Jim

Wow that's depressing. Get a job you like already.

What a mess. There is no elegant solution. We stay and wreck the place to "tame" it or bail and who knows what will happen. "To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability." George Bush Senior A World Transformed, 1998

Duh! Sorry about that. I usually accepted emails but had turned it off for a while as some wingnut kept sending me some obnoxius items. Another time maybe.

I notice you conviently forgot about the civilian deaths estimated at 10-12,000 now by International NGOs. Great - our military death toll is going down. That just shows we're getting better at crouching behind our green zone defences. We don't even have control of half of Baghdad nevermind the country. When asked how long we would be over there Senator McCain quickly replied .."between 10 and 20 years". Does anyone actually believe that a stable democracy is going to come out of this? We will eventually tire of the cost in lives and money, and then an Islamic state will sprout up where there was not one. And the place is a terrorist magnet now when there were none there before. Excellent job in nation building.

Instead of spouting the partly line extend your limited horizons a bit and go see the film. Then critque.

The latest assessment was undertaken by the National Intelligence Council, a group of senior intelligence officials who provide long-term strategic thinking for the entire U.S. intelligence community but report to the director of central intelligence, now acting CIA Director John McLaughlin. He and the leaders of the other intelligence agencies approved it. The estimate contrasts with public comments of Bush and his senior aides who speak more optimistically about the prospects for a peaceful and free Iraq. "We're making progress on the ground," Bush said at his Texas ranch late last month. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/16/us.iraq.ap/index.html

Some it is choice some is economics. If you can't afford health care because your employer does not provide it (because he can't afford to) you tend to avoid the doctor for minor things that could be nipped in the bud. It's certainly proven that folks with access to prenatal care have healthier babies. When the kid does get really sick they end up at the hospital and your paying for it anyway. Your darwinian view of society strikes me as odd.

Greg, I agree with some of your points. I think that American's health issues and need for the greatest technology fix for medical care is driving some of the problem. On the other hand if people actually had access to health care then they would likely be healthier. Some of this is just common sense though. If you have 150 different insurance companies, all making a profit as middle man, why not consolidate and save money? I know, you don't want to create a bureaucracy. But we have one now it's just making money off us via insurance companies. Blue Cross of Conn. has more administrators than the entire Canadian health system. So what exactly are we saving? You are subsidizing health care for the poor now thru higher health care costs. Either you are paying it directly or your employeer is. That means less money in your pocket either way. We are so stuck in the profit trench here. The only industrialized country w/o national health care and we're towards the bottom of the list in health.

Saw these guys a few times in NYC at CBGB's and in NJ the Stone Pony. Too much energy in one place!!

Then you're employer is paying more for your health costs dude. If the current system is so great why do we pay so much more than other contries for LESS care? In 2001, health care spending in the United States was $1.4 trillion, up 8.7 percent from 2000. (“Highlights from Health Tables and Chartbook,” Health, United States 2003, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hus/highlits.pdf) The United States spends a greater percent of gross domestic product on health care than any other major industrialized nation. In 2001, the United States spent 14.1 percent of the GDP on health care. (“Highlights from Health Tables and Chartbook,” Ibid.) The United States spends more on health care than other industrialized countries; as a percentage of 2001 GDP, the United States spent 13.9%, Germany spent 10.7%, Canada spent 9.7%, France spent 9.5%, and Sweden spent 8.7% on total health care spending. (David Walker, “Health Care System Crisis: Growing Challenges Point to Need for Fundamental Reform,” presentation to the General Accounting Office Health Care Forum, 13 January 2004). Although the United States spends more money than many countries, it does not always offer more health care resources than other countries. In 2000, Canada, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom all had more nurses per 1,000 residents than the United States; Germany, Sweden and France had more physicians; and Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom and France had more beds for acute care patients. (Walker, Ibid). Despite its higher levels of health care spending, the United States has a higher infant mortality rate that the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, and Japan. (Walker, Ibid). Americans’ average annual out-of-pocket expenses for health care rose 26% between 1995 and 2001, to $2,182. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Here we go again. Besides limiting your provider visits, what exactly do you think you're doing to hold down your health cost premiums. Do you work for a company or are you self-employed? If self employed then your premiums have surely gone up. And the vast majority of working folks have seen their costs go up. So what exactly do you do for a living and what wise choice have you made that your employer hasn't raised your health care costs in the last 5 years say? You never need to go to the doctor, don't have health insuranace, don't have family that need a medical visit ever? I think you pulling our collective chain again.

Count yourself among the lucky few that have health care and who's costs have not been going up.

Well if that is the evidence your going to point to then it will get shredded by anyone with a science background. This is little more than an opinion piece. Show me a peer reviewed journal article from Environmental Toxicology or something related not another wanky web site from the American Council on Science and Health(?) Always check the source: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=American_Council_on_Science_and_Health#History Take the following passage: Additionally, the evidence regarding the effect of DDT on eggshell thinning among wild birds is contradictory at best. The environmentalist literature claims that the birds threatened directly by the insecticide were laying eggs with thin shells. These shells, say the environmentalists, would eventually become so fragile that the eggs would break, causing a decline in bird populations, particularly among raptors (birds of prey). In 1968 two researchers, Drs. Joseph J. Hickey and Daniel W. Anderson, reported that high concentrations of DDT were found in the eggs of wild raptor populations. The two concluded that increased eggshell fragility in peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and ospreys was due to DDT exposure.9 Dr. Joel Bitman and associates at the U.S. Department of Agriculture likewise determined that Japanese quail fed DDT produced eggs with thinner shells and lower calcium content.10 Notice how skillfully they dismiss the over 100 articles published that statistically correlate DDT with eggshell thinning - hardly contradictory as they claim. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35-c9.pdf Heads up when you start trolling the web. The difference between science and opinion is an abyss. But you have to be able to wade through a lot of gunk to find solid ground. Good luck.

