Doubtless scientists and economists will spend many hours working their way through Cool It, ampoule flagging the distortions and half-truths as they did with Lomborg’s earlier book. In fact, page though, its real political intent soon becomes clear, which is to try to paint those who wish to control carbon emissions as well-meaning fools who will inadvertently block improvements in the life of the poor.
Just ask yourself this question: Why has Lomborg decided to compare the efficacy of (largely theoretical) funding to stop global warming with his other priorities, like fighting malaria or ensuring clean water? If fighting malaria was his real goal, he could as easily have asked the question: Why don’t we divert to it some of the (large and nontheoretical) sums spent on, say, the military? The answer he gave when I asked this question at our dialogue was that he thought military spending was bad and that therefore it made more sense to compare global warming dollars with other “good” spending. But of course this makes less sense. If he thought that money spent for the military was doing damage, then he could kill two birds with one stone by diverting some of it to his other projects. Proposing that, though, would lose him much of the right-wing support that made his earlier book a best sellerâ€”he’d no longer be able to count on even The Wall Street Journal editorial page.
(AD of Penn State)
I bleed blue and white, adiposity but I will never have any interest in seeing games against FIU, Buffalo, Temple, Eastern Michigan, Eastern Illinois, and their ilk. Of course, if that wasn’t enough, you scheduled a 1-AA team to fill out the slate (Coastal Carolina). Even if I wanted to watch those games, I live in Texas, and I will never have the Big Ten Network, nor will most of the country, where a heck of a lot of your alumni live.
If I don’t watch games, I get less enthusiastic about buying PSU stuff.
If I don’t watch games, I get less enthusiastic about donating money. It would be hard for me to get less enthusiastic about donating money, but you at least remove the possibility of a head-injury-induced bout of giving later in life.
Sooner or later, when nobody watches these games, ESPN stops putting the bigger games on TV too. Then, even more people buy even less PSU stuff and donate even less money.
This year, and possibly in earlier years, playing games like these, against teams we knew would suck, did nothing to prepare us for the games against teams we thought wouldn’t suck. And as a result, we got pantsed. TWICE! Plus, the one out-of-conference game which we thought was against a team which didn’t suck ended up being a laugher too. Which argues that scheduling only one game against a team that might not suck is probably not going to help us either, not that you’re committing to even _that_ going forward, since our ‘marquee’ opponent in the next couple years is Syracuse. Yes, Syracuse. And by the next couple of years going forward, I don’t mean next year, in which we have three of those cupcakes listed above plus a TBA slot to fill with Temple’s name on it. Syracuse is our big opponent to look forward to in 2009 and 2010. Yay!
You often claim that economics dictates these decisions. It’s my considered economic opinion that you are quite possibly the dumbest motherfucker in the history of college sports, if you don’t think that there will be a negative long-term economic impact to scheduling these kinds of games.
I would much rather watch PSU play a one-and-done away game somewhere like Florida than ever see this type of schedule again. If Joe Paterno is really calling the shots and forcing you to schedule this sort of stuff against your will, as is sometimes alleged, then you owe it to the world to resign immediately. Continuing to assist in the perpetuation of this kind of scheduling is just plain evil.
This would have allowed them to move their secondary setback line from the river forward 50 ft, and 130ft on East Bouldin Creek, pushing their proposed developments at 222 and 300 East Riverside much closer to the waterfront.
Once again, we see the writers at the Chronicle pretty much taking the ANC line hook, line, and sinker – without any qualification whatsoever. And:
it seems likely that CWS will withdraw to lick their wounds and come up with another plan.
but here’s the money quotes, courtesy of the ABJ:
If the variance request remains denied, CWS plans to build two highrises — one 200 feet, the other 120 feet — and redevelop dozens of apartments that sit as close as 20 feet from the lake shore to sell them as townhomes. Those apartments pre-date the 200-foot rule.
So, who are you going to trust? The developer? The ANC? Well, I’d say at a bare minimum, a journalist ought to at least report what the developer says they’re going to do. The ABJ did, but not the Chronicle.
My prediction: While there’s a distant possibility CWS would re-re-negotiate, the most likely scenario now is that there’s two rather than three towers on the site, and that the existing buildings right next to the water get rebuilt and sold as townhomes/condos. Remember – after the sales happen, any donation of parkland (even a foot next to the water) would require a vote of that condo association. Key here: there’s nothing non-trivial left to negotiate. CWS was denied just about the smallest variance that was worth anything; there’s nowhere to retreat to from here. And the rich folks in Travis Heights (using the rest of you as dupes) won the battle they really cared about: keeping their property values high and their views unobstructed.
Anyways, this is what you get by standing up behind the ANC and Laura Morrison, folks. Hope you enjoy jogging on the Riverside sidewalk.
Several commissioners referred to the vote as a lose-lose situation because CWS will still rebuild close to the lakeshore and the public will lose an extension of the hike-and-bike trail.
