<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <id>http://www.cocomment.com/comments/thomasn528</id>
    <title>coComments related to thomasn528</title>
    <link rel="self" href="http://www.cocomment.com/comments/thomasn528"/>
    <rights>Copyright 2007 coComment.com</rights>
    <updated>2009-11-21T04:38:57.608+01:00</updated>
    <icon>http://www.cocomment.com/images/logo4rss.gif</icon>
    <entry>
        <id>http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=thomasn528&amp;conv=1091444&amp;comment_id=21936232</id>
        <title>"NIMBY" is a serious and scurr</title>
        <author>
            <name>Thomas Nephew</name>
        </author>
        <link rel="self" href="http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=thomasn528&amp;conv=1091444&amp;comment_id=21936232"/>
        <content>"NIMBY" is a serious and scurrilous charge, Jake, one that continues to ignore the "counterproposals" point I made.  Here are links to 2:
1) &amp;lt;a href="http://takomatransit.info/"Friends of Takoma Transit
2) &lt;a href="http://www.takomaparkmd.gov/documents/metro/documents/optiona.pdf"&gt;Nelson/Nygaard&lt;/a&gt;-&lt;a href="http://www.takomaparkmd.gov/documents/metro/index.html"&gt;Takoma Park MD&lt;/a&gt;

So this isn't about *any* development at the site, it's about *this particular* development there.

Re "nimNby", I point out again that  Takoma DC residents appear to be against the EYA proposal, too.

Re your assurances about car use, that would be great.  Can I borrow your crystal ball for stock picks, too?  More seriously, I don't see how it's arguable that the more garage space allocated for residents, the more cars and the more traffic there will be.  Reduce that allocation.</content>
        <published>2007-10-29T19:00:11.278+01:00</published>
        <updated>2007-10-29T19:00:11.278+01:00</updated>
    </entry>
    <entry>
        <id>http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=thomasn528&amp;conv=977598&amp;comment_id=18479204</id>
        <title>PS: When I say "might be justi</title>
        <author>
            <name>Thomas Nephew</name>
        </author>
        <link rel="self" href="http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=thomasn528&amp;conv=977598&amp;comment_id=18479204"/>
        <content>PS: When I say "might be justified", I mean in the narrow sense of how war supporters would justify an attack on Iran.</content>
        <published>2007-08-29T20:01:46.770+02:00</published>
        <updated>2007-08-29T20:01:46.770+02:00</updated>
    </entry>
    <entry>
        <id>http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=thomasn528&amp;conv=977598&amp;comment_id=18478944</id>
        <title>To answer your questions, jbc,</title>
        <author>
            <name>Thomas Nephew</name>
        </author>
        <link rel="self" href="http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=thomasn528&amp;conv=977598&amp;comment_id=18478944"/>
        <content>To answer your questions, jbc, I think you're right to be worried.  While more people will oppose this one, the skids are greased with the Iraq AUMF and the  &lt;a href="http://pages.prodigy.net/thomasn528/blog/2007_05_20_newsarcv.html#1111250809121693504"&gt;Congressional failure earlier this year&lt;/a&gt; (abetted by plenty of Dems, sad to say) to put up Rep. DeFazio's firewall between that and a supposedly "followon" Iran war, such as might be justified with the IED/EFP charges.  

Once the bombs are dropping or the bullets are flying, it will almost certainly be too late for Congress to meaningfully say "whoa, there" -- for one thing, Iran will take it to the US by its Shia proxies in Iraq. That's why I put my hope mainly in the US military at this point; I hope they can see this as a (second, even more dangerous) clusterf**k in the making.</content>
        <published>2007-08-29T19:50:45.504+02:00</published>
        <updated>2007-08-29T19:50:45.504+02:00</updated>
    </entry>
    <entry>
        <id>http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=thomasn528&amp;conv=914879&amp;comment_id=17719837</id>
        <title>Thanks for noticing it and tel</title>
        <author>
            <name>Thomas Nephew</name>
        </author>
        <link rel="self" href="http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=thomasn528&amp;conv=914879&amp;comment_id=17719837"/>
        <content>Thanks for noticing it and telling everyone about it -- this was a fine place to post your comment.  As you see, we've put up a post about the interview; Porter was great!  Re NPR, WAMU, it wasn't for lack of trying (not that you're implying that).  Maybe they'll follow up in the near future -- not saying they've told me that, just wishful thinking.  

On the plus side, we got a very good report from the local Fox affiliate, Channel 5; click through on the &lt;a href="http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=3858748&amp;version=3&amp;locale=EN-US&amp;layoutCode=TSTY&amp;pageId=3.1.1"&gt;top image to our post below&lt;/a&gt;, and then on the smaller version of that image in the "SideBar" on that page.  There was also a good one in the Washington Post Metro section ("&lt;a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072301791.html"&gt;City Council Strongly Backs Bid to Impeach Bush, Cheney&lt;/a&gt;", by Dan Morse).  Both laid out the facts well, gave us a chance to lay out our position, and refrained from the kind of puerile stuff Carlson resorted to.  Channel 4 also had a short "just the facts" report.</content>
        <published>2007-07-25T16:56:16.014+02:00</published>
        <updated>2007-07-25T16:56:16.014+02:00</updated>
    </entry>
</feed>
