FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 14, 2006 -> 01:05 PM) Did they all need to be blind?

First, I need to clarify that $2 words are far too pricy for me, and I set a firm cap that strictly limits me to mere 50-cent words. . . I had planned on asking an entirely different question until I read your rebut and thought I'd change course. I'm curious as to the confidence you place in lawmakers and regulators to protect public lands. And I'm downright amused by the notion that big industry "returning the land to a natural look" once they are done exploiting it would do much of anything to restore the ecological integrity of the degraded systems. However, for the sake of this dialog, I'll operate for the moment under the pretense that form and function are equal in landscape ecology. But there are a number of private industry assaults on public natural resources that cannot conceivably be undone so that the land can be returned to anything resembling a pre-exploitation state. This is so despite the fact that such activities abound on public lands. What are the lawmakers and regulators you trust so much doing to protect our shared inheritance, the public lands, from the devastating environmental and social effects of mountaintop removal strip mining, coal bed methane extraction, and even experimental shale rock oil extraction efforts? Do you see these private exploitations of public land as compatible with your concession that industry should in effect be required to fix what they break even though such fixes are impossible?

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 11:43 PM) So there's no difference between killing two people and killing two thousand? I do think there is a difference. Pffft, you say that as if you thought 9-11 was a bigger deal than an LA drive-by double murder or something.

QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 14, 2006 -> 01:59 AM) Classic Rock = 1967 to 1977, IMO. There's most certainly a distinction between "classic rock" and "oldies," but I couldn't make any hard and fast distinction like setting 1967 as the line. I think Taxman is as much a classic rock song as any the Beatles ever recorded, but having been recorded in 1966 it would miss the cut. Likewise, I'd include Pink Floyd stuff from The Wall, but with a realease date in 1979 it's too new to be considered classic rock in your scheme. Nevermind that it took the concept album genre to an entirely new level. Like you say, it's just an opinion so it doesn't much matter. But I put the sound, feel, and impact of the songs ahead of their release date in trying to decide what should be considered "classic rock." And I do notice how a lot of teh stuff that was normal classic rock radio fodder a ferw years ago has actually been shuffled onto the oldies stations. Yet another sign that I'm aging, inevitably, inexorably, to my own mortal demise. . .

QUOTE(DukeNukeEm @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 06:56 PM) wow. if you payed any attention to my next post you wouldve recognized that I think Jimi's version is better than Dylan and that its still a great song, just shouldnt be nominated for Bets Song b/c he didnt write it. I read your next post. Which is why I included the Arethra and Carole King examples as part of a contrary opinion. The poll asked posters to pick their favorite classic rock songs, not their favorite classic rock songs performed by the composer. Sugar Magnolia should have been disqualified before making it into the first round because lyricist Robert Hunter was not a Grateful Dead performing band member? No classic Elton John performances should have been considered because non-performer Bernie Taupin wrote the lyrics and not Elton?? Aqualung would have been disqualifird because Ian's wife (ex-wife now) Jeannnie wrote the words?? Okee-dokee.

QUOTE(Brian @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 08:52 PM) Hope he doesn't need a bigger casket. Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies Farewell and adieu you ladies of Spain For we received orders for to sail back to Boston And soon never more will we see you again.

QUOTE(DukeNukeEm @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 09:07 PM) I dont see how on earth somebody could win "best song" for something they didnt write! I love Hendrix and think his version is better than Dylans.. but COME ON, it isnt Hendrix's song. I aegree with teh folks who say it doesn't matter if he wrote it or not. Jimi's Watchtower is all Jimi and it is a watershed rock production moment. Aretha Franklin isn't in this competition, but everybody who has ever heard her version of RESPECT rightly considers it her song and a defining song in her career, despite the fact that Otis Redding wrote it. If we were doing early 60s Motown era, I'm sure a lot of songs in the list would be Carole King/Gerry Goffin compositions, even though it would be the Shirelles and Dusty Springfield (Will You Love Me Tomorrow), Bobby Vee (Take Good Care of My Baby), Little Eva (The Loco-Motion), The Monkees (Pleasant Valley Sunday), etc., whose performances were being voted on.

