Not generalizations. Specific observations from just the last two days, driving only 15 miles. What's the unfair part - saying it out where other people might see it?

Who are you talking to? I'm not putting anyone's life and limb at risk. Instead, I wait at green lights while cyclists running red lights cut in front me. Instead, I travel at 5mph up hills rated 40mph while I wait behind the cyclist who doesn't like using the bike lane that runs parallel to the main lane, two meters away. How am I risking someone's life by sitting in first gear crawling along behind the cyclist? Or are you fantasizing a vision of me passing them by swerving into oncoming traffic and then cutting back in right in front of them? That would be your imagination, not reality.

Here, roads are largely paid for by fuel taxes, something the bikes don't pay. But they also get their own special lanes, just for them, that I can't use as a car driver or as a pedestrian. All just for them, paid for with taxes on fuel that the bikes don't use.

I didn't say they weren't biking. I said that they're biking in the main lanes, mixed in with the long row of cars stacked up behind them. They're too cool for the special bike lanes, two meters away, made just for them. Mostly, they seem to enjoy using the main lanes specifically because it antagonizes the other drivers. This is visible in the form of shouted insults, giving the finger, etc., that they offer to the car drivers who ask them to move over to the dedicated bike lanes.

Again, you're fantasizing. Most of our roads have cameras on them. Car drivers behaving that way will have their plates photographed. The deliberately provocative cyclists, on the other hand, have no way to identify them, unless you can recognize the finger they're flipping at 10mph from the center travel lanes of a major road.

Should I try cycling around my neighborhood in a safe and sensible way, or should I do it like the countless idiots like the ones I described, who represent the vast majority of the cyclists I see on local roads? Please be specific.

Do you have any suggestions for what to do about cyclists who are jabbering on their phone via bluetooth while they ride? Or who are having their texts read to them? Or who are wobbling along at 10mph using an entire lane with a 45mph limit, as they fiddle with their handlebar-mounted smartphone's You Are Fabulous, Look How Fit You Are! app? Or those that weave through slow moving cars in order to beat them to a red light so they can scoot across the intersection against the light when they think they can make it? Most of the risk I see involving cyclists is completely self-inflicted. We have all sorts of bicycle lanes around here, paid for by all tax payers, but reserved just for those special snowflakes on bikes. And those lanes look just fantastic there, empty, while the guy on the road bike climbs a hill at 3mph in the middle of traffic in a main lane right next to it. So far, my sympathy continues to hover right around zero.

As can cheap retail multi-rotors. Complex ground-side mission planning and completely autonomous flights from take to landing.

They're all drones, and no matter what we all think, that's the media term now and there's no escape. So, we just need to run with it.

Congressional testimony. Presidential news conference. You're embarrassing yourself.

It's a lot simpler than that. They came right out and said they targeted the groups in question because of the political orientation of those groups. As other groups were processed in weeks, the conservative groups were asked questions about their personal reading lists as their applications lingered for months or years. What part of that are you not understanding?

The issue wasn't denial, it was the issuing of hugely onerous lists of harassing questions intended to delay the processing of these groups' applications, thus keeping them from being processed. Not denied, NOT APPROVED, either.

You can't say the groups were or weren't denied, because they were kept in limbo, on purpose, for months and sometimes years. As good as denied, but actually better, because they couldn't appeal that non-denial, limbo condition.

And you're making stuff up. Who said they were denied? They weren't denied their status as non-profits, they were denied the same level of access and service as their liberal counterparts. Deliberate, purposeful, and unconstitutional unequal treatment under the law.

Sure, that's unreasonable. But the actually unbelievable part is that investigators had six more people whose email they wanted to collect, and - shockingly! - there was also a failure of storage for those same people, and those records were also beyond reaching.

Unbelievable, but sure as hell convenient for the administration. Unbelievable, and completely predictable for "the most transparent administration in history."

Yeah, facts like six other failures of storage for emails for six other people's mail the investigators want to read? What a crazy coincidence. But facts are facts, right?

And please provide a list of hundreds of OWS-flavored groups that had their applications deliberately steered into limbo (not approved, not denied) using tactics like asking the organizers for lists of all of the people in their groups, what books they read, what they think about - you know, the same sort of stuff that was asked of the conservative groups whose applications were deliberately kept on ice past the election cycle in question. So, please - all of those OWS groups in the same status, and be specific. The IRS doesn't have such a list, because there isn't one (as there is with the conservative groups that were abused by that agency). So you must have a large list that nobody else does. Do tell! Specifically.

It's worse than that. The investigators also want to see the correspondence involving six other people whose activity could shed light on the matter. And what a surprise, those six other people also had storage failures, and their records have also been lost. Shocking, huh.

Why are you lying? Hundreds of conservative groups had their applications deliberately delayed (past the election cycle) while progressive groups were pushed right through. Progressive groups were not subjected to illegal inquiries about the books their members read, what they think about, whether or how they pray, and more. The reason the IRS came out (when it was clear this was going to become public) and apologized for mistreating hundreds of conservative groups was because that's what happened. You're trying to wish it away, just like the administration.

If the opposite had happened (a conservative administration was running the IRS, and it was hundreds of progressive groups' applications tied up for years because of the names of the groups, and group organizers were told to respond with lists of all members, what books those members read, etc), you'd be shrieking at the top of your lungs, and you know it.

Yes, that would definitely take out the drone, and would probably get the LiPo battery nicely on fire, too, as it comes crashing down in urban Brazil. And certainly no danger, except for possible eye damage to someone a hundred meters away, and that whole whatever-the-equivalent-is-in-Brazil part where discharging a firearm in town and/or at someone else's property is a For Real felony. Otherwise, excellent plan.

Yeah, but that would just convince them that they're right about their superiority and entitlement. They're already bad enough, that way.

Yeah, except I notice exactly the same pattern. A lot.

It's not about no need to compensate, it's about feeling holier than thou about how green they are (if nobody counts their toxic batteries), and thus feeling entitled to double the parking area so that they don't get the same door dings as everyone else.

It was inevitable: Peak Hybrid had to happen. It's getting more and more difficult to extract crude hybrid from the lower levels of the tax code, which makes it more expensive to dole out. And, they're running out of room in the Whole Foods parking lot, where things are getting real, man.