You will take my "graf" from me when you steal it from my cold, dead, perfect hands. I don't get many chances to strut my book learning, yo, and that's one. The journalism usage that gets me in most trouble is "sexy". This sounds like a better story than it is, but there's a journalism-sexy, ie. "moving to the hearts and minds" which is very seperate from foamy-sexy, JM, sexy.(But not always...see that stupid Holloway story.) Anyway, I forgot that not everybody knows this one day at a transit conference when I got a strange look for suggesting stadiums got more coverage than transit because transit "wasn't sexy."

I think they misspelled "photo op to boost his approval ratings that are swirling down the toilet bowl."

Oh, come now. This is the perfect time for him to show up and declare war on, umm, the weather or something.

I forgot that not everybody knows this one day at a transit conference when I got a strange look for suggesting stadiums got more coverage than transit because transit "wasn't sexy."

I've had the same thing happen to me, erika. Like, I've used the sentence, "Give me a big, sexy graphic for the cover." And since we publish pharmacy articles, all I got was a room full of weird looks.

No, I think that's how they spell that now. Oh, goody, he's gonna pretend to care and everything.ETA: Tep, I have another friend that's an editor and we're always asking "journalism-sexy, or regular-sexy?"

This is the perfect time for him to show up and declare war on, umm, the weather or something.

It's as likely to be successful as his other war.

Except the pissing in the wind might get less figurative.

The war on weather? I guess it wouldn't be the first time he declared war on a noun.

I've just started reading a book called The Long Emergency, by James Howard Kunstler, whose basic thesis is that we're all going to hell in a handbasket sometime this century because the oil will run out and none of the potential alternatives are good enough to sustain the population and lifestyle we currently have. That the carrying capacity of the planet after oil may be something along the lines of its 1800 population--i.e. ~1 billion, and that our lives may turn as "local" as they were then. Most food grown nearby, heavily agricultural workforce, etc. Lots of famine, disease, and war to get rid of the extra 5-6 billion.

DH thinks he's wrong--that once oil hits $200/barrel, solar and wind power will be a lot more popular, and nuclear power won't skeeve people anywhere near so much, etc.

Anyone else? Is this guy smoking the monkey crack? Please say yes, because I'd love an excuse to put the book down and read something less scary, like the complete works of Stephen King, say, but he makes it sound so compelling.

That dude is smoking crack. First of all, there is a lot of oil that is expensive to extract, but as the price of oil rises more difficult reserves will start to be tapped. Second, there is still a lot of coal, not very environmental, but there is a lot of it still. Third, just like your DH said, there is a lot of untapped solar, wind, and tidal energy that can be tapped into and will become more popular. There is also the slow progress in fusion power that may someday yield a new source of power.

So I was just reminded of NationStates, which I'd had a nation on years ago but forgotten about. Anyone else still playing there? It just occurred to me to root around for a Buffista Island region, but alas, no such luck.