It seems humans are prone to losing their common sense. We either do not spend enough time noticing or understanding what is going on around us or we simply let ourselves say it does not matter.
Common sense tells me hydrofracking, when fully explained and understood, could not possibly take place anywhere. Surely, people would just say NO before it had a chance to get started. Fracking uses up millions of gallons of water and injects toxic chemicals into the ground....GAME OVER, right? But wait, there's more. JOBS! Economic prosperity will come to regions of poverty. Employed people spending their wealth means success and growth for businesses. The only loser is Earth.
There are examples besides hydrofracking. Back in 1938 a patent was issued for a new process meant to ensure coal mines shored up with wood could withstand the test of time. Pressure treated lumber was born. It almost makes sense that in the dark, dangerous depths of the coal mine, the combination of arsenic, copper and chomium did not seem much like an added threat. But soon, the toxic poison arsenic made a leap into the light...your new backyard deck, your garden shed, your picnic table and your child's jungle gym were all nearly indestructable and would last an eternity. All this time people knew that the pressure treated wood contained arsenic and no one set off the alarm bells. How could this be? How could we invite a toxic poison into our homes, yards and families?
It is happening again with hydrofracking. Concerned citizens are asking why fracking is being considered in New York. Some did not have the chance to ask this question before fracking was already in their neighborhoods. It seems we truly never learn from history. It seems common sense loses to the power of corporations and the greed of individuals. How many times must we suffer the consequences of our own making? How many times will we acquiesce because we still believe government and corporations are doing the right thing.
Common sense, history and science all say NO to fracking. What do you say?
D&C circulation numbers by themselves, whether for print or digital editions, are in the end uninformative. Let's see some revenue numbers boys. What are your monthly earnings on the print edition over the past five years (realizing that you whacked your loyal print subscribers with a MASSIVE rate hike last year)? What about print edition advertising revenues for the same period? And what were the same numbers for you digital edition for say the past 12 months?
If you’re making more money or at least holding your own then your business plan was apparently correct. If not, maybe it’s time to stop waving around a bunch of useless stats and start re-examining your assumptions.
I fall somewhere between Toby's pessimistic myopia and Scott's over-achieving optimism. . . but I did get to ride all 12 months this year. I will ride any day it's going to be dry on the ground. Could be 12 or 92 degrees, as long as it's not going to be wet/slushy - I'm pedaling.
There were definitely days this winter when a wider road would have been appreciated by both myself and the car traffic passing me (or trying to).
Toby, in past years, you were right - I was part of a very small group riding in Rochester in the winter, and I did not do so consistently. However, that is changing - this year I commuted to work and ran errands almost every day on my bicycle, with studded snow tires. More significantly, I saw many cyclists out on the streets along with me. Not thousands, or even hundreds, yet - but dozens.
Rochester is not Portland, as you point out. We are much more like Minneapolis and Boston, two other very active year-round cycle transportation communities, in our winter challenges. (In fact, I would claim that Rochester is between those two cities in winter cycling environment.)
It is true that for Rochester to be a more attractive year-round cycling city some changes will have to be made.
Snow removal on major cycle routes must be done to accommodate bicycles as well as automobiles. Winter storms here result in snow and ice obstructing the parts of the road that cyclists normally use; we are forced then to occupy (legally, I might add) the same narrowed lanes used by automobiles. I really don't mind, but other cyclists may be intimidated, and automobile traffic is certainly slowed by my presence.
Traffic signals will need to be modified to be able to detect bicycles. While it is "feasible" (albeit awkward, inconvenient, and somewhat dangerous) for a cyclist to request a green light at a traffic signal by going onto the sidewalk and pushing the pedestrian cross button in the summer, it is impossible to do so in the winter when access to the pedestrian cross button is obstructed by a 6 foot wide, 4 foot high snowbank.
Bike-specific infrastructure will require winter maintenance. As with sidewalks, bicycle and multi-use paths must be plowed promptly with the intent that they be open when commuters need them.
So far I have avoided the rather cliche proverb, but I'll say it:
There is no such thing as bad cycling weather, only bad cycling gear!
Shame on me! Thanks for catching that.
"fermenting [sic] even more mistrust and hostility"?!? Oy. So now we have a problem with drunk droning?
"drones are responsible..." Uh, no. Drones don't kill people — people do. Specifically, Prof. B. H. Obama. Don't blame and harass the operators, who selflessly and patriotically do the work we ask them and pay them to do. If you're going to get up in someone's face, then follow the chain of command to Lafayette Park and share your feelings with the commander in chief.
