Sean,
So you think I am full of it, do you? Well, same to you, buddy!
And no, I am not being testy after last night's pathetic performance by Ohio State. Those slow, beefy white boys on our offensive line must have had a very nice 50+day holiday (only to be underperformed by the worst pass defense I've seen against a team led by a marginal quarterback and without a real good running game). Nah, I am not down and pouty at all.
Mark,
I just love it when you guys talk dirty: "Is it a coincidence that the only country in the world with a larger carbon footprint per head of population than the US is the only other western nation not to ratify Kyoto?"
Plausible answer: Because Kyoto is just a pile of "Double Dutch". Get the Chinese and Indians to sign off first then let's look at it carefully. Of course, they are much too smart to do so, and in the case of China at least, not prone to base policies on popular opinion.
BTW, in the absence of conclusive data, what would you have us do? If man's contribution to "the problem" is very small as numerous scientists have concluded, do you think that our contribution to the solution can be substantial? If it is increased solar activity that's making things hotter along with water, volcanoes, plant and animal life which largely account for the production of CO2 and the possible effects on global warming, why do we keep making man, particularly if he is American, the heavy in this whole thing?
On the margin, things have to make sense or we're just pissing into the wind. We don't need to shut Detroit down (they seem to be doing a pretty good job of it themselves without our help) with new crammed down CAFE standards. Nor do we need to take petroleum based products out of our lives.
Modifying your wonderful "carbon footprint per head" to per capita oil consumption and relating it to productivity might actually serve a useful purpose for discussion. Through advances in technology, we continue to squeeze more output from each barrel of oil. I don't have the figures of per capita oil consumption in the U.S. over time, but I understand that the improvements are considerable and this is the area where I would support government policy to encourage and help accelarate.
Doug,
I am not surprised at all. I have a very good understanding of the socialist mind.
But, again, what's wrong with blaming Clinton for everything? And, who's doing it? Nearly everyone I know who truly dislike Clinton personally and hate what he did to the office give him high marks for being smart and a great communicator. Some of them even have a grudging admiration for his ability to accept the economic realities forced on him by the Republican congress against his every instinct and coopting the credit for their success.
In contrast, even before the 2000 election was made official, Bush was a lazy, dumb-ass draft-dodger, totally devoid of "gravitas", a daddy's boy, and already "The Worst President Ever". Not even the courtesy and credit that Clinton got for the economy is given to Bush who took over a country already in a recession, with the stock market bubble deflating rapidly, and the worst major attack on U.S. soil (in the planning for several years) taking place nine months after he took office.
I am sorry, but equating the "extremes" of both parties is not accurate. On the Left, they have been mainstreamed; on the Right, they are a fringe group (look at the fate of Reps. Foley- disgraced and out of office, Jefferson- sworn-in and the recipient of standing ovations by his congressional colleagues). And by the way, I have absolutely no problem with the 2006 elections.
As to your dinner friend's opinion on Iraq, I tend to agree to some degree with what you describe as his position. My biggest objection to going into Iraq was that I didn't think it was possible for a Republican president, even one of Ronald Reagan's stature, to get the media and the opposing party behind or at least neutral toward such a war. Bush is no Reagan, and just what I feared has taken place.
We didn't lose 20,000 troops in the first weeks as many on the press and the Left said we would, but the goal posts keep getting moved and Bush can't overcome a deck which was stacked against him from day 1. The primary lessons of Viet Nam were that you can't win a war when politics trump military strategy and when the American people are not substantially behind it. I think we are re-learning those lessons today, and Bush did not have the foresight and/or advice that might have led to other means of containing terrorism without a direct attack on Iraq to force regime change.
This will be my last largely political in nature post of the year.
Mike Young,
Weather issues as they relate to golf are very local. I was under the impression that fall preparation, scheduled maintenance including aeration of greens, fairways, and tees, and most importantly, not allowing the soil to get too dry during the winter are important in getting through difficult weather events. Covering dormant bermuda greens when the temperatures reach into the 30s seems to be a good practice.
Question:
Are bermuda greens that have not been overseeded more susceptible to cold snaps following an unusually warm spell? I know that overseeded greens have a hard time transitioning in the spring when the weather remains cool and wet. I've seen them in Texas in June when the rye and bents burn-up and the bermuda is still struggling and it is not a good situation.