Its lnearly correct.

I think we all know that had the call gone out, they would have had plenty of help moving the collection upstairs. Heck, all they had to do was suspend the limits and ask, and I would have checked out a truckload of books etc. to keep safe until they were ready for their return.

"Corbett said it was likely that less FEMA money ... would be available than earlier thought. "

Sounds like I've heard that before...

But it seems like some clarification is needed. TrueNorth can move into the old library building. The library can't. FEMA says it needs to be torn down and rebuilt higher. Like most, I thought the obvious solution was to renovate and move the library back into the old building. Looks like we're half-way there.

I agree. But as I joked with someone a while back, in that future when you go to the hospital or ER, instead of asking what insurance you have they'll just ask what insurance you'd like to buy.

The proverbial double-edged sword.

They helped push fiscal conservative issues into the spotlight, hurting Democrats with the Independents in some areas. But on the other hand they've fracturing the conservative vote.

A lot depends on how the GOP handles the situation, which has been very poorly in some cases. For example, the hard about-face of the NRSC regarding O'Donnell in Delaware.

I liked that idea when someone mentioned it a while back. The "underground parking" would also provide an excellent, sheltered area for drivers to load/unload passengers or turn over the keys for valet parking. It would also provide a good area for handicapped parking for those who don't want to use valet parking and for short-term parking.

Unfortunately, I think the decision was made before we even knew about it. Kind of like how many people have already decided how they'll be voting when council members/mayors are up for election.

They should. Now let me turn that around. Why should they have take responsibility for carrying everyone else as well? They're not being asked to carry their share of the burden, they're being asked to carry their share, plus part of ours.

Unfortunately, those young healthy people are the ones seeing the biggest increases. The option for high-deductible, low premium (catastrophic) insurance is being taken away because those plans don't meet "minimum requirements". So as I've said many times, at best all its done is shift costs from one person to another. It "will keep costs down" for one group by increasing costs for other groups. Young, healthy people, small businesses and individuals are seeing the biggest increases.

Regarding the mandate and insurance requirements, I don't think the people who wrote the law thought it through. As in many cases, lawmakers assume people will do what lawmakers want (buy insurance), even if its contrary to their own best interests. As it stands, only a financial fool will buy health insurance once this comes into full effect.

If insurance companies are required by law to issue a policy to someone with preexisting conditions and are barred from charging more than a small percentage above the "standard" rate for such people, then nobody will buy insurance until they need something that's going to cost enough to make it worthwhile. Then drop the plan when they're healthy. The government will charge you a $750 fine, but that's pretty darn cheap compared to most health insurance plans. And that's assuming the mandate is found to be constitutional -which has yet to be determined.

This law tries to force insurance into being something its not -a payment plan.

And just to bring the teaching/research tensions into focus, many faculty members are expected to fund most, and in some departments all of their salary with research grants. That saves the University & state money, but it has its own costs.

Part 2

First witnesses interviewed on the street were "planting the official story"??? The "myth"? More unsubstantiated accusation posing as evidence.

Significant fallacies regarding the scientific method. You don't just do experiment to corroborate your hypothesis, you also do experiments to try to disprove your hypothesis. Because not being able to corroborate a hypothesis does not mean its wrong, just that you can't prove it.

He seems to think their was a single fire that started in a single location as opposed to the reality which is a huge fire hitting the entirety of several stories simultaneously. There was and explosion when the plane hit the building -it didn't just start a little fire in one corner that spread.

Exert say (as I did) that fire causes steel to get weaker.

The beams in their test slowly bent -"there was no chance of a sudden collapse". Except the test wasn't on a high rise with much greater stresses over a sustained time. We all know the building didn't collapse right after the plane hit. Fire weakened beams. One beam buckling puts more stress on another beam, causing it to buckle and you get a snowball effect causing collapse. This was not a possibility in their test.

"Never seen a protected steel structure collapse in a fire." Of course he's never seen a building this size in that situation before and offers no evidence or reason why it couldn't/wouldn't happen.

The buildings that collapsed suffered a single failure point (a single side burned and the fire was at the bottom or throughout the building).

Witnesses "heard explosions" there were "big billowing clouds". Yes, that's what its like when hundreds of tons of steel and concrete collapses. What did they think it would be like? Clean an quiet?

Yes, look at the "controlled demolitions". The first half-second is caused by the blast, the rest (billowing clouds, etc.) is caused by the collapsing building. And those controlled demolitions can only be done by a handful of companies,