RiverViewer

No doubt - but the river hadn't been that high since 1964...

Do you have a website with them?

It depends on how high the water has to get to flood the garage, of course. But here's a site with peak data going back to 1858: http://www.kenton.lib.ky.us/gen/ohioriver.html And bear in mind that the Army Corps of Engineers can take around 9' off the peak height of most floods by holding tributary water in upstream dams... If the garages are built to flood right at flood stage of 52', then I'd guess you'd see a wet garage every few years. If they're built to stay dry up to 60', then you're probably looking at once every twenty or thirty years. And, as Jake says, we may never see 70' again (in sha Allah). A bigger concern during high water events might be road closures. I know Kellogg and Eastern and such will get shut down during high water, but I have no idea what happens on Mehring and such...probably would be a good question to ask.

I wouldn't call it a stupid question, especially considering I asked the exact same thing about 18 months ago! Took a good bit of digging, but here's the question: ...and here's Jake's answer at the time:

Here's a clip of the hit on YouTube:

Yeah, the weeds are gettin' high around Watson's...used to be you couldn't find anywhere to park at happy hour - the entire lot was packed, and all up and down the street. Must be Blue Ash can't support businesses anymore.

Very nice! And are you going there in the fall as well?

Feeling amorous again?

I am a bad, bad man. 7-0...

I am so very, very sorry...

We supported Solidarity? That's like taking credit for OSU's trouncing Texas (go bucks?) because you cheered louder than anyone. Well, what did the Pope do to help Solidarity? He spoke about it, expressed support, condemned martial law and Soviet hegemony. And, from what I've seen, the Catholic Church helped support the movement directly, using US aid money - millions of dollars for printing equipment and communications gear, distributed by the Catholic church. And we shared intelligence. And Reagan also spoke about Solidarity, expressed support, condemned martial law and Soviet hegemony. Did we fight the battle? No. Did we give material and moral support? Yes, and yes. Were we the lynchpin in the Solidarity movement? Absolutely not. Do we deserve credit for the it? Of course not. But we were a trifle more involved than just cheering for OSU.

That sounds very cool - I'd definitely be there, but I'm going to be helping Dad re-roof my grandparents' house in Norwalk that day...but if it's raining, I might go - thanks for the heads up!

A couple quick corrections on the Polish record...we gave them hundreds of millions of dollars in agricultural assistance under the Reagan administration, we had consular relations with them from the 1970's on, we gave them MFN trading status in the 1980's, we supported Solidarity, we gave them a few more hundreds of millions of dollars under Clinton in economic assistance in the years following the Soviet collapse, we championed their entry into NATO, and we supported their entry in the EU. And the Bush administration has been talking for a couple years now about loosening the Visa requirements for Polish citizens to visit the US. In fact, Prime Minister Kaczynski is in DC today, and it may be that the Visa Waver program is announced, though it looks doubtful... Could we have done more? Doubtless. Could we do more now? I'm sure of it. Ought we to do more now? Well, with an economy growing at 5%/year, I'm not sure what they really need from us, other than time...I don't understand why the Bush administration is so reluctant to end the Visa requirements, and until I hear a good explanation for it, I'll happily stand by you in protest. But overall, even though the pace is slow, Poland is moving in the right direction, and we're helping them to do so. None of this is to say that everything Poland is today is due to our benevolence - by no means. All I'm saying is that we've helped Poland over time, not hindered them; and that I support that. In fact, I'd have supported even more than what little we directly did. So it's just one example among many of a foreign policy I support. ********************* ColDay: I believe to be a true open-minded person, one has to take into all of the facts, appreciate all sides spoken, and form an opinion based on one's own interpretation Amen. And I'd assert that there's really no other kind of open-minded person. Sure, some folks can be written off as nutcases - the KKK, Ted Kazinski (although I did read the Unabomber's manifesto, and found it at least interesting up until the point where he said, "OK, so that's why humans are feeling a little disconnected from nature today. What's the solution? Kill the scientists! Yee haw!"). But if you've got half the country holding contrary opinions to your own, regardless of what that opinion is, and you're just writing that all off as a) they hate America/are lazy/are stupid, or as b) they hate brown people/are greedy/are stupid, then you should really take that as a sign to step back and reconsider things.

