You need to try Positano's. I usually order a regular entree (penne alfredo) with chicken (it's rotisserie, and very drool-worthy), but I've had their pizza a few times and it's unbelievable. After the first bite, you're counting slices and trying to remember if anyone at the table owes you a favor.

Don't forget the 5 Hour Energy shot. I can be a little long-winded, or so they tell me. Oh, and a poncho, too. Not for the argument itself, it's just that ponchos are handy to have.

The Left and the Right are both guilty of short memories, hypocritical thinking and double-standards. We could all benefit from casting a critical look at our own folks, and I'll start it out: This "negro dialect" comment is not about racism as much as it's an insult the voting public. It's a cold, clinical analysis of Obama's "marketability" to white voters, and the fact that it may hold some truths doesn't diminish the inhuman aspects of Reid's position. As an added bonus: Reid's involvement with Jack Abramoff and his ability to coast through that scandal virtually unscathed is not something my party should be proud of. Not only did he avoid forced resignation, he wasn't even censured or (publicly) admonished by his Democratic colleagues. At the time, I was (naively) thinking, "Okay, let them handle it in private, as long as it gets done." His ascension to Majority Leader proved just how naive I was. It's okay to be loyal to your party, but sins of omission can tear away at your ideology until eventually nothing remains but machine-like pragmatism. Life is too short for that.

"it also has an allocation of $12.7 million in Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds. If the project is eligible for both types of bond, that'd get us to $30 million.' My understanding is those (RZED) bonds can be used for infrastructure improvements, education/training programs or improvements on existing (private) businesses in support of said training, but are not supposed to be used to finance new private sector projects. But I've already been wrong once or twice in this thread, so...

"Steve, that completely fritzed my circuits." Doc, I hope you know I wasn't assigning any religious traits to you, personally. The 6,000 year polar bear question was just too tempting a set-up, and a lengthy disclaimer would have stunted the comedic value. The art comes first.

Cheri, you could have said, "Honey, of course there were polar bears 6,000 years ago. That's when God made all the animals, and that's also when he made the fake fossils and adjusted their Carbon 14 radioactive levels, just so he could test our faith 6,000 years in the future." :)

Cheri, as far as the basic greenhouse effect stuff, a lot of good research/analysis was done back in the early Eighties. My pop (aeronautical engineer) had some good books he'd picked up when the CFC controversy was raging. As a Republican, he began with the, "That's a bunch of crap" approach, but he couldn't leave stuff like that alone. Within a couple of months, he'd changed to, "We need to stop this shit now." Unfortunately, the house cleaning/yard sale phenomena struck before I could lay claim to some of his books. ;/ For a more current look at climate change (the effects of), you might check out "With Speed and Violence" by Fred Pearce. I'll just warn you upfront that he loves James Hansen, but I guarantee you'll get off on the book, anyway.

"Still convinced that we are warming at an historically unprecedented and planet-threatening rate, and that CO2 is the cause?" Yes, but it's not just the C02, it's how the moderate warming from C02 triggers water vapor accumulation, which is the self-sustaining (and growing) warming danger. "And is it self-evident, intuitive and moot that the world would be better off two or three degrees cooler, compared to warmer, than it is today anyway?" How about neither? You know, this question almost sounds like you believe that, if I get my way (lower atmospheric carbon), global temperatures would drop. Which would also mean you believe higher carbon levels result in warming, of course. Come to think of it...that would also explain why Carter put that whole ice age scare into his presentation. To add a little subliminal fear of, "Don't mess with the carbon levels! An ice age would be much worse for life on the planet!" Think about it.

Well, let me state upfront that I refuse to compete with your 13 year old daughter because it wouldn't be fair. To me. :) First off, I don't need to call his motivations into question, because he did quite a fine job of exposing that himself by stating that he cared just as much about the environment as his opponent (John Newcome) "wishes to appear to be". Ad hominem right out of the gate, with no facts to back up said character assassination. Not very scientific, Cheri, but let's move on. Second, he also prefaces his talk with how the public debate on this subject is "bedeviled with a lack of context". But later he projects an image of a 200+ year old painting of a winter landscape, and later an amusing animation (cartoon) of polar bears hanging around a campfire. If that's his idea of bringing "context" to the debate, he must be a handful at parties. You'll probably consider the following as being picky or looking for the slightest issue, but...when he introduces the data he's going to cover, he correctly attributes it to Greenland core sample analysis. But towards the end, when he gets into the 400,000 year data, he omits the fact that the audience is now looking at Antarctic core data. It may be a simple oversight, or it could be because the Vostok data is (known to be) less reliable than the Greenland samples. But it's still an omission, and one a lecturing scientist should not make. I've seen the really long-range temperature/atmospheric carbon arguments from both sides numerous times Cheri, so this is not new to me. But thanks for the link.

