politicoswizzlestick

I moved into my house 4 years ago and a pair of barn swallow that had built a nest in the same spot and raised their young successfully. I took that nest down after their birds had grown. About 1 month ago the swallows returned and built a new nest as my wife's pregnancy period was ending. I took it as a good sign and I was very pleased.

My wife gave birth to our first child 2 weeks ago and we were looking forward to seeing the new birds.

The eggs apparently hatched some time recently (maybe last night?). My wife heard bird fighting earlier this morning, but I was unaware of the issue until I left my house this morning.

My neighbor told me a few months back that there was another bird that built a nest in his tree that did this when the swallows nested above his front door a few years ago. He removed predator bird's nest a few years ago and the problem was solved.

I have a number of questions. Will the swallows lay more eggs this season? What species of bird is the likely culprit (I live in Denton, TX)? The swallows built the current nest on a ledge and I suspect that made the nest vulnerable by creating enough space above the nest to where a presumeably larger bird could get in and attack the babies. I want to remove the ridge to prevent them from building a similar nest. Is that adviseable? Should I wait until they leave the nest? Will they abandon the nest now?

This hit pretty close to home. I appreciate any and all advice.

I had a shed salesman out today to quote one of their sheds, a 16x9 shed. Their sheds' floors have a metal grid base covered by wooden planks. He advised they could build right over the top of the existing plain 10x 9 "patio" slab of concrete that I currently have extending from the side of the house, but he also said I could have someone come out and drill into the existing slab, add re bar, and expand it to be the foundation of the shed they would build--- yielding a shed with a concrete base.

I noted that the concrete appears to slope away from the house. It is about 2-3 inched above ground level at the house and even with it at the farthest point from the house. He proceded to say that "well...maybe they can't do that."

I hope that someone who is familiar with this type of thing might give me some insight. Is is possible to salvage the slab? Would it need to be removed and replaced with a new slab? What kind of ballpark and I looking at for that?

(I live in Texas where labor tends to be a little cheaper.)

Please ID yourself if you are a chargers fan and tell me your thoughts on Turner ---is that enough to fire him with no debate?

Ford and GM stocks are surging upwards as investors anticipate their management not blowing the government bailout request a second time. The consensus among economists is that economy is too shaky to have the big 3 try reorganizational bankruptcy, so they will bail them out.

What do you want your elected officials to insist upon if they do it? Salary cuts? To what %? management? Workers?

Please don't waste our time with just saying, "no bailouts". You can express that but give us more. If they do bail them out, what would you want your local officials to insist upon.

I'd even be OK with the government creating a new temporary "non-bankruptcy" bankruptcy they could go through.

(P.S. when you are done posting here, write your legislators!)

I caught a piece of an interview with a gay director this morning. (I am not gay myself, but have always felt like native Americans as a people and gays as individuals get trod on most.) He was raised mormon and raised and answered one of the more interesting question not asked about this situation.

The mormon population in california is tiny. The church raised apparently half of the money in opposition to gay marriage in California. Why?

His thought was that Mormons did it to gain more acceptance into the wider devout American Christian society. He says that it has always bothered the mormons that they are not looked at as Christians. A part of that comes out of their past history with polygamy. He says that their desire to be a loud voice in "protecting marriage" comes from a real desire to recast themselves in the eyes of wider Devout American Christiandom...

I was absolutely floored by this, but if you look at all of the information, this take makes the most sense. It is so bizarre. It is like yelling, "Look, we are Christian fundamentalists too! See how we discrimate against the rights of others in following the superior morality of our beliefs!?"

I don't blame the mormons who have expressed outrage towards their church if this is in fact the jist of it. That is just pathetic.

Does anyone have a better answer as to why ---- with all the other churches involved --- Mormons raised over half of the money in support of California's Amendment?

There is a growing sentiment that for the auto industry to get a bailout, the taxpayers will want blood --- all 3 CEO's fired.