I'm getting a headache. Guaranteed: If the Bushies get back in they will push for taking salmon, spotted owl, and marbled murrelets off the Endangered Species list. They've been setting up the pieces and are just biding their time until after elections.

Gotta love the internet where everyone is an expert.

The difference is where the money goes. Under W it's been a funnel directly to the upper crust from whence he came. Big tax cuts, big government via military and security, big programs such as the perscription drug deal that helps the drug companies more than the little guy, and big-big deficits. The dems are a bit more moderate, but not much, and will send a few crumbs to education and social services. What a thought.

"I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway." This is a bit twisted eh? It wasn't banned because it was a carcinogen it was banned because of it's bio-magnification properties and interference with reproduction. The adult birds didn't die - they just couldn't reproduce. Idiot.

Bringing up this in light of the recent NYT editorial Junking Science Published: September 14, 2004 Endangered and Extinct Species The Bush administration has from time to time found it convenient to distort science to serve political ends. The result is a purposeful confusion of scientific protocols in which "sound science" becomes whatever the administration says it is. In the short run, this is a tactic to override basic environmental protections in favor of industry. In the long run, it undermines the authority of science itself. The latest example concerns the marbled murrelet, a small seabird listed as a threatened species that lives along the coast from Northern California up to the Aleutian Islands. Its habit of nesting high in the boughs of old-growth forests puts it squarely in the way of logging interests. Last year, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, responding to a suit from the timber industry, authorized an independent review of the status of these birds. The panel determined that marbled murrelets, whose numbers continue to decline, needed ongoing federal protection. The health of the species as a whole, the report found, depends on protecting several genetically and behaviorally distinct populations of the bird. The Northwest regional office of Fish and Wildlife reached essentially the same conclusion, arguing that the birds in that area deserved protection as a distinct population. Recently, however, the Bush administration concluded otherwise, that these murrelets were not distinct from their more abundant Canadian cousins. The administration did not lift protections for the bird. But it ordered a study of the bird across its entire range. This, in turn, could lead to a removal of protections for the bird and, ultimately, more logging in the old-growth forests that shelter it. This administration seems to make no accommodation for anything besides humans' economic desires. Any creature in the way may find itself legislated, litigated or regulated out of existence. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/opinion/14tue3.html

thats not true at all. the larger states have more electoral votes in proportion with their population. the smaller states have never had more influence within this type of system. if the electoral college was not used, the smaller states would have no voice and elections would be decided by only 4 states (CA, TX, NY, FL). the politicians would spend all their time campaigning in the big cities and ignore the rest of middle america. they would not need, or care about the rest of us. not that they actually do now, but more so if the electoral college wasnt used. this goes for BOTH parties. the dickless liberals are just as guilty as the crazed neocons in that respect. Actually small states have a proportionally higher number of electoral votes than larger population states. Each state gets two electoral votes, one for each senator, and then one for each representative, which will change based on population rates. Thus if your state only has enough population to rate one representative (North Datkota) you actually get three times as many electoral votes (total 3)than your porportional population merits. The idea was to give the small state a little more influence so they would not be totally ignored. But this still happens. I prefer making it more democratic and just getting rid of the electoral college. It also would reduce the close recount problem.

Great beginner leads - Easy overhang - 5.2 Easy V 5.2 Rusty Trifle 5.2 Three Pines 5.3 All solid protection, great gunks exposure, and the usual excellent rock. I'm jealous - it's a great time of year to get back there.

I thought lightweight boots were fine off the glaciers. I wish I would have taken some items for camp dinners, lightweigh stuff like bean flakes or such to supplement the staples that we found available. That said, we bought all our food down there for trips up to 12 days. Some were not the greatest. Maybe someone has been there recently and has a suggestion for purchases? Fuel - we just used white gas.

Well, just a preference. I was there for several months and if I had only two weeks I would explore one park. But that's my bias - I'm the slow and savor type. I hate barnstorming travel.

But they did have really spiffy bikes and bike clothes!

Here's an odd one. I went mt. biking with friends yesterday at Devil's Gulch. Rather than ride up the road or the trail, and then ride the 12 mi single track down, several carloads were doing a shuttle. That's leaving a car at trailhead and then driving the 11 mi dirt road to the top and riding only the downhill. So you drive from seattle to coast 12 mi downhill? Weird.

I would agree with Taylor above, the back side of the Paine circut was ok but you're out in the valleys away from the peaks. His suggestions to explore the interior valleys is much better. But don't ignore some day hikes around the big lakes looking for guanacos. A hike up to see the Moreno glacier is worth it. You would be spread too thin to try and get to both of the big parks in two weeks. We met some nice local in Puerto Natales, but it's a pretty small place. Great small town to sharpen your Spanish skills. Pick up "Trecking in the Patagonia Andes" if you haven't already - it was useful Have fun!