With a heated Governor's race bubbling under the surface, the wild Presidential race about to go full force through the holiday season, and the general acrimony of the times, let us pause and note:
It is a great day for people of all political affiliations to be a Seattle sports fan after the whupping the Seahawks put on the Cardinals yesterday, to secure a 4th straight division championship. Good times, indeed.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 10, 2007 07:54 AM | Email ThisI think things are pretty good right now...well, glass half full at least.
Posted by: John Bailo on December 10, 2007 08:48 AMhttp://seattlejew.blogspot.com/2007/12/horsesassorg-blog-archive-morning.html
Posted by: SeattleJew on December 10, 2007 09:56 AM"...Details from ABC News about a Michigan State University study on how divorce contributes to global warming:
Per person, divorced households spent more per month for electricity compared with a married household, as multiple people can be watching the same television, listening to the same radio, cooking on the same stove and eating under the same lights.
That means some $6.9 billion in extra utility costs per year, Liu calculated, plus an added $3.6 billion for water, in addition to other costs such as land use."
"What are some other things we could do to fight against global warming?
One would be to homeschool. That's right - homeschool!
School buses alone burn hundreds of millions of gallons of diesel fuel every year, which contributes big time to global warming. With homeschooling, there is no need for ruining the environment by running all those nasty buses.
With our kids learning at home, we'll be able to teach them the real reason the government wanted to get them all under the same roof - even at the expense of the delicate ecosystem.
So, we of strong marriages and you who homeshchool are far better for Mama Earth than the selfish singles running from hook-up to daycare.... you know, Seattle liberals!
Let us not forget how we responded to real opportunity against the Saints... who were 0-fer until they played us.
We lose to teams we should destroy; We can't beat the Steelers to save our lives, and now we're finishing against Carolina(5-8), Baltimore(4-9) and Atlanta(3-9); a combined 12-26 record.
We SHOULD win out. The problem is, so what?
I want them to win. Big time. But that's a perspective tempered by the fact that we're no New England, Dallas, or Indy; and that as a team, we seem to lack the killer instinct when we need it the most.
If we can't take out the Steelers, what makes anyone think we could, for example, beat Manning?
Good job on the Division Championship. But do we have what it takes to go all the way?
While I certainly hope we do... I have yet to see it.
Posted by: Hinton on December 10, 2007 10:22 AMYour analysis is 100% correct, though. I don't have any Hawks on any of my fantasy teams, for example, but who knows?
There's guys stepping up now that weren't before. Some will require extra attention that takes away from the others.
I guess that is why you strap 'em up and play 'em.
Posted by: swatter on December 10, 2007 11:19 AMWhat an idiotic thing to say...and what (may I ask) is your 'vice'? INfrickinCREDIBLE!!
Posted by: OnYawn on December 10, 2007 11:55 AMMike "thinskin" Barer
One of the sounders gave that nickname to me. I think it will stick.
Posted by: Mike Barer on December 10, 2007 01:06 PMHey, don't short-change Baltimore too much--they would have beaten the Great New England Patriots last week if it hadn't been for their coach calling that timeout on 4th and short. That actually cost them the game twice--(1) since the Patriots didn't make the first down, the Ravens would have taken over on downs and the Patriots would not have scored their winning touchdown; and (2) had they had another time-out at the end of the game, the Hail Mary pass they completed to the 1-yard line would have set them up for the win--instead, time ran out on the play.
The Patriots can be beaten--just don't know who will be able to do it!
If the Seahawks even make it that far (which they won't) it's a guaranteed loss.
Where did you find that statistic?
The southern states lead the nation overall in their divorce rates (Excepting that Nevada is #1 of course) plus those liberal bastions Idaho and Wyoming, with states in the liberal northeast having the smallest divorce rates plus states like Minnesota.
I'm thinking that this high divorce rate in the conservative south reflects ages of first marriage and educational levels, but perhaps it is based on one's politics.
Once again, can you cite your source?
Posted by: BA on December 10, 2007 02:25 PMPlease follow your own advice Mr Liberal and cite YOUR source!
Posted by: pbj on December 10, 2007 02:46 PMIn 2004, the states with the top divorce rates were: Nevada (1), Arkansas (2), Wyoming (3), Idaho and West Virginia, tied for (4 & 5), Kentucky, Oklahoma and Tennessee tied for (6 & 7).
These are typically referred to as "Red" States.
The states with the lowest divorce rates that same year were: Massachusetts (1), New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island tied for (2, 3, 4, 5) and Wisconsin and Connecticut tied for (6 & 7).
These are typically referred to as "Blue" States.
What's also interesting is that there is an overall trend downward across the board in divorce rates.
Now, does that really mean that Conservatives are more likely to divorce than Liberals?
Maybe.
But, I suspect that education, age of first marriage, and racial demographics play a big part in determining these overall rates by state. Might be interesting too to see how the rates break down by county - maybe that's what Ragnar's opinion is based on.
Though, based on his past scholarship I doubt he's looked.
This country is so prosperous we can actually spend time watching and money on something as silly as adults playing childrens games. Unreal.
Yet, today AlGore tells us we are evil and intent on ending life as we know it here on earth, then flies off spewing carbon in his private jet. Just thought I would add another goofy topic to this thread. AlGore is just as preposterous as public funding of stadiums and adults dressing up oddly and screaming about football....
Go Seahawks, by the way.....
