I think Sommers would still say that women's issues still need to be advanced. She does disagree strongly without mainstream feminists see and approach the issue. (And frankly so do I.) Sommers says specifically that if you are an equality feminists you are probably more tempted to see the glass as half-full, and say "wow, look how much equality we have already established -- now lets see if we can improve". In essence, this involves removing victimologies from feminism, although I do not think that Sommers uses that term.

In theory you could be correct, but in the real world we find people being victimized because of the specific groups they belong to. This ranges from abject coarseness to subtle but still rather potent. I agree that the law should be written to protect everyone equally, and more attention should be paid to that, but the inspiration to get laws passed can still involve specific groups with specific grievances.

Trust, but verify. Actually, there's no trust in this deal. They nuclear facilities will be live-feed monitored, and machinery with tamper-proof censors. The inspectors also get to go wherever they want. I'm interested to see just how the GOP handles this, because the smart ones must know how badly the USA will be hurt if they fsck it i up. So really, it will be a matter of chest-thumping just load enough to scare a few people, and keep the true-believers hopping mad until the next issue comes up.

You do know that the country went through a revolution, right? Ain't sovereignty a bitch. Talk about a know-nothing.

I doubt it is trivial to add EXT2/3/4 support to the windows stack. Consider that ZFS has barely moved in linux space, even though it is fully BSD compatible, opensource, and awesome. Apparently it makes more sense to develop BTRFS.

Should you uninstall all dlls that explorer uses? What about the C runtime?

Oh I'm sure a free market will spring up to serve your needs in the future -- and people you identify with. If the trees have value -- which they do -- then some entrepreneur will figure out how to serve you. You should really be concerned with the average cost of energy, which everyone pays, regardless of the economic system. If the average cost is low, then the economy can only be good.

There are technological solutions to these types of issues, and some parts of the world are trying to develop the know-how. What we know about solar/wind, combined with long-standing trends, is that it is coming down in price fast. But moving to a new grid has inbuilt challenges, and some of the smartest people in the world are trying to figure out how to make the inevitable transition.

Sovereignty is a bitch.

I think you mean "Once it's gone, maybe solar will be so cheap that we won't want anything else".

After-all, the pre-subsidy price is just poking around the cost of coal power. Fossil fuel power is only projected to rise ever so slightly in the future. But Solar/Wind tech is early days, and the costs have been coming down very quickly, for a long time, and there is no reason to expect them to stop. The fossil fuel industry is in the initial stages of trying to write their business model into US law -- before the free market forces them to think up new ways of making money. Nobody wants to do that.

Finally something we can agree on. Conservatives need to come to the table with solutions, in order to fight this type of nonsense. The current intransigent denial of the evidence cedes the political debate on what to do to another set of fringe lunatics.

There can only be one explanation for a phenomenon, and it can never have anything to do with climate change. So obviously sea level rise has nothing to do with it. Because, LIBERALS!

Some environmentalists will blame anything they can on AGW. That doesn't mean that the science itself is wrong, and that it isn't a pressing problem. It just means that there are partisan hacks (people just like you) on the opposite side of the issue to you. They are stupid. So what.

If you judge the science by the ramblings of fringe lunatics, then you're bound to misunderstand the science. There is no credible prediction (established science) that says any of the things you've suggested. Not even remotely close. If you're interested it learning something, then you will need to stop reading the blogs that make you feel warm righteous indignation, and open your mind.

Empirical evidence.

Don't be so pessimistic -- we have the technological know-how to fix this problem, or at least, we are pretty close, and the right things are in the pipeline, to become mature when we need them. The article is alluding to this fact. The problem with AGW is political will, and bloody mindedness from the "truther" crowd.