of violent left-wing extremism happened before or around the time I was born, good luck on capturing the 18-34 voters of this country. When my parents were 15, fringe leftists committed acts of political violence that left several dead and wounded. When I was 15, fringe rightists committed acts of political violence that left 168 dead and 680 wounded. Guess which of those two events has more resonance with my generation?

I'm guessing I live pretty close to carol, and I can vouch that there is an overabundance of douchy cyclists in the area. And keep in mind that it isn't the people riding to work/school/store that irritate people, it's the spandex guys mostly on road bikes riding side-by-side instead of single file, or the guys hauling down narrow, twisty mountain roads at 50 mph when the posted signs are for 20. I'm more than happy to share the road with bikers, but that's a two-way street. My friend is an avid biker, and even he hates the spandex crowd for being, and I quote "pretentious, morally smug a-holes with an undue sense of entitlement on and off the road." Hell, they even clog up the entrance to the local coffee shop and look at me like I'm bothering them when I pick and weave through their tires to get a goddamn cup of coffee.

I came from California, and I always thought it was great when I saw people biking instead of driving... but a few years along the Front Range has soured me a wee bit. I run for exercise, and I'm always conscious of other pedestrians, bikers, boarders and vehicles around me - a little more eduction on respectful recreational biking would go a long way.

Aside from the absurdity of this new super-super majority requirement, there's also something logically absurd about it. It's one thing to say "I will only consider it a good bill if we get 75-80 votes," but it's bizarre to say that "I will only vote for it if it's a good biil, which I define as having 75-80 votes." Uh, Senators, you are 1 of those votes, and if everyone in the Republican party takes that approach, well, my head runs in circles trying to figure it out. If voting decisions are based on the goodness of the bill which is defined as the outcome of voting decisions...

basically there were two scenarios here:

A. Unions extract some demands for stable wages and employment.

or

B. Firms voluntarily provide stable wages and employment to stave off union demands.

Somehow, picking B. over A. was the biggest factor that lead to the biggest fucking blowup in the history of the US economy.

Fun fact, the words "stock markets," "crash," "financial," or "bank failure" never appear in this paper. The whole thing is written as if the only thing that happened in late 1929 was Hoover's chat with industrial leaders, and thus we can attribute all changes pre-1929 and post-1929 due to his little chat.

Did the Minotaur provide any additional information that saved lives? Sure a bovine monster wielding a battle-axe with teeth longer than 9 inches is forbidden under the Geneva Conventions, but don't forget everything changed on 9/11...

Well, that's what separates us from them.

Seems like a nice test case for looking at how a non-intervening, non-existent state holds up in a global downturn. No quiet chats with industrialists to support wages there, I'd bet.

Snark aside, if Hoover's relatively minor attempts at intervention in a sector that comprised 28% of the economy caused the nation to hit 25% unemployment, this whole "Hoover as interventionist" business doesn't seem to explain why FDR's much more massive intervention didn't dynamite the whole freaking economy to pieces. One possible answer is that FDR's interventions were "better" than Hoover's, which would certaintly cut against the "all intervention is bad" thesis. Or perhaps one could argue that after Hoover's interventions, the damage had been done, and FDR couldn't do any worse. That seems ridiculously convenient and not terribly convincing.

I mean, how could Beck not resist?

"I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five people that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department."

Just toss the word "black" in there, and McCarthy rides again into the 21st Century.

I heard there's a black communist in the EPA... AND HE'S RIGHT BEHIND YOU!! TESTING YOUR DRINKING WATER!!!! SO IT DOESN'T KILL YOU! AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

I read something like Barbara Joanne's post and realize that there is a fierce strain of stupid that needs to be fought in this country. And then there's a whole 'nother layer of stupid that exists trying to rationalize the stupid. I mean "freedom of deciding for themselves if and/or when their kids should become politically active"? You're a regular Patrick Henry! I mean, really, are you serious? You think freedom means protecting your kids from hearing things? (Perhaps you should ask your kids if they agree with your concept of "freedom") It would actually make me feel better if you were paid to write comments like that.

"Give me liberty from hearing suggestions to think of ways to make this country better, or give me death!"

And yes being "fearful that liberal activists, who already determine that so many issues in schools contain a political agenda, will, yet again, manage to sneak one past them" is in fact, paranoid. In fact, I would say that being terrified of some vaguely defined cabal with apparently extensive powers stealthily doing something nefarious is pretty close to a definition of paranoia.

Writing like a calm, rational person does not in fact make you a calm, rational person, any more than sticking feathers up your butt makes you a chicken.