I think that is very shortsighted as Ford's CEO took over the company fairly recently after it was near collapse and has already sold off a bunch of holdings in anticipation of a downturn to help their cash flow through the coming year to allow them to reach their 2010 effiecient small car rollout. For this reason, they are in the best money situation of any of the big 3. In other words their CEO has already done what we would have demanded of him. Chrysler and GM's CEO's were the ones who totally did not anticipate this VERY predictable economic downturn.

As someone who beleives in Ford's CEO, so much so that I invested money in Ford shares in the last month (not more than I can afford to lose though :) ), I encourage my fellow investors to hang tough with our CEO. If GM fails in December, that will be enough to push the country into a pronounced depression. (Not another "Great Depression", but at least a honest to gosh Depression....I mean come on, what do you think happens if 10% of the workforce --- mostly middle-class ---suddenly goes on unemployment and welfare? Sales in everything will drop and more jobs will be cut. No one is loaning money, so that will just spiral down more and more.) At that point the voters will overreact and demand a gov't bailout for the surviving American Auto Manufacturers. Obama is for it, so you know it will happen. Ford would be the likely recepient of that overcorrection and could get $50B in government loans on their own and buy key chunks of GM for nothing in time to save a ton of American jobs. (Now mind you, a LOT of Americans will lose their jobs, car prices will spike up, part prices will skyrocket and many parts will become hard to get, and most new car sales revenue will go overseas, but at least the only competent auto manufacturer will be keeping some of those middle class jobs around long term.)

While I think I'll be fine in any scenario --- ford has cash to last another 7+ months and Obama has said he will bail out the auto companies when he is in office --- I would frankly rather see my fellow Americans who have the misfortune in having jobs that are even tangentially based on the health of GM and Chrysler still employed on Christmas day.

It is amazing that after letting Paulson give away 350B with no oversight and seeing the Fed spread a similar amount around, America is willing to role the dice on another great depression over a comparatively measley $50B. Crazy.

My choice would be Idaho even though I think their AD is doing a great job overall. He is incrementally building the Kibbe Dome into a 25K bowl. It is tough sledding but he is working hard at it.

On the flip side, I think the scheduling could be a little better and the coach doesn't help. I get that the coach is supposedly a great recruiter, but there appears to be real questions if he can coach. I'd possibly give Robb Akey one more year to hit .500.

I'd want to replace him with a guy who has won in the Idaho region --- someone with a local name who can recruit and has a high powered offense --- UTEP's Mike Price. If I can't get him from UTEP, I'd go hard after his son Erick Price --- UTEP's former very successful offensive co-ordinator and now NFL assistant.

Scheduling, this year the team played @AZ, @San Diego State, hosted Idaho St, W. Mich, OOC. Last year it was @USC, @Wash St., and hosted Cal Poly & N. Ill. the year before it was @Mich St,@Ore. St., @Wash St, and hosted Idaho St.

It seems pretty clear that only FCS schools and the MAC (or MAC level conferences) are jumping to play an OOC game in the Kibbie Dome at it's current capacity and that the the other two games are body bag road games against upper conference FBS schools to generate revenue.

I would try to limit travel distances to allow fans to travel to the road games. Road game 1 would be Wassu every other year and alternating with Washington, Oregon, and Oregon State, until the kibbie dome is big enough to play home and home with Wassu. For road game 2 I'd try to alternate between Utah & BYU. For home game FCS, I'd rotate between Idaho St and Montana. (IMO, it is better to risk Montana running you to keep fans engaged.). For home game FBS, I don't know what more you can do than what the AD is already doing with his MAC strategy.

My two cents. What school would you try?

Now obviously, Edmonton is the exception.

The CFL says that any new stadium should seat 25K+, but Shane Watkins brought up a strong arguement for slightly smaller stadiums based off the montreal example.

"...I do have a comment about the 20K stadium. The best thing Montreal ever did was move out of their huge stadium into something smaller. It all goes back to supply and demand. If people know they can walk up to a huge stadium on game day and get a ticket for $5 they can't be bothered to go. If the stadium is much smaller and always sold out, everyone wants to be there, the atmosphere is better and the team can charge more for the tickets which makes the ticket sales revenue basically even between large/small stadium option.