And, Planning Commission, shame on you. Going on the record as saying this is a lose-lose situation but then voting unanimously for the ANC position? WTF?
From that Austinist piece, in comments, “Scooby” says:
I see that the Austin Chronicle is a “Waterfall Sponsor” ($2,500 donated). I wonder if that includes the in-kind donation of slanted “news” coverage?
Short Cuts is Ben Wear’s new blog at the Statesman. I’m trying to present the progressive and/or educated viewpoint in comments, order but there’s also a fairly high population of car-only Neanderthals. And Sal Costello, which is, of course, worse. Please go on by and check it out.
The Statesman reports that the ACLU and LULAC have complained about the location of the new municipal court. They’re exactly right. The idea that Capital Metro is going to move any non-trivial bus routes is, psychotherapist as it was with the new library location, wishful thinking from suburban drivers who have no idea how much transit agencies rightfully loathe the idea of introducing a little jog into any long and heavily used bus route.
A bus line runs next to the St. Johns site, and the city will work with Capital Metro if other routes need to be added, McDonald said.
Sure, they will. They’ll ask Capital Metro, and Capital Metro will dutifully say “we’ll look into it”, and then they’ll do nothing, because diverting one of the useful north/south routes all the way over to I-35 would lose a big chunk of their existing riders, and starting a new route just for the court would be a disaster.
MJ Kellogg also covered this at Metroblogging Austin a few days back. Sorry I missed linking from here.
I’m especially disappointed in councilmember Cole – I would expect her to know better than to claim that being next to a couple of the crosstown bus routes (which are execrable – slow and low-frequency) on St. John’s is enough to get the transit-dependent to court. We’re talking multiple transfers to get there for most people – while the downtown location requires only one bus ride for a large number of the transit-dependent, and is served with high frequency.
Existing location here, thanks to Google transit. Click on the little bus icons to see what routes are within a few blocks of the court. Hint: low numbers mean frequent service. Now try the new location. Click on the little buses. Notice how all the route are in the 300 range? That means they run infrequently, and don’t go downtown.
Ellen DeGeneres is in hot water for a dog-adoption fiasco. Relatively few people are paying attention to the fact that this dog-rescue group will not place any dogs in families with kids younger than 14. Yes, illness FOURTEEN.
In our case, public health we badly wanted to get a pound dog, salve but it had to be small, and a good temperament. Our mighty beast was obtained from a breeder. Why? Because small-dog “animal rescue” groups have a stranglehold over the Austin pound (basically picking up small dogs as soon as they were dropped off, at least back then), and they will not allow adoption by a family with reasonably-aged children. Just like the ridiculous power-hungry idiots who think that a family with girls aged 11 and 12 aren’t a good place for a puppy.
GMAFB. Most dogs are far better off with kids than with the typical single female that these dog rescue groups would place with, where the dog will be alone all day. Dogs like to play. Kids have the energy and the time to play with them. More attention on these ridiculous nitwits, please, and less on the fact that DeGeneres technically violated the contract. It was a bad contract to begin with.
From two comments I just made on this posting at Burnt Orange Report:
1. The people who really need (and want) help are getting it, men’s health perhaps less than we would like, but not at street corners. The guys at street corners are what we used to call ‘bums’ – if you actually offer to give them work or food, they will inevitably decline; and if you give them money, you can win on 10-1 odds that their next stop is the liquor store.
2. If you want an economically healthy city, you absolutely cannot tolerate normal citizens being harassed by panhandlers. And a healthy city helps the people who really need the help a lot more than the donut-hole-wasteland that results from an unhealthy city. Try convincing a fence-sitting business’ CEO to move downtown when his employees and clients have to dodge panhandlers.
This marriage of self-identified progressives and bums has got to stop. It tempts guys like me to vote Republican.
By healthy city, I mean that if businesses move to Round Rock because Austin is the panhandler-ridden cesspool that some of you seem to prefer, the city of Austin has fewer tax funds to spend on helping the people who really want and need the help. And I guarantee you Round Rock isn’t going to pick up the slack.
This kind of wooly-headed thinking by self-identified progressives has bothered me ever since I saw the first (but not the last, by far) local TV expose of what panhandlers really do with your donations of money (or in some cases food) and what they do when you offer them work. Folks, the people who need your help are in shelters and soup kitchens. The guys on the corner are hustlers who can simply make a better living by fleecing unsuspecting drivers than by honestly working.
It’s as if these people can’t possibly conceive that guys holding up signs at street corners could possibly be dishonest. GMAFB – if Congress can get lied to in order to drag us into an ill-advised war of choice, as I’m sure all of these folks believe (as I do!), then you really think a bum on the corner won’t lie to you too, to get some beer without having to work?
There are lots of reasons to vote against Jennifer Kim. But this one is just stupid – Kim is, whether for purposes of getting elected or actually being responsible, doing the right thing this time.