Not that it has anything to do with my original post, but nonetheless... I don't understand what we're disagreeing about. You think the US played a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union - I too think the US played a role in it. You think the nobility and courage of the Polish people also played a significant role in the collapse of the Soviet Union - I too believe that. Is the problem here that you don't think I believe in the Polish contribution enough or something? And doesn't the whole discussion strike you as a tad ancillary to my point, that I support a robust foreign policy, and do so not out of fear or greed, but actual, honest-to-goodness good will? And, though you may come to differing conclusions, that perhaps I actually can see the policies I support in a logical and historical context, albeit one with which you disagree? (Sorry, typing this on a blackberry, so please forgive typos/spelling issues.)

No idea, but it's beautiful...

^Depends on your definition of "DICK". If one believes we won the Cold War, then that turned out to be kind of a big deal for Poland. Countering the Soviet presence in every corner of the globe for forty years, building our entire foreign policy for two generations on direct opposition of the USSR, enduring the realpolitik which set up the world that endangers us today, all for the sake of ridding the world of the Soviet yoke - I'd say we've done much for Poland, and Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Romania, Moldova, Georgia, Bulgaria, etc., etc., etc. We may never have deployed troops on Polish soil, but we absolutely gave our blood and treasure to, in part, help free Poland. Definitely not as direct an action as the Berlin Air Lift, which was definitely not as direct an action as the others - but I'd hardly characterize our committments and actions on behalf of eastern europe over the last sixty years as never having done DICK...

Okhotsk?

Kumgang?

Thimphu?

Yes, Casablanca. That's the Hassan II mosque, which is just breathtakingly amazing... http://www.thecore.nus.edu.sg/post/morocco/arts/hassan/2.html AmrapinVA, as you know, you're up!

Hate to hear that, but Reds fans everywhere thank you for your sacrifice!

The Reds have been clawing their way back into things...they win the next two games, they'll be at worst one game out of the wildcard lead, with 16 games left in the season. This ain't over, by any stretch. Of course, I'm gonna screw it all up by going to the game tonight...I'm sorry, it's a work thing, I've gotta go...but I'll try switching it up by taking the bus downtown instead of walking the whole way, and I'll wear a different ball cap...

Nope...but the right continent! Here's a shot of Djibouti City - definitely has similarities!

The very fact that someone has to ask the question just astonishes me. Are progressives and liberals truly that insular, that self-focused, that unable to see the other side of the argument? Is it really inconceivable that someone might be of good will, and yet come to differing political conclusions from one's self? Obviously not. The only way a person might possibly disagree with us is if they're anti-choice and anti-gay Evangelical hellfire and brimstoners, or if they're stuck in the city against their will (because we know their kind all seek their fortresses of suburban solitude). Really, you folks should step back listen to yourselves. I've been reading your posts here for a couple years now, and I know for a fact that none of you are as close-minded as you're making yourself sound. Kingfish, yes, it's possible to live in the city and yet agree with the Republicans on issues. On the war? I'm a Truman democrat who has, alas, found his foreign-policy home with the Republican party over the last five years. Just as I agreed with Clinton using our strength to stop Milosevic in Kosovo, independent of the UN, so too I supported the Afghanistan war, and the Iraq war. Different reasons behind each of those conflicts, no doubt, and if you really do care about what I thought about the Iraq war at the time, you can slog through this set of arguments between a very anti-Bush guy and me from two years ago: http://home.fuse.net/gaslight/BD/BDIndex.htm. Basically, using our blood and treasure to spread liberty and prosperity to an area that's belligerent, dangerous, and politically oppressed - I'm gonna be on that bus every time, whether it's Belgium and France, or Poland and Berlin, or Vietnam and Korea, or Kosovo and Afghanistan and Iraq. If a person truly believes the unfettered free market is, in the long term, the single greatest tool yet invented by mankind for raising people out of poverty; and if one believes that Republicans are most likely to step back and pull the fetters off the free market, then one can actually still love children - even poor children - and vote republican. Personally, I'm not as much on this boat. I dig the free market, but I see plenty of areas where governmental restraint is necessary and good, and I see claims that Democrats are socialists to be utterly ahistorical and unhelpful. But I certainly won't say that someone has to be a glutton or a dupe to disagree with me. There's just two of the big issues. And I'd suggest that if you can't answer the question, "why might someone disagree with me" without resorting to answers like, "they obviously must be blinded by their hatred or their lust for money or their fear of brown people," then you really aren't the liberal you claim to be. You may be progressive, but you're as close-minded as anyone against whom you may rail.

What exactly are you asking?