In my opinion it would be a mistake for Ottawa to have a huge 50K seat stadium. Take a look at Toronto, the Rogers Center is a joke. Terrible place to watch a game and even when they get 30K out to a game it looks empty."

So what is the ideal size for a CFL stadium? 20K? 22K? 25K? 28K? 30K? 35K?

I thought about buying a t-shirt for nostalgia's sake --- maybe something my kid could one day steal from my closet, but ended up getting mostly unoffocial Obama swag from cafe press.

I bought a bunch of mugs, which is funny as I don't drink coffee, and for the most part I'll use them for water, milk, sodas, and...you guessed it...Kool-Aid.

GM says it will run out of money in the next couple of months. Ford had money on had to run until the end of next year, but with the 1930's era sales levels they are burning their cash at a much faster rate than anticipated and now say they have about 7 months of cash on hand ---not enough to reach their 2010 rollout of fuel efficient sporty new cars.

Th belief is if GM fails and creidtors will force the liquidation of their vehicles to recover their cash. This will futher damage Chrysler & Ford, likely forcing them under. For every factory worker, there are at least 7.5x as many people down the road (dealerships and whatnot)involved in new car sales. It is estimated at 10% of the total US workforce.

Should the government give the auto industry what they want? ($50B loan bailout) Should they give each manufacturer a different deal, depending on how much of a commitment they show to fuel efficiency improvements in new models? What is the answer?

My gut says they will go with 9, but I think the only viable 10th is Quebec.

I have to think that Quebec (the City) has to be the CFL's backup plan for a 10th team if Ottawa comes through and the Atlantic expansion remains unviable. WIth a 18.5K permanent seat stadium, strong support for football in the community, a metro population of 715K, and a regional population of 1.068M (=Capitale-Nationale population + neighboring Chaudière-Appalaches region population), it seems like all the pieces are there. (The stadium does need some expansion/improvements.)

The last I heard, the CFL had awarded a provisional franchise to an Ottawa group based on that group's ability to get the City to resolve some of the problems at Frank Claire. That wasn't going too well as far as the articles I read. Then there was a crack in the stadim's lower deck on one side and the city demolished the lower deck eliminating seating for about 2K.

As I understand it, nothing that remains is dangerous, but the stadium is now about 26K capacity and unbalanced looking. (Is that accurate?)Has anyone been on site since the demolition? What would it take to get that place surviavable? WOuld they have to permanently rebuild the lower deck, or could that be replaced with much cheaper bleachers/ temporary seating until money could be raised to do it properly?

Can anyone comment on the issues the stadium has that legitimately NEED to be fixed? It seems like if Montreal can survive in a 20K stadium, in terms of capacity the stadium is OK... What specifically is falling apart out there? Can any Ottawa residents give feedback on how far the city will go?

Anything new? Has anyone heard anything concrete on whether they will replace that lower deck? Will the city and the ownership group get that stadium repair done?

I think there are strong arguements that the CFL has struggled in Ontario (pop. 12M), British Columbia (pop. 4.5M), and Quebec (pop. 8M) because of too few franchises in those provinces. 2 Ontario teams, 1 in BC, and 1 in Quebec combined with no teams in NB/PEI, NL, or NS is probably why merchandise sales and TV viewership for the CFL is always in the toilet. To me, it sounds like insufficient brand penetration.

I doubt there is anything inherently better (in terms of CFL support/potential) in the rest of western Canada, but the CFL is much more popular there. Most of the western teams have about a-1.3M fans that serve their region. That appears to me to be ideal. Enough fans that they can make a living, but not so many that they are an afterthought.

I think the CFL is considered an odditiy outside of western Canada for this underrepresentation. Do you agree or disagree? What is your take on the CFL?

I have 4.

UNT's star WR Casey Fitzgerald caught 111 passes for 1322 yards with 12 TDs last year and has caught 85 passes for 877 yards with 5 TDs this year (2 games to go) on a wretched team. He is 5'11" 195 pounds but may lack NFL speed. IMO he could be a CFL star.