Posted by: Hank on December 10, 2007 03:08 PMOn the NFC side, what about another Hawk vs Pack game in Div Championship at Lambeau Field? That would be interesting with a lot of good story lines. If Favre's shoulder doesn't improve, then the Hawks could have a chance there. Unfortunately, the road on the NFC side will most likely run through Big D. I don't think the Hawks stand a chance against the Cowboys this year.
This leads to a Dallas vs Colts/Bills Superbowl. I don't know, but the way Dallas has been playing who knows. All it takes is one of the big defensive linemen taking out Manning or Brady, like they did with Favre, and then what is left of the Colts or Pats. My money may have to be on the Cowboys (unfortunately, since to me the Cowboys are like the Yankees, I don't like either).
Posted by: tc on December 10, 2007 03:10 PMAnother key to beating New England or Dallas is to whup those wimpy wide receivers- Moss and Owens. Teams with a vicious safety put the 'hurt' on those two and all of a sudden they are short-arming the catch. Really, really fun to watch. I hate grandstanders.
I don't think the Hawks have those type of defensive players.
Posted by: swatter on December 10, 2007 03:16 PMYeah...well, real Conservatives know when to get out of a bad deal and not throw good money at something that doesn't work.
Posted by: John Bailo on December 10, 2007 09:34 PMUhhh, you mean like the Iraq war? The drug war? No child left behind? The "Star Wars" missle defense program? Trying to give Dick Cheney a heart?
If you are a real conservative Mr Bailo, you are surely not a member of the Republican Party are you?
Posted by: Peeper Scoot on December 10, 2007 09:58 PM* HOV Lane - 1st time offense $1068.50 (note: the sign posted on the HOV lanes that says $271 is now wrong and DOT is in the process of changing them) -2nd offense fine is doubled -3rd it is tripled-4th your license is suspended for a year! (they are not playing around!)
* Incorrect Lane Change - $380.00 (not using turn signal or 'cut ting' someone)
* Block Intersection - $485.00
* Driving on Shoulder - $450.00
* Cell Phone Usage While Driving - $285.00 (cell phone usage (until January 1, 2008, you can use a hand held cell phone while driving, but if a police officer observes a driving infraction, he can stop you and cite you for both. After January 1, they can stop you for cell phone usage w/o any other cause.) must now be done with 'hands free' device.)Law Enforcement has been told to really start cracking down on this, as the accident rate is increasing due to cell phone use.
* Cell Phone Usage in a Construction Zone - $570.00 (this fine is doubled from the regular $285.00)
* Passengers over the age of 18 not in a seat belt - Both the passenger AND driver with get tickets of $101.00 * DUI - Instant ARREST! (the court s are now placing DUI's on your driving record for a period of 10 years!)
* Last but not least - You know that there was a thought that you could go at least 5 MPH over the posted speed limit, well according to the WA. State Patrol, you are now allowed 3 MPH over!
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html
The top 8 are not all blue states, nor are the bottom all red states. Some states such as Indiana and Louisiana have no published statistics. California has not published data since 1990, but back then it was 4.3. Data is also not stagnant. Oklahoma was 7.7 in 1990 but 3.7 in 2000. Nevada was 11.4 in 1990 and 6.4 in 2004.
Oh, and the data was compiled from the Census Bureau.
Posted by: Rainman on December 11, 2007 01:50 PMFunny thing, seems the statistics in the Census Bureau's chart didn't make it cleanly into the chart you cited.
Maybe not huge mistakes, in the ten states with the highest divorce rates the numbers were misquoted 50% of the time.
The rates for Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho and Tennessee were wrong - sometimes higher, sometimes lower.
The rates for some of the states with lower divorce rates were wrong at times too - Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and North Dakota were incorrectly cited.
Don't have the time at the moment to check the Census Bureau against the Center for Disease Control and Prevention - but I will.
Always better to look at primary sources. It was good your source was footnoted so that it could be checked - otherwise someone might use this erroneous information and arrive at the wrong conclusion.
Posted by: BA on December 11, 2007 06:42 PMI fear this year won't be the year for a Pats-Hawks Super Bowl either. And it won't take a professional analyst to figure I am not talking about the Pats not making it this year.
Posted by: pudge on December 11, 2007 08:34 PMsalon.com
Part of the answer is the most recent IPCC assessment report. For the first time in six years, more than 2,000 of the world's top scientists reviewed and synthesized all of the scientific knowledge about global warming. The Fourth Assessment Report makes clear that the accelerating emissions of human-generated heat-trapping gases has brought the planet close to crossing a threshold that will lead to irreversible catastrophe. Yet like Cassandra's warning about the Trojan horse, the IPCC report has fallen on deaf ears, especially those of conservative politicians, even as its findings are the most grave to date.
Posted by: Global Warming on December 11, 2007 10:42 PMAre you serious?
What do you do for fun? What do you do as a hobby? What do you do with your free time? Come on, lay it on out there so you can show me what I should be doing with my life.
I am not expecting you to respond, because I know you don't want to put up. It makes far more sense for you to shut up.
Posted by: pudge on December 12, 2007 03:00 PMFalse, false, false, false, false.
Not true.
Incorrect.
The IPCC report "makes clear" no such thing. None of the IPCC reports do. I defy you to come up with a single quote from the report saying that. I'll give you a counterexample: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." That is the strongest type of claim you will see in the IPCC reports. Not "clearly" due. Not "certainly" do. Not "beyond debate" due. "Very likely" due.
It's not a fact. It's not clear. It is an opinion based on incomplete data and analysis. And their level of certainty (likely vs. very likely, etc.) is not even scientifically quantifiable, by definition, so don't give me lectures about how science can never be absolutely certain, because "very likely" is not science.