[afx114]

I used to take the following route to go around LA, and while the mileage is certainly more, the savings on time from skipping traffic was worth it:

15N > 10W > 210W > 5N

Google Map of the route

Although I haven’t driven that route in years, so it very well could now be just as trafficky as going straight through LA.

Then again, I wouldn’t think you’d hit any traffic at 9pm unless you run into some construction or an accident.

Also, if you end up going the 405, take the roll road (73) from Laguna Niguel to Costa Mesa.. saves around 30-45 mins.

[afx114]

I used to take the following route to go around LA, and while the mileage is certainly more, the savings on time from skipping traffic was worth it:

15N > 10W > 210W > 5N

Google Map of the route

Although I haven’t driven that route in years, so it very well could now be just as trafficky as going straight through LA.

Then again, I wouldn’t think you’d hit any traffic at 9pm unless you run into some construction or an accident.

Also, if you end up going the 405, take the roll road (73) from Laguna Niguel to Costa Mesa.. saves around 30-45 mins.

[afx114]

I used to take the following route to go around LA, and while the mileage is certainly more, the savings on time from skipping traffic was worth it:

15N > 10W > 210W > 5N

Google Map of the route

Although I haven’t driven that route in years, so it very well could now be just as trafficky as going straight through LA.

Then again, I wouldn’t think you’d hit any traffic at 9pm unless you run into some construction or an accident.

Also, if you end up going the 405, take the roll road (73) from Laguna Niguel to Costa Mesa.. saves around 30-45 mins.

[afx114]

Via http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/daily_chart_what_waxman-markey_will_do_to_the_economy.php

Nonetheless, I think there’s a fair amount of scaremongering going on about the costs of cap and trade. I get off the Jim Manzi train when he says that Waxman-Markey will be “a terrible deal for American taxpayers” because “it is projected to impose annual costs of about $1,100 per household (a little less than 1% of total consumption) by 2050.” (That’s from the EPA estimate.) That $1,100 looks like a lot, but of course the country is projected be almost three times richer in 2050 than it is now. Average household consumption in 2050 will be $164,348.

In 2050, GDP without Waxman-Markey is projected to be $35,377,000,000,000. GDP with Waxman-Markey is projected to be $34,918,000,000,000.

[afx114]

Via http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/daily_chart_what_waxman-markey_will_do_to_the_economy.php

Nonetheless, I think there’s a fair amount of scaremongering going on about the costs of cap and trade. I get off the Jim Manzi train when he says that Waxman-Markey will be “a terrible deal for American taxpayers” because “it is projected to impose annual costs of about $1,100 per household (a little less than 1% of total consumption) by 2050.” (That’s from the EPA estimate.) That $1,100 looks like a lot, but of course the country is projected be almost three times richer in 2050 than it is now. Average household consumption in 2050 will be $164,348.

In 2050, GDP without Waxman-Markey is projected to be $35,377,000,000,000. GDP with Waxman-Markey is projected to be $34,918,000,000,000.

[afx114]

Via http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/daily_chart_what_waxman-markey_will_do_to_the_economy.php

Nonetheless, I think there’s a fair amount of scaremongering going on about the costs of cap and trade. I get off the Jim Manzi train when he says that Waxman-Markey will be “a terrible deal for American taxpayers” because “it is projected to impose annual costs of about $1,100 per household (a little less than 1% of total consumption) by 2050.” (That’s from the EPA estimate.) That $1,100 looks like a lot, but of course the country is projected be almost three times richer in 2050 than it is now. Average household consumption in 2050 will be $164,348.

In 2050, GDP without Waxman-Markey is projected to be $35,377,000,000,000. GDP with Waxman-Markey is projected to be $34,918,000,000,000.

[afx114]

Via http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/daily_chart_what_waxman-markey_will_do_to_the_economy.php

Nonetheless, I think there’s a fair amount of scaremongering going on about the costs of cap and trade. I get off the Jim Manzi train when he says that Waxman-Markey will be “a terrible deal for American taxpayers” because “it is projected to impose annual costs of about $1,100 per household (a little less than 1% of total consumption) by 2050.” (That’s from the EPA estimate.) That $1,100 looks like a lot, but of course the country is projected be almost three times richer in 2050 than it is now. Average household consumption in 2050 will be $164,348.

In 2050, GDP without Waxman-Markey is projected to be $35,377,000,000,000. GDP with Waxman-Markey is projected to be $34,918,000,000,000.

[afx114]

Via http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/daily_chart_what_waxman-markey_will_do_to_the_economy.php

Nonetheless, I think there’s a fair amount of scaremongering going on about the costs of cap and trade. I get off the Jim Manzi train when he says that Waxman-Markey will be “a terrible deal for American taxpayers” because “it is projected to impose annual costs of about $1,100 per household (a little less than 1% of total consumption) by 2050.” (That’s from the EPA estimate.) That $1,100 looks like a lot, but of course the country is projected be almost three times richer in 2050 than it is now. Average household consumption in 2050 will be $164,348.

In 2050, GDP without Waxman-Markey is projected to be $35,377,000,000,000. GDP with Waxman-Markey is projected to be $34,918,000,000,000.

[afx114]

Shit, I thought this was going to be about hockey.

[afx114]

Shit, I thought this was going to be about hockey.

[afx114]

Shit, I thought this was going to be about hockey.

[afx114]

Shit, I thought this was going to be about hockey.

[afx114]

Shit, I thought this was going to be about hockey.

[afx114]

Like him or not, Michael Jackson was perhaps the best known human being in the entire history of human beings. Ask any person in any corner of the world, and chances are they know who he is. You can’t really say that about anyone else, not even Elvis or the Beatles.

[afx114]

Like him or not, Michael Jackson was perhaps the best known human being in the entire history of human beings. Ask any person in any corner of the world, and chances are they know who he is. You can’t really say that about anyone else, not even Elvis or the Beatles.

[Author]

Posts