... phone-bank volunteers and campaign surrogates are encountering a raw racism and hostility that have gone largely unnoticed -- and unreported -- this election season. Doors have been slammed in their faces. They've been called racially derogatory names (including the white volunteers). And they've endured malicious rants and ugly stereotyping ... One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: "Hang that darky from a tree!"

WHY THE FUCK!?!

It's not good news, it's terrible news. Every person who is switching from car to transit is having their quality of life negatively impacted. This is bad news.

She says studies show that physiologically, women take longer to use the restroom. Moreover, forcing them to wait for long periods of time makes them susceptible to all sorts of problems, including urinary tract infections and other complications.

Now adding more bathrooms for women is a good idea, but really? This is the best you can come up with?

Wake up and realize that wind power is CHEAPER than oil in many parts of the world.

Like most of the fundamentals in life (roads, health care, defense, fire protection...) it either requires total government control or at least very heavy regulation.

Free markets are best at delivering the things you could live without if you had to.

No, Will. The WSJ did not report that 20 percent of energy can be easily provided by wind. The WSJ scoffed at a rosy Bush Administration Department of Energy pipe dream that magic windmill fairies will plant thousands of windmills across the land!

The only obstacles, according to the DOE report, are building the wind turbines, improving them, getting them in place, and getting their electricity to where it’s used. Piece of cake.Oh—and to meet that goal, every year between 2018 and 2030 the U.S needs to install as much wind power as it has cumulatively installed so far in its history.

Read! Fucking READ! Read read read. Read first, then post.

since when is not waiting for line to a restroom a fundamental need? thats just something you value...

and you claim that the free market couldnt meet the demand of people? how would you know? obviously there are more women's restrooms at fenway without there being government mandate. in fact renovations to the women's restrooms occurred in fenway without the government mandating it. the shift of the demand for women's restrooms increased and the supply of it followed.

meanwhile in missouri, government mandate restricts the amount of restrooms that are allowed for the sake of "equality". but things like equality and fairness are personal value judgments and thusly people are annoyed when the law doesnt favor their viewpoint on the matter.

pshaw. Part of me likes voting republican not only because of some of the similar viewpoints on things, but also because they use the government in haphazard ways that basically make your feel good commie pro government vibes look stupid and contradictory.

seriously if you're supporting government control of everything just be sure that your values are in place. by extension of your support of government for most things i suppose you think that bans on gay marriage, the iraq war, etc etc are right.

the whole "youre misrepresenting what is said therefore i wont debate you" is a red herring. If you're just going to concede the point instead of clearing the air about whatever wacky notions you have about fundamental needs, costs of government intervention, etc etc then i'm going to continue to take you to task at every possible opportunity.

go read some james buchanan on the matter of public choice.

If you had to put up with unfair and unequal treatment, even with something as "trivial" as waiting an interminable amount of time to use the fucking bathroom, you would be the first one to throw a hissy fit and demand intervention. Your inability to sympathize with others or imagine yourself in that kind of situation is really fucking pathetic. I've said it once and I'll say it again, you're an asshole.

We've already spit in Buchanan's face here in the Puget Sound, when King County declared in the 1980s that it was named after MLK, not William Rufus King, Buchanan's long-time lover.

Now if the government could mandate something about the damn women who "tinkle" on the toilet seats and don't clean up after themselves...

seriously, If i was discriminated against or treated "unfairly" i wouldnt patronize the place that wronged me or didnt provide value to me. your actions are representative of what you value. obviously women value going to ballgames and short ques but the solution of implementing something that achieves that isn't a cost directly borne to them; no, the cost of improving bathrooms is a cost that is born to the proprietor. Which is then spread around to people who may or may not want more women's bathrooms.

Not only is there an opportunity cost for building larger and more expansive bathrooms (the space could be used for other purposes) there is an accounting cost to it too.

Now if women are consuming twice the resources why shouldn't they be charged for what the proprietor is out both in opportunity cost and in accounting cost? if they were charged extra on their ticket for bathroom costs people would cry discrimination. but how is it fair for people to consume more resources for the same price? that is favoring one group of people over another isnt it? isnt that a bit of a contradiction for you equality minded folks?

Consider this; as a male you pay the costs for more women's restrooms while receiving no benefit for it. of course the retort is "if you don't like it then dont go to the game." but then you're selectively applying where you apply that retort. That is what I don't get about the "government solves everything" keynesian fanboys; you are arguing that some things are a necessity for everyone but that when someone has to pay for it those very same things are not a necessity.

