Jim

A friend from So Cal came up and commented that the light appears to be perpetually at 3:30

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." [1920] -H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Sounds booooooooooooring

How appropriate.

At JTree. Overhang Bypass, Double Cross, Headstone, Walk on the Wild Side, and something I can't remember the name of in Real Hidden Valley. One pitch, looked like a potato on end, around 10a? Something lady? Took a whipper on that. Sunny, high 60s, cool at night, not many climbers, one bobcat, many coyotes, hares, and roorats.

Off to JTree in one hour!

Today the Bush administration asked the Supreme Court to take up the case of Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. Get government off our back - unless of course we disagree with the "values", whatever that is.

These blogs read as if the writers are in the US or at least in some comfortable place not dealing with the daily issues of Baghdad. Most of it could have come from wire services or web-scanning. Not the most compelling examples.

Since I don't see any discussion of the daily hardships this guy has to go through I wonder what protected enclave he is posting from. Very different than from the ordinary folk trying just to get around the city(?)

I'm going to miss his renditions of patriotic songs.

A quick post to thank folks who donated warm clothing and boots in response to my earlier request. Despite some of the hair pulls in some discussions you folks are OK. One shipment is on the way down another will be going down after Thanksgiving. I'll post some pictures when I get them.

Would have to agree with the general tenets in this statement but I think it also ignores realities of the economics currently at work. True, we are a country based on capitalism not collectivism, which is a good thing. But extremes at either end are not. Ignoring measures of social health for sake of economics, IMO, can be bent to the extreme. The dispropiate distribution of wealth, the power of corporations, the lack of health care for instance are not some natural outfall of all capitalistic societies. It is a direct result of the economic and political construct and trends over the past 50 years or so. In that time power and wealth have been increasingly concentrated in the US. Facist tactics however, do appear to be part and parcel of the recent republican movement. A severe constraining of informaton flow out of the white house, the with-us-or against-us political retoric (internally and internationally), nationalist flag-waving, labeling those with alternative views as traitors, and a strong fundamentalist religious fervor. Any objective observer cannot but help see the similarities of the brown shirt movement. And of course scaring the public to advance a militaristic agenda is classic. My stance has always been the same. If the agenda was so good, why do you have to lie and exagerate to move people over to your column. Apparantly it has worked, by a slim 3% margin.

When in doubt, get out. Off to JTree tomorrow!

Well this didn't take long. G.O.P. Plans to Give Environment Rules a Free-Market Tilt By FELICITY BARRINGER and MICHAEL JANOFSKY Published: November 8, 2004 ASHINGTON, Nov. 7 - With the elections over, Congress and the Bush administration are moving ahead with ambitious environmental agendas that include revamping signature laws on air pollution and endangered species and reviving a moribund energy bill that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration. The groundwork for the push was laid down in the past four years even as environmental groups, Congressional moderates and the courts put the brakes on major changes. But the election returns that gave Mr. Bush a clear victory and expanded the Republicans' majorities in Congress have emboldened those determined to hard-wire free-market principles into all environmental policy. "The election is a validation of our philosophy and agenda," Michael O. Leavitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said in an interview. "We will make more progress in less time while maintaining economic competitiveness for the country. That is my mission." Representative Joe L. Barton of Texas, chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, said he was eager to get the process started and encouraged the environmental groups and Democrats who typically oppose Republican initiatives "to come out of the trenches and meet me halfway." But with industry groups anticipating relaxed regulations and environmental groups fighting to retain stiff regulations, the environmental debate over the next four years could be contentious. "What you're going to see is an administration focused on setting broad goals and then letting states and companies and individuals work to achieve those, within an economic framework," said Charles Wehland, a lawyer for Jones Day in Chicago who represents clients like the OGE Energy Corporation and the Great Lakes Chemical Corporation. But Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, a nonprofit group, warned the White House and Congressional leadership that it would be risky to further push the agenda of the last four years. "George Bush doesn't have to run again, but Republican lawmakers do," Mr. Clapp said. "They know there is a cost to their political association with rolling back environmental laws." Nationally, the environment was a sleeper issue that never awoke. But concern for environmental and conservation issues was sometimes visible at the local level. Montana voters, for instance, rejected an initiative to overturn a ban on a form of mining cyanide, effectively blocking a large new mine on the Blackfoot River. Bush administration officials say that among the first measures moving toward enactment will be those that govern air pollution levels. The administration initiative known as Clear Skies, which generated lukewarm support in Congress during Mr. Bush's first term, is about to come out of mothballs. Will Hart, a spokesman for Senator James M. Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who is chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, said it was Mr. Imhofe's "No. 1 environmental issue." Clear Skies establishes lower emission standards for pollutants like nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury, but environmental groups complain that it does not reduce them as much or as soon as levels set forth in a competing bill or by enforcement of the Clean Air Act. Senator James M. Jeffords, the Vermont independent who is the ranking minority member of the committee and a co-sponsor of the competing bill, said it saddened him that Mr. Bush was leading efforts to undermine air standards that his father, the first President Bush, supported. Citing the new alignment in the Senate - 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and himself - Mr. Jeffords said, "We have the power to block any measure detrimental to the environment."