Can't you journalists ever get over excluding men from being innocent? The article states "Critics say the drones are responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, including women and children." Is it any worse to kill innocent women and children than innocent men? Are men's lives worth less? Or is it a given that 'innocent people' only means 'men' and you have to emphasize that innocent people can also be women and children? Why not just say "innocent men, women and children'? That should cover it.
Rochester is NOT Portland. Even though Portland gets planty of rain, and cyclists there don't mind riding in it, they rarely get extremely cold weather or snow - unlike Rochester. Rochester can be a bike-friendly city as long as it's kept in the perspective that people will only ride bikes about half of the year and only in good weather.
I heartily support any/every effort to get more people out of vehicles and onto their feet/bikes. I do my darndest to bike to work as often as possible. It's good exercise, as well as giving me time to get me head in the right place.
Anybody who's got eyes and has been paying attention is aware of our growing obesity problem. This would help with that also.
Anybody who has read "Freakonomics" already knows that some scandal was/is inevitable. Whoever is invested in the test outcomes is at risk of being corrupted by the pressure. Some will inevitably give in.
What is more surprising than the scandal is the low percentage of cheating. Other career paths with a direct results-to-employment correlation have pretty substantial cheating rates - steroids in cycling or baseball, Wall Street insider trading, bankers and credit default swaps (maybe they were technically legal, but the way they wormed out of being held responsible has to count as scandalous). That only a small percentage of teachers cheat is testament to the quality of people who go into teaching.
i want to be an extra in your movie the amazing spider man 2. i am thirteen years old and do not have a car but i would still love to be apart of your film. do you have a spot a for a great thirteen year old actress in your movie?
"..narrative Warren's campaign is using is that of someone who will represent people who feel disenfranchised: like they don't have a voice in city government."
Like city residents who are Republicans
Scouting was never about sex or sexuality, heterosexuality, homosexuality or other. Radical homosexual activists with an agenda tried to force the BSA, a private organization, to accept their views. It started with attacks on the BSA in San Francisco and spread from there. It got so bad the Boy Scouts were even booed at the Democratic National Convention in August 2000. Even when the Supreme Court ruled that the BSA, as a private organization, could exclude anyone they wanted to, the activists persisted. (You know how persistant these types are; they are same people who disrupted mass at St. Patrick's in New York, throwing condoms and even desecrating a communion host.)
It's sad that there seems to be a need to expose children to adult topics at earlier ages these days. Does sex need to be part of teaching boys about camping, hiking, and swimming? Should the BSA be required to develop a policy and discuss abortion rights? Let's have one place where kids can still be kids.
If there was ever a place for 'don't ask, don't tell' its in scouting. If you are truly interested in helping the scouting program, why do you need to make your sexual preference known? What purpose does it serve other than to push an agenda where it has no place. If you don't like the BSA rules, don't join.
EPA is right. This pipeline is not worth the risk.
The project is only vital for a more rapid decay of our environment.
Ideological extremists and assorted crackpots have succeeded in tying up this vital project for far too long. Enough already with this insanity! America desperately needs the jobs, and the world needs the Canadian oil—which it is going get no matter what. Abolish the EPA, ship the most offensive environmentalist kooks off to Gitmo, and get on with it. Drill, baby, drill!!
A primary aim of scouting is to inculcate a virtuous character. Obviously it would be completely counter-productive to install adult leaders who espouse an immoral lifestyle.
By the way, the Warren campaign's charges are bunk. Last time I looked, the process for selecting a political party’s nominess, whether by a caucus for mayor or via voters participating in a state’s presidential primary, was designed to award the nomination to whoever obtained a majority of the votes. Naturally this meant that, should one candidate obtain that majority before all caucuses had met or before all states had held their primates, then unavoidably the votes of the later groups would be rendered superfluous.
So when a candidate wraps up their win early is this the result of racism or some other evil attempt at disenfranchisement or to discourage voter participation? Of course not. It’s simply a matter of timing. You want your vote to count? Then work to ensure that your caucus or your state primary is held early enough to have an impact. As Ben Franklin said, “You may delay, but time will not.”
Ms. Fien - Thank you for the clarification. But I see that you didn't update the article itself and so unless someone reads your comment here they will receive an inaccurate view of the event.
Shouldn’t the statement now read,...
“The loss might even work to Warren’s advantage by reinforcing her campaign narrative of being an “outsider”: the candidate of the people versus the candidate of the city’s business interests.”?
GARY WALKER?! LOL. Does that mean I get to share his salary now? Actually, I campaigned for Bill Johnson 2 years ago -- not something Gary Walker would have done (at least not if he wanted to keep his job).
Website powered by Foundation