Sad news. Peter always felt guilty over the role his book played in hyping the "dangers" of sharks and stirring fear in people that translaed into irresponsible fishing practices. He did a ton of conservation work to try to put things right. To Peter

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 12:49 AM) Interestingly, it would appear that FlaSoxxJim is right here... Hey. . . ?!? You say that like it's never happened before. . .

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 12:15 AM) Wrong is wrong. Is that morally equivalent enough for you? And laws and Constitutional amendment are superfluous because wrong is wrong. The slaves eventually would have been freed because the rule of wrong is wrong eventually would have kicked in. We're wasting billions of dollars on IRS enforcement because all the tax scofflaws are going to realize wrong is wrong any day now and cough up all those back taxes. This bruhaha over Kyoto is much ado about nothing because the corporate polluters who acrue all the benefits to themselves while we all suffer the consequences of global climate change are on the verge of groking the wrong is wrong mentality, I can just feel it. Yes, it's so black and white I'm not sure why anybody ever thought we needed laws anyway.

The important thing is that we now have a new trivia question and answer as to who is the only veep since Aaron Burr to shoot someone while serving in office.

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 10:43 PM) Hmm...an "op-ed" used to mean that readers would get differing viewpoints from the paper's editorials (opposite opinion on the page opposite the editorial page). How is this "op-ed" any different from the usual pap from the NY Times? It wasn't an op-ed, Rex's thread title is in error. The NYT page it came from is titled "Editorials/Op-Ed," and that was the first piece in the Editorial section, and clearly labeled as such. This was the day's contents:

Section 1. White Room - Cream vs. While My Guitar Gently Weeps - The Beatles Like A Rolling Stone - Bob Dylan vs. Sympathy for the Devil - The Rolling Stones All Along the Watchtower - Jimi Hendrix vs. When the Levee Breaks- Led Zeppelin Section 2. Bohemian Rhapsody - Queen vs. Baba O'Reilly - The Who Pinball Wizard - The Who vs. Street Fighting Man - The Rolling Stones A Day in the Life - The Beatles vs. Dream On - Aerosmith

Your grandma, and your family will be in my thoughts.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 10, 2006 -> 02:32 PM) That is also a valid point. In fact, it was mentioned on FoxNews this morning. It's funny, but when this flouride thing started, I remember people thinking it was a communist plot to slowly poison us all. Just like Buck.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 12, 2006 -> 08:37 AM) I think there is a difference in breaking a law and not. It sure seems intuitive, doesn't it?

QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 11:31 AM) Federal lands make up 68% of Alaska, 44% of California, 62% of Idaho, 83% of Nevada, and 64% of Utah. Should we not responsibly use some of the resources these lands offer? The short answer to that question is, yes, "we" should use some of the land and it's resources provided that we can do so responsibly. I said as much in my opening statement, but certainly I guarded any optimism regarding the potential for success in sustainable long-term exploitation (i.e, "wise use") of resource commons. The reality of the situation is that public lands and their attendant resources are very often not used responsibly. Indeed, communal exploitation that accrues benefits to individuals rather than the community, combined with the ostensibly reasonable personal desire of individuals to maximize return puts responsible wise-use and profitability at odds with one another. I placed the "we" in your question in quotes because it is a fallacious "we." Worse than the royal "we," it is the insidious "we" of the private corporate interests that seek to exploit OUR public lands for THEIR personal gain. This gets to the very nature of the problem regarding the "tragedy of the commons" in the classic formulation of Hardin. As long as the system is set up so that the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals, while the costs of exploitation are distributed among all stakeholders there exists a high probability for abuse. Hardin's now famous pasture analogy is a concise illustration. Consider a common resource grazing pasture shared by several individual herders grazing their animals. Hoping to maximize their return, the herders will add animals to their herd whenever they can. That desire to maximize individual gain flow from logic, but it is logic that ultimately dooms the resource to overexploitation. All herders will have the same desire to add animals, and since the negative cost of such actions are always equally distributed while the positive benefits require to individuals there is no dampening feedback tempering behavior since the personal gain is always greater than the distributed costs. The formula is intrinsically fatal since by its nature it rewards the most selfish herders the most but punishes all stakeholders equally for the extreme abuses of the few. A "trash and boogie" mentality is thus positively reinforced as those most capable of gaming the system by rapidly adding livestock and enjoying short-term benefits effectively seal the fate of the shared resource. Herders possessing a conservation ethic and/or forethought of long-term sustainability may decide not to recklessly add stocks, but they are made the suckers by selfish herders who share no similar ethos. After a while paying costs but garnering little personal gain, behavior is modified and the would-be responsible users realize they might as well add stocks to excess since they are already paying the price for someone else doing it. The ultimate cost is the long-term sustainability of the grazing system and viability of the natural resource itself. Federal regulation could conceivably be a solution to the dilemma. But as long as regulations are drafted by lawmakers who can be lobbied by private interests with deep pockets such pragmatic solutions will remain elusive.

QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 10, 2006 -> 09:13 AM) I guess that's what I don't get. OK, The Feds made a mistake. That's a suprise? But, do people honestly believe there was malice intended? No, not for a minute. It is the unpreparredness and ineptness at so many levels, and now the scramble to pass blame/cover it up, that is infuriating.

QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 10, 2006 -> 07:51 AM) Um, what could have been done to save New Orleans between Midnight Monday and Tuesday morning? Just asking. They could have begun mobilizing first responder teams from outside the area of impact, surely. And they could have begun to set up a coordinated command center based on the knowledge they had that the situation was dire, even if they were not going to make the news known nationally intil the next day. True story: My supervor's husband Andy is the President of Harris Corporation's Maritime Communictions Division. They build marine data collection bouys that collect information from the seafloor and water column and transmit it up to the buoy through fiber optics, and then out from the buoy through radio to satellites. They had a dozen mobile satellite communication systems put together and ready to go to Africa to fill an order when Katrina hit. The president of the company, who did his graduate work on the Mississippi Gulf coast, made a command decision to divert the units and truck them to the Katrina impact zone. They loaded the units onto rented trucks, told Africa they'd make them new units, and left that Monday evening for the Gulf coast (with the president driving the lead truck). They got no call from government at any level requesting assistance, and it was only dumb luck that they had turnkey satellite communication units on hand and ready to go. (They donated all that equipment, and a week's worth of time for 26 employees, btw. Comes out to a couple million for the gear alone. Andy simply shrugs and chalks it up to, 'it was the right thing to do, pretty much a no-brainer.') If the president of a for-profit corporation with no expertise in natural disasters was able to forsee the need and mobilize such an immediate response then I'm sorry if I can't believe that there was nothing meaningful that FEMA could have done to work toward improving a known dire situation between Monday night and Tuesday morning.

QUOTE(DukeNukeEm @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 08:54 PM) Jimi Hendrix does not deserve a nomination for a song he did not write. I disagree, even though I had to vote against Jimi. His Watchtower was all his own and an amazing piece of studio work, with all respect to Mr. Dylan.

Section 1. No Time - Guess Who vs. White Room - Cream While My Guitar Gently Weeps - The Beatles vs. Free Bird - Lynyrd Skynard vs. Strawberry Field Forever - The Beatles Ticket to Ride - The Beatles vs. Like A Rolling Stone - Bob Dylan The Boys Are Back In Town - Thin Lizzy vs. Sympathy for the Devil - The Rolling Stones A Day in the Life - The Beatles vs. All Along the Watchtower - Jimi Hendrix (and Damn you for pitting those two songes against each other! ) Section 2. Surrender - Cheap Trick vs. When the Levee Breaks- Led Zeppelin Dream On - Aerosmith vs. Bohemian Rhapsody - Queen Street Fighting Man - The Rolling Stones vs. Thunderstruck - AC/DC Stay With Me - The Faces vs. Pinball Wizard - The Who Crazy Train - Ozzy Osborne vs. Baba O'Reilly - The Who

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Feb 10, 2006 -> 12:07 AM) I mean, COME ON! There's always money in the banana stand!

Good to see this from the 86 who stood up. But the rest of the story includes yet another reason to really dislike James Dobson.

Alright Greasy My Man!