Also consider the incentives that this sets up. If there is a strict ratio of restroom fixtures male to female the incentive is to cut down on male fixtures and thus creating a standing wait for men. if there is a mandate that says there must be 1 fixture per X number of patrons then stadiums will simply be smaller and the price of attending a game will increase.

You can see this in a concession stand sales at a game; people complain that prices are so high for a game but they attend. if so many people werent willing to pay for the experience (which is the good they are buying, not the hotdog or beer itself. we can discuss why calculating the price of a good through labor and materials costs alone is bad later) then the prices wouldnt be seen as high.

where does this not apply really? in situations where there is a legal monopoly such as public education, the value can't really be determined by action. there are substitutes for public education but they aren't efficient for many people. (austrian definition of efficiency. the ease with which you are able to attain what you value.) In fact in a legal monopoly situation there are many factors that lead to poor outcomes;

for many public schools the funds are mostly paid for by property owners in the local districts. this leads to funding of public schools at different levels and results in some schools being materially better than others. there is a correlation between school achievement and the material wealth of the school.

some people view this as unfair; thusly the government solution is to allow people to send their children to any school they want within the district. the cost then is in time and transportation plus ques to get into certain schools that have attracted the best students. the problem is not solved because there is still schools that are better and there are now additional time costs for the students and their parents while the actual achievement might not increase. this type of government solution doesnt actually resolve the underlying factors in student achievement, improvement or anything else but it makes people feel like there is a level playing field.

So in closing keshmeshi, I don't cry about mistreatment; I provide incentives to prevent further mistreatment because a. I show what i value through actions b. there are always substitutes for goods i consume.

LOL

mandating additional costs for firms to provide some service that benefit a few ultimately cost everyone more and rarely solve the problem.

So, in other words, since equality cheese you off, women shouldn't be allowed in the public sphere. You have the intelligence and maturity of an adolescent boy, BA. Grow the fuck up.

And your persecution complex is pathetic. You're treated "unfairly" because you're an asshole.

Well fine. I agree with the WSJ editorial page for once. Today is a special day I guess. Wind power, while good, is not going to be "easy" and the DOE, and you, are silly for suggesting it would be easy. Or that it will happen without a massive push (and probably subsidies, and a greater oil crisis). If it were easy it would have happened already.

also, ball games are not public spheres in the same sense of a public park. you charge admission for the experience of the game. Part of that experience for women is waiting in long lines for the bathroom. this is known in advance of purchasing a ticket. women make the decision to attend games in spite of waiting for the long lines. To provide more facilities for women will increase the cost of going to the game in dollar amounts not time amounts. and since the added restrooms are provided for free people will place little value on the extra restrooms and more freely use them thus using up the extra provisioned capacity.

This is why tolls on roads are opposed in regions where no toll roads exist. the cost of people to use a public good like roads is percieved as zero therefore people value the roads very little and bellyache when the idea of tolls or usage taxes come along. they are so used to having somethign for free and so used to paying for roads in the cost of time that anythign that shifts that is viewed as suspicious. it is also why an increase in roads is almost always approved; the cost of the road is not realized by the people voting for it.

going back to the value one gains in having a comfortable girlfriend. simply put your shifting the time cost of using the restroom for women into dollar costs for all patrons, men women and children. the perceived benefit of a placated girlfriend or spouse is something that the individual values. if my girlfriend nags me about going to the ballgame and I value her comfort more than viewing the game i might pay more for a sky box, I might suggest we do something else, or i might her to pop a squat into a coors light bottle. either way, to place a specific benefit for all men attending the game just because you can see one for yourself is called the composition fallacy. what is good for one is not good for all.

ECB, my privilege is in thinking more deeply about matters of economics and incentives than many people here. I've waited in line at ballgames to piss with near disastrous consequences but i've never once said "the government should force the owners of the stadium to provide more restrooms." why are you advocating women be to unthinking, irresponsible and molly coddled? maybe women would have more power if they flexed their collective power through their decision making rather than through their nagging of the government.

People should read things they don't think they'll agree with, they might be surprised or get their mind changed once in a while. For years I've not only read counterpunch.com but shelled out the $35/yr for their threadbare newsletter, even though I only find myself agreeing with 10% or so of it.

I think that there are many people in Seattle whose heads would explode if they read the WSJ editorial page for two weeks, it would be the first time in years they were exposed to some new concepts.