Unfortunately he can do damage without congress through executive order, changes of implementing rules, and general policy leaning/manipulation behind the scenes. Oh yea - did I mention their favorite of making up science and just plain lying?

The republican convention, with the giant flag in the background, rampant nationalism, frothing-at-the-mouth retoric, and painting dissenters as traitors was scary to watch for its resemblence to the best showcase from the Nazi era. We are not in a good place these days with the combination of these types of politics and religion.

They know this will never get out of Congress. It is just a big bone they are throwing to the fundamentalists. The big battle will come regarding supreme court nominees. The religious (not)right will call in all their chips for that one.

Speaking of which: http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/docs/Mirror/0007ACB8-ADCE-118B-9E4F80C328EC0000.pdf

In contrast to many European countries, the United States, in compiling jobless data, excluded persons without employment who had stopped looking for work. People who want to work but are discouraged about job opportunities and so have given up an active job search are not counted here as unemployed. Instead, they are considered not to be in the labor force. Part-time workers who wanted full-time jobs are nevertheless counted as fully employed. People working even as little as one day a week are categorized as "employed." About two million Americans, for example, are "on-call" workers who are called to work as needed -- sometimes for one day, sometimes for longer. Substitute teachers meet this definition. Such a methodology for determining the extent of unemployment in America is symptomatic, at the very least, of the lack of official concern regarding the problem. Many might say, with good reason, that it reflects an intent to mislead. Many independent economists accept that the true level of unemployment in the United States of America is at least double the official figure. Even former Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Janet Norwood, after declining reappointment in 1991, began speaking out on the inadequacies of government data. Not only did she acknowledge that the unemployment numbers were misleading, but she also said, "I am very worried, extraordinarily concerned, about the polarization I see going on in our country." Unless things get booming, Bush will no only have the honor of being the only president to have lost jobs during his tenure, it will extend to 8 years worth.

PP - as usual your toll lacks a logical construct. CA has the toughest air quality laws in the nation because the feds will not step up. You manged to avoid this gem in your posted article about jobs: Still, the unemployment rate edged up to 5.5 percent from 5.4 percent in September, but that was because more people joined the search for employment, a potentially hopeful sign. The jobs created are not even keeping up with the number of folks coming into the labor market. Try again.

Footbridge over Ravenna Park

I choose to give the fetus the benefeit of the doubt; considering it is its life on the line. If there is any doubt why not air on the side of caution; to save lives rather than take them? I think the point is that you have doubts, others do not. Therefore just let everyone make their own choice and leave the government out of it.

I used to play with my brothers back east on frozen ponds or the occassional rink. While I could skate better then them, something about putting a stick in my hand made me a klutz. I would concentrate hard on the puck, they would come over and give me a minor bump and down I would go. Never mastered it and got a couple split lips on the ice from my younger bros.

Scott - no problem with you holding that position. But don't try to cram your religious beliefs on others. Don't like abortion - fine - don't have one.

Actually, our legal system is based upon the early laws of Mesopotamia (Hammurabi's Code), and the English common law. Many of these ideas pre-date the "Ten Commandments" by thousands of years. And our laws were written with the concept of the seperation of church and state by folks who started the country because they were tired of being under the thumb of a religious state. We can relate.