Er, make that "Reference" sections.

The DOW is rising, Cheri. :) And so are global temperatures. Since this thread is devoted to meteorologists, let's hear what the best in the world have to say, even if they're not bodybuilders and/or Fox contributors: Geneva, 8 December 2009 (WMO) – The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for 2009 (January–October) is currently estimated at 0.44°C ± 0.11°C (0.79°F ± 0.20°F) above the 1961–1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.2°F. The current nominal ranking of 2009, which does not account for uncertainties in the annual averages, places it as the fifth-warmest year. The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989). More complete data for the remainder of the year 2009 will be analysed at the beginning of 2010 to update the current assessment. This preliminary information for 2009 is based on climate data from networks of land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, as well as satellites. The data are continuously collected and disseminated by the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs) of the 189 Members of WMO and several collaborating research institutions. The data continuously feed three main depository global climate data and analysis centres, which develop and maintain homogeneous global climate datasets based on peer-reviewed methodologies. Once again, as a doctor, I expect you to see through the conspiracy theory that has been constructed to explain why all of this (and other) data is wrong. Seriously. We can't trust NASA and the NOAA, can we? We can't trust other governments either, except for maybe Russia, because They Know The Truth. And we damned sure can't trust the UN, which is a gathering of all the untrustworthy governments of the world, by God. In such an untrustworthy environment, it's best to stick to trustworthy folks, like Lord Monckton, who's going to save us from domination by the Carbon Overlords, and Joe Bastardi, who thinks drilling in ANWR is the solution to all our political, economic (and probably climate) problems. I use my own noggin frequently, my friend. I've read government reports and think-tank musings and bloggers' "this just in!" revelations until my little monkey brain hurt. Hell, I even read Noteworthy from time to time, but don't tell the evil ogre I said that. I've been asked to leave the research sections of libraries at closing time more often than most people have even been in there, which is...okay, that part's kind of sad. :/ But you get my point.

"the fact that the globe has cooled in the last decade" Cheri, you're a doctor, so I can expect you to go verify what I'm about to tell you. 1998 was an exceptionally warm year, but years 2001-2007 were each/all warmer than any other years in the previous decade, or any other decades before for that matter, with the exception of the anomalous 1998. 1997 was pretty warm too, but this decade (2000's) has been the warmest decade on record. To look at that warming trend and say "the globe is cooling" tells me you've been fishing in the wrong ponds again.

You forgot about Al Sleet: "Tonight's forecast: Dark, turning to widely scattered light in the morning, man."

It looks like you're right, Fec. I got that from a panel (Richard Quest, I think) where they talked about bonds being available for both depressed areas and non-depressed areas. After checking, it appears they were talking about Build America Bonds and the Recovery Zone Bonds that are a subset of them, but the BABs are just for government infrastructure, not public/private economic projects. I don't know what the hell they were talking about. ;/

Fec, I think the Recovery Zone thing only comes into play if the City wants the Federal government to refund 45% of the interest paid on the bonds. I'm pretty sure the bonds are available for use in other areas, you just don't get help with the interest. Sam, I dig what you're saying, but keep this in mind: The main reason behind the stimulus is that, either due to lack of capital or fear of risk, private funds for projects across the board just weren't flowing. I'm not saying they should flow to unsound projects, I'm just saying a lack of private investor interest, in the middle of a recession, shouldn't be viewed as proof the project is unsound. That makes more sense in my head than it does typed out like that, but I hope you get what I was trying to say.

"If it's a bad idea, the private investors will lose money (though less than without the public largesse), and that's something that private investors always strive to avoid." Andrew, sometimes the tail actually does wag the dog. Profits made from construction and profits made from the successful operation of the hotel are two different things, and sometimes that first thing is the only thing that developers are really concerned about. And sometimes, having the public on the hook makes that second thing even less worrisome. And Tim, I'd be very surprised if those bonds weren't backed up in some way by the City.