UNT's QB Giovanni Vizza is a 2 year starter shows shows great accuracy and decision making. He is somewhat mobile and is a gutty performer. If UNT digs up some playmakers at reciever he could have a good jr and sr season, but he is 6-1 and his lack of height may have him passed over by a lot of NFL teams. He is very good.

These next two are more longshots who could fit. Nevada Soph. QB Colin Kaepernick is a good player. He caught my eye the other night. He looked a lot like a scrambly CFL-type QB, but he is listed as 6-6. He will probably have a run through the NFL. Hawaii part time running back Kealoha Pilares is, IMO, a natural slotback. He is quick and fast with solid hands. He won't get a shot in the NFL for a number of reasons.

Those are my guys. Who are yours?

The last I heard, the CFL had awarded a provisional franchise to an Ottawa group based on that group's ability to get the City to resolve some of the problems at Frank Claire. That wasn't going too well as far as the articles I read. Then there was a crack in the stadim's lower deck on one side and the city demolished the lower deck eleiminating seating for about 2K.

Anything new? Will they replace that lower deck? Will the city and the ownership group get that stadium repairs done? Additionally, anything other new "provisional" expansion franchises granted? Quebec? Moncton? Halifax? London? (just being a completionist with those last two...)

and work with Obama?

Bush beat Kerry by 3M votes and 35 electoral votes.

Obama beat McCain by 8M votes and 191 electoral votes.

Serious answers please...not "the American people", "the socialist party", "Al Quida"...show you have some brains and "wow" me with a clever answer.

My choices?

winners:

Pelosi - she got to sit back and have the house turned into her own sounding box. Plus she is in for 6 more years. No ramifications for the war or for passing on impeaching Bush. Hell of a reward for being incompetent.

Palin: Palin was laying a lot of roadwork and networking for 2012 over the last few weeks. She is a flawed candidate who can't win Indies, but I have a hard time seeing her not winning the nomination. The GOP has their own Hillary problem.

Axelrod and Plouffe - They got a black man elected president. Think about it. They have run the most successful compaign in history and are financially set for life.

Losers:

McCain: He will get stuck with the blame for this and it is only partially his fault. He was winning a little while ago, before the Bush crash took him out. He will likely re-emerge quickly in the senate --- possibly as a defacto second GOP wip. Could end up being Obama's go to guy in the senate and (possibly in time) Obama's Secretary of State.

Elizabeth Dole: I think she is a lowlife, but the reality is she lost due to Obama's coattails.

A friend of a friend who is quite savy on the markets predicted the failure of those banks and corporations and the entire chain of events we are seeing the government struggle against. The end result of his prediction was that we would see a 5 step collapse, with the markets finally ending around 4000.

Now if something like that should happen in the next 8 months, who would history blame? Obama or Bush?

I am inclined to think Bush would catch the worst of it. He would be seen as Hoover and Obama would be seen as FDR.

I don't ask this to rub salt in your wounds. This was the first time in 5 attempts that I have voted for the winning presidential candidate. I know the bile in the back of your mouth feeling.

In 2004, I blamed Kerry for arrogantly thinking he could win Florida after the 2000 election fixing there. If he had only spent that time in Ohio instead.... (Later I found out Kerry had 14M unspent after the campaign. Knucklehead!)

In 2000, I had blamed Gore for not allowing Clinton to campaign for him here and there. I felt he cut off his nose to spite his face. (After watching "Recount", I blame Lieberman far more.)

Who do you blame? McCain? His handlers? Palin? Her handlers? Bush? Voters in a region?

I think there was no question which candidate was better suited for the economic mess we are in, but I personally wondered if non-black voters would be willing to vote for Obama. I thought they would, but I didn't know.

I feel like every good feeling I have ever felt about my fellow Americans was justified yesterday. The vast majority of Americans, even I would say the vast majority of Republicans who voted Against Obama on security, abortion, or fundamental republican tax philosophy, did not vote against him on race. Today I really do feel that a person of ANY race or either sex can become President. That is a tremendous gift for which I can only say "thank you".