra-day peak of 1,553.11);[8] while, even more dramatically the UK's FTSE 100 Index peaked at 6,950.60 on the last day of trading in 1999 (December 30). Hiring freezes, layoffs, and consolidations followed in several industries, especially in the dot-com sector.

The bursting of the bubble may also have been related to the poor results of Internet retailers following the 1999 Christmas season. This was the first unequivocal and public evidence that the "Get Big Fast" Internet strategy was flawed for most companies. These retailers' results were made public in March when annual and quarterly reports of public firms were released.

While Bill Clinton's responsibility for the Mount Etna eruption was never proven, he is clearly implicated in the 6.5 magnitude quake in Iceland.

Oh c'mon now: we didn't steal it so much as liberate it in the name of the Glorious Proletariat...

Yeah, it was the big discussion over at Swampland. Ana Marie Cox got ribs with McCain in Sedona. Jay Nelson Reilly or whatever her name is got cupcakes at Obama's place... and Karen Tumulty got beef jerky in the john.

hink

Glenn says "(insert some idiotic shite he never said)."

(Insert trivial refutation of said idiotic shite)

Tsk.

It would be really amusing to see some trackbacks on this post. Quite a few non-regulars here, all with very strong opinions...

..but the problem with carbon sequestration is not so much the sequestration as what happens if/when all that carbon de-sequesters itself at some point in the near or distanct future. Carbon in the atmosphere sucks, and a carbonated ocean also sucks.

Don't get me wrong, this is indeed a laudable development. I just hope we don't get sidetracked into thinking we can sequester our way out of making the (quite likely painful) choices necessary to stop the profligate spewing of CO2 into the only biosphere we have...

We can go from ALL CAPS trollery to calorimetry in the space of a few posts.

This is a hell of a cool bar, guys: thanks.

I'm definitely not looking to extend the concorso di pisciare that seems to be springing up about Mr. Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías. One doesn't have to be a blind supporter of everything Chávez has ever done - and I'm not - to feel that much of the criticism against him has been overblown.

Northwestwoods, when you say that "[Chávez] started muzzling the media," what exactly are you referring to? In 2006, the government decided not to renew the broadcast license of RCTV, which had participated in the coup attempt against the legally elected Venezuelan government. That's it, as far as I know... they haven't been "muzzled" - they are still on cable and satellite.

Even FAIR found this to be a bit much:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

As I say, there's plenty of room for criticizing Chávez and his methods. Fairness kind of dictates, though, that we at least be specific about what we're criticizing. Casting broad aspersions like "caudillo" and "dictator" generates a lot more heat than light, as we've seen.

unless you believe that St. Hillary or Jesubama will turn us into a pacifist neutral nation overnight it's unlikely that they will relinquish that power either.

I don't believe that. I kind of doubt anyone here does. That's why people are against any president having such untrammeled power.

Was there a point you were trying to make?