Good questions Jeff, and they're ones we shouldn't be afraid to ask. I could point to the neocons and their uncanny influence over foreign policy, but it's a hell of a lot more complex than that. They didn't create a mindset, they just took advantage of one that already existed. American exceptionalism courses through all our veins to some extent, and we believe we have the wisdom to wield both good deeds and vengeance simultaneously. We can destroy and create, not unlike God, and if our strategic and economic position is enhanced by those acts, the entire world benefits, whether they understand it or not. The reality is, we're not gods or demi-gods, and we don't have some sort of divine calling. If we can ever get to the point that we understand that, the "righteousness" of war will no longer be as tempting a fantasy as it is now.

"The map reminds me that if I were an Iranian and saw the US Army on both sides of my border, I might be a little nervous." Jeff, a friend and I had a pretty heated discussion recently about Iran, and I brought up exactly that point. His response: "What we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan has nothing to do with Iran, and their paranoid behavior just proves how unstable they are. We're going to have to do something pretty soon." All I could think of to say was, "You've got what, two kids so far?" "And one in the oven!" "That's just...that's great, man."

Well, before Tiger endorses a religious product, he needs to make sure they won't tear up his contract for trying to improve his short game.

I love Weatherspoon. I can always find several pieces that move me, and the sparse attendance makes those discoveries seem all the more special.

Ian, have you read "What Befell Sultan Yusuf" by Beha Ed Din? Kind of a tough read until you adapt, but it's a jewel.

Sam, I hope so. I think there's a hell of a lot more things we could agree on, if we gave it a chance.

"He thanked my African American colleague for giving the world G.W. Bush. That went over real well." I know you already know this, Jim, but it bears repeating. Kurds suffered greatly at the hands of Saddam (they haven't done too well in Turkey, either). The al Anfal campaign and sustained Arabization efforts did more than just rack up body counts and displace villages. Kurdish sons were slaughtered and Kurdish daughters were considered part of the government-granted "property" for Arab settlers. It really should come as no surprise this man lionized Bush. I probably would too. There seems to be some genuine efforts by AKP to normalize relations with Kurds (in both countries), which I think is fantastic. Are you seeing any examples of this?

I admit I was a little harsh on Thoreau, and I probably haven't scratched that surface much deeper than you have, Jeff. But while solitude and introspection are not without their virtues, they are bereft of fresh resources, and pretty soon the isolated, incestuous mind begins to produce and project attributes for "the others" that are neither rational nor thoughtful. Thoreau developed a severe dislike and distrust of his fellow man, and (I believe) he lost what it means to be human in the process. I see some of that in the libertarianism of today, and it bothers me. Within this ideal there exists, simultaneously, such a deep distrust of others that they want no part of collective governing, but also a naive belief that it's that very collective gathering that turns an otherwise trustworthy man into a tyrant. Taking one step further into madness, if you remove the government influence, man will evolve back into his natural state of goodness. Or something like that. Our government is in "declining health", as it were, but that's our fault. It's not some monolithic entity or superclass of citizens that's to blame, it's us. Consumerism doesn't end at the cash register, it encompasses our existence, including the way we choose our leaders. We gobble up bullshit-laden tv commercials, colorful propaganda mailings and wise-sounding voices on the phone, and we are impressed. You want to court us with pizza and a movie rental? Oh, hell no. We're an expensive date, and we must be entertained. You're intelligent and steeped in common sense? To hell with that. You must be powerful if you're going to represent us, and the only way we know how to gauge power is money. If you have it, like to spend it, and can get more of it, we've got a deal. If not, don't waste our time. That's not evil or untrustworthy, it's just human weakness. And the "Free Market" is somehow supposed to cure that? Take advantage of it, maybe, but cure it? I think not. Until we grow up and stop salivating at the sound of the bell, we can expect (at best) mediocrity in the way our government operates. But that mediocrity is merely a mirror-image of ourselves, and we can't change one without changing the other.

Better the devil that you know, Jeff. It's easy enough to create a fictional future of peace and prosperity with little or no government influence, but it's downright impossible to produce evidence that future could be realistically achieved.