frozenman on 7/11/2012 at 03:52

---

Watching election results coverage on Fox News is pretty fun.

CCCToad on 7/11/2012 at 04:30

---

Seconded. It's a fairly well written piece. Although I'd argue that the divisiveness is simply a consequence and economic inequality (and corruption) are the root causes.

edit: the author also seems ignorant of a lot of areas where both parties are in extreme degreement. For a few examples, watch some clips of the third presidential debate this year.

He also seems to miss that a lot of the Republican's talking points have very little to do with any genuine ideology on the part of it's leaders, but rather that the party's agenda is one that is bought and paid for. The only connection there is that the leadership's worship of "capitalism" (ie, corporatism) makes them extremely willing to go along with those agendas.

Oddly enough he point out the root cause of our problems, indirectly.



But he fails to see the connection between the dominance of the finance industry, the decline of the production sector, and the declining well being of the country.




and...



Also false. Obama as pushing very hard to overrule Bush's withdrawal deadline from Iraq, and signed an agreement to keep US troops in Afghanistan until 2024.

heywood on 7/11/2012 at 07:36

---

When was the last time you had a tropical cyclone, tornado, major ice storm, or widespread flooding?

Anyway, pretty much all of Tokyo has underground distribution. But when you get out of the city into suburban areas with medium-density housing, you'll see utility poles and overhead lines.

In America, electricity distribution is generally underground in city & town centers and in other areas with high housing density due to limited space and the existence of other underground infrastructure. But it's generally distributed above ground in suburban and rural areas where there is space for it and where there is little other underground infrastructure. It also depends on the age of the community and the proximity to town centers. Newly built communities where there were no preexisting roads are more likely to have underground distribution because it can be installed in conjunction with the road construction. Also, communities built close to town centers are more likely to connect to town water & sewer services and they'll route electrical distribution along with the other utilities underground. Communities in flood prone areas are more likely to have above ground distribution to keep it out of flood waters. Similarly, above ground distribution is preferred in earthquake prone areas because it's less vulnerable to damage due to ground displacement. Above ground distribution also has the advantage of being easier to inspect and easier to repair and maintain.

NYC has 5 boroughs containing communities which range from very high density to medium density. Manhattan has underground distribution. When Sandy hit the city, all of lower Manhattan had to be turned off to avoid destroying equipment in underground electricity distribution centers in case they were flooded (which some were). So underground electricity distribution isn't necessarily better or more resilient.

Also, the same common sense principles determine how electricity is distributed almost everywhere. I've never been to Germany, but in the parts of Europe I have visited it looks the same as in America: underground distribution in high density areas where much of the infrastructure is underground, utility poles in low density areas, and a mix in medium density areas.



That was a better article, thanks. From a big picture view, it's overly negative but I still agree with a lot of it. The themes are similar to Tom Friedman's writings. But it makes several supporting points which are poorly informed, exaggerated, or just non sequitors.



I'm not going to complain about Sydney weather, but it's true, we do get cold indoors in the winter here due to lack of heat and/or proper insulation.



Yes, I knew you were quoting Salon even if you didn't say it. A quick Google picked that up. But it wasn't the original source for the claim. I wanted to know where the author was getting his info, because I suspected he was misrepresenting the facts. So I looked for the actual Barney Frank quote in its original context.

Jason Moyer on 7/11/2012 at 15:38

---

I posted on FB yesterday noon-ish that it would be 332-206. I came to this conclusion after months of serious thought and study and about 30 seconds of seeing what the most common outcome was in various election forecasts (including Nate Silver's, which is easily the most trustworthy). It's ridiculous that the major news outlets, every single of them, spent the entire day acting like the outcome was in doubt when it became apparent that Romney was going to lose as soon as Florida's results started coming in and it was obvious the state would be a toss up (not because the outcome of Florida mattered, but because not winning FLA decisively was in line with the forecasts showing Ohio/Virginia/Nevada/Colorado going to Obama).

june gloom on 7/11/2012 at 21:13

---

lol