sweetheart-mine

you're kidding, right? (1) many numbers are ultimately given to us by people, very often by people with agendas -- they don't ride down to earth on some magic carpet from superiortotalfactland. (2) numbers can be presented without a context, often one purposefully ignored to suit the presenter. what is the context around what's his name's little list? for a more balanced way of looking at numbers, with a no-agenda context, check out the oil tool kit posted here a couple of days ago. those numbers didn't just appear on some biased guy's blog. those numbers were straight and unspun,

haven't had time yet to check all those out, but why should we take as objective anything patrick ruffini has to say about a non-republican, when he describes himself this way on a townhall website: "Patrick Ruffini is an online strategist dedicated to helping Republicans and conservatives achieve dominance in a networked era. He has seen American politics from every vantagepoint

the bowling was truly pitiful. if he'll just forgo the ride on a tank, he stands a chance. i gotta say, if spiro agnew himself came back to life, decided to run, and got the citizenry sincerely interested and enthusiastic enough at this grassroots level to fund his campaign, i would have to give him a huge hand and serious consideration.

i just tried to say that three times and got nowhere.

it is an interesting read, thanks. will it be absorbed by those whose only interest is in knocking him down? somehow i don't think so.

there hasn't been a politician in my lifetime who didn't flip on stuff. mccain was hysterically funny on the news yesterday, soberly and high-horsely (made that word up just now) pointing out how, because of this funding switch, obama can't be trusted, period, and what a shame it is . . . the day after mccain himself switched his position on new offshore drilling! and joined george bush in yet another policy disaster while at it, i might add. mccain: pot kettle black

they are fantastic. i saw them once by accident . . . a really happy accident.

jude is right that 300 million people are not going to change their lifestyles overnight. until recently, it was hard to imagine that lifestyles here could change significantly even twenty years from now. lately, though, i see small but growing signs that people might be taking this question seriously: if you don't take care of your planet, where are you going to live? although so far it's mostly due to personal economic troubles, statistics even in the past month show that people are beginning to lose interest in the suv and gain interest in efficient motor vehicles. congress is activ

yes. and for comparison, one might look at florida's numbers. i didn't go searching for high percentages; i have friends recently moved to florida so i took a chance on their zip code. all very interesting . . . i really appreciate this link.

that's how i felt in '04, only turned around: i was so against bush and apathetic for kerry that it annoyed me to look at either of them.

thank you, uw, your apology is warmly accepted. it happens to the best of us from time to time, though you are especially gracious. sweetheart-m

whoa. there's a good tone for your very first post to me. your family sounds great and i'm happy for you. what was condescending in my concern about overpopulation? you seem to have taken it personally, which it wasn't meant to be. by the way, i don't fit into the category of "liberal." i agree there is no perfect system of government or perfect political movement, and nowhere did i profess otherwise. i agree things don't have to be all or nothing. in fact, they can't. and i certainly agree with civility in discussion. to be honest, i'm not sure you just practiced what you

(1) well, i think that's a good thing. too often the "how" gets out of hand or ignored. (2) true, and it sounds a lot like human nature. in fact, i think it is! damn i wish i could figure out how to organize multiple quotes and answers.

how many kids are too many? i have no idea. do you know how many people the planet can handle? do you ever think about it? there's absolutely nothing wrong with one big family. but a billion or three big families presents a lot of problems the world over. i've been referring to overpopulation. it has nothing to do with whether i could handle 8 kids, or none. my niece handles hers just fine; still has nothing to with it.

re: your first paragraph, i haven't been here very long, so maybe more of that demonization comes from the left here, i don't know. the few other boards i've been on for an extended time were weighted the other way, and the extreme bullying and accusations of "traitor!" "sinner!" and "you don't love america!" were frequent (daily) and, i have to say, really off the wall. like some others, i ended up slinking off, bloodied and in bits, which of course was my choice; it was just very nasty, to the point of stupidity, and i haven't noticed that here. maybe it's here and i haven't come acro

agreed, very true. the adoption process is a nightmare and needs ten thousand fixes. one of its main problems is that it's related to overpopulation and so becomes another messy issue that few want to deal with. that you would vote to fund their care is admirable. i do wish people who otherwise should know better would limit the size of their families. government should have no hand in this, but it would help if people used a little common sense. here is an extreme case: my doctor nephew and his wife, both very nice people, decided when they got married that they wanted to have (

what?? people can think or say anything they want, right? i agree with that. no one has to like it, from any perspective, and anyone can argue about it. is that bullshit? it's when people believe they have the moral high ground and *should be able to prevent others from going their own way* that there's a real problem with basic respect. p.s. it's hard to believe that religious folks and right-wingers are innocents suffering from demonization via the label "evil." in my humble experience, that's a favorite word of *some* religious folks and right-wingers, and they don't hold b

well said. who thinks badly of anyone for not having an abortion or not being gay and engaging in a same-sex marriage? no one. it's just when those who disapprove of these other individuals want to dictate what they're allowed to do, then . . . well, folks get a little defensive about rights and all.

i hear ya, but do we need scientific, empirical evidence that same-sex marriage isn't detrimental to society before it's given a shot? isn't that sort of like having to prove one's innocence instead of having to prove one's guilt? i think in a few years all the hetero marrieds should have a convention and offer evidence, if there is any, that the existence of same-sex marriage has hurt their personal marriage. it hasn't hurt mine, and i just don't get the fuss. it doesn't affect my marriage or happiness at all. it takes away nothing. some people clearly feel threatened in some way

with overpopulation an extremely serious but now rarely mentioned problem, i wonder which people who are not pro-choice will step up and care for children whose 15-year-old parents can't care for them (or vote to fund their care). yes, sex education and abstinence or birth control and great guidance from adult parents ought to prevent almost any abortion from being considered -- but they don't (although they've brought the number down, which is great). in fact, i've noticed it's often the anti-choice folks who are also anti-sex education and/or anti-birth control. where is the logic and

no problem at all, ww, and was my fault anyway because of this very bad habit of not using capitals! i stopped using the shift key a few years ago because of a frozen shoulder -- and it's fine now, but the habit stuck. please hit me over the head with a baseball bat and straighten me out because i need it!

fresh pond is on the outskirts of cambridge (toward belmont), on both the red line T and a bus line, ww -- but i mentioned it before knowing that mtm will be living at kenmore. you're right, jamaica plain is definitely a lot closer and has its own beauty. (actually i didn't know there's a fancy area of j.p., which shows you how long it's been since i lived there!) is jamaica pond in the fens? (a big area a couple of blocks behind fenway park that is all nature with beautiful trees and paths and community gardens.) someone mentioned harvard square as being touristy and i guess that's