In "Worldwide Pants"

I'd like to join the Turkey chorus. I went there seven years ago and can't wait to return. I'm not sure how much time you have to work with, but you could easily spend your entire trip in Istanbul, or spend a few days there and then take advantage of the extensive and affordable bus system to travel south to the beaches. I deeply regret not having gone ot Capadoccia and Pamukale while I was there, but those areas are slightly less accessible if you don't have much time to work with.

In "America: #$@@ Yeah."

I don't suppose tehre are many people who don't know already that the song is from team america world police. Yes, thus the "take that, terrorists" line in the FPP. The video is new, the words are an old American ballad.

In "For $5 the wonderful world of MeFi can be yours"

I just sent Matt an email telling him I plan to charge my "service fee" to my Visa as soon as possible if it will be a chance to confess my undying love for Troutfishing.

In "If you were confused by Bush's reference to "Dred Scott" (a 148 yr. old Supreme Court decision)..."

To add to Mexican's comments, Dred Scott is in fact a great example of the limitations and perils inherent in a "strict constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution.. The outrage and the irony here is that the kind of folks Bush has nominated for positions on the Federal bench have been, despite his claims to the contrary, "judicial activists." They are **conservative** judicial activists, eager to tow the line of legal interpretation in any way that suits their agenda. The most appalling example of this kind of "activism" is not gay marriage, but the Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore. If you read the decision, you'll see the stretches and convolutions Scalia et al need to make to justify calling a halt to the recount, including the laughable notion that their ruling shouldn't be used as any kind of legal precedent in the future.

In "Curious George: Buying A Bike"

Looking over the range of opinions on nobbies vs. slicks: I get the fact that slicks might in fact give **more** traction than I assumed, but wondered what those more versed in the relative virtues of the respective tires thought re: the durability question. Is it easier to get a flat on slicks? I was going to switch to nobbies on my new bike to avoid flats- am I just overly entrenched in my experience of riding a mountain bike for 15 years? Thanks to all.

I had my Specialized hybrid for 15 years, replaced it with a new one (same model but a light-year leap, tech-wise) a few months ago, and I have a lot of faith in the brand. I'd used my old bike both as a trail bike in Northern California and as a commute bike in New York City, and it held up marvelously. I only traded it in because I moved to a 4th floor walk-up and the old-school steel frame was too much to carry up all those stairs. The tire question is a tough call. I got road tires on the new bike, and while there's less friction, and a little less work for me, there's also less traction on the road. In rainy weather, mountain tires give you more grip on the road. Also, when dealing with the everyday hazards of cycling in a city, such as potholes, curbs, broken glass, and other surprises, mountain tires are more resistant to flats. and you can take rougher road with fewer bumps to your back or your frame. But London may have smoother streets than NY! Definitely get a simple rack on the back when you buy- you can always make basket decisions later as long as you have a rack. Happy riding!

In "Bj"

Mfpb, do you have a link to the article you quoted in your post about NY's influence on Bjork's music? She was also the fashion spread in last week's New York Times Magazine. Beyond fashion. Vespertine, perfectly titled, is a liturgy for me, maybe as close to one as I will have. I can't wait to hear her now.

In "Curious George: Fair Rates for Urban Movers"

Thanks all for your help and advice!

In "Breaking History: Ronald Reagan dead at 93"

Yes! Here's to a deep breath. I can get very serious, very quickly. Hitler only got mentioned twice, which I think means we are still holding up ok. I'd like to take this chance to saw that I hate kittens, rainbows, Native Americans, and old people.

f8xmulder wrote: Is that a 'just desserts' comment? I dunno. Seemed like it to me at the time, and I still think it sounds awfully vindictive. Vindictive? Maybe ironic at the very most. If you read carefully, you'll see that I was commenting on folks' tendency to focus on how RR died, rather than making a critical appraisal of his legacy. But given the focus on the cause of death, I don't think it's out of line to note that Reagan was opposed to the very types of govt. programs that might have alleviated his suffering, or that he empowered the very political constituency that has made stem-cell research damn near impossible in this country. I don't like putting words in other people's mouths (which you've so kindly done for me) but I think Nostrildamus' point was that the ham-handed way in which US waged war by proxy in Afghanistan funded the rise of both the Taliban and the development of Al-Quaeda. That's a reasonable argument that you're free to contend with, but distorting the argument is not a rebuttal.

f8xmulder, there was nothing in my comment that suggested that Reagan "deserved" to get Alzheimer's. Your summary is a rather willful distortion of what I said: that I find it odd that people who otherwise found Reagan's policies objectionable, or even catastrophic, euphemized his political legacy because he died a long and painful death from a degenerative illness. His wife's Johnny-come-lately plea for federal sponsorship of stem-cell research to treat Alzheimer's was ironic, but it was not retribution, divine or otherwise. "Insufferable asswipes"? Thanks for trolling, and have a nice day.

Reading the responses to Reagan's death here and on LA Blue, I'm struck by how many of them offset objecions to his politics by waxing sympathetic about the way he died. Reagan devoted his presidency to eviscerating the very government programs that seek to advance medical research on diseases like Alzheimer's. If Reagan's "vision" had triumphed, there would be very likely be no National Institutes of Health and no CDC, to say nothing of no Medicare and Medicaid for the elderly and the poor. Nancy's after-the-fact plea for stem cell research nonwithstanding does not change this. Neither does Reagan's suffering in the last years of his life.

(limited to the most recent 20 comments)