Jim

Ding ding ding. Is Obama still calling them the "Bush" tax cuts? Well, I suspect that we all had hopes that things would change so we could kick back and coast on borrowed (Chinese and Fed) money. Seems like around here about everyone (except jayb) thinks that it's fine to just keep driving the bus towards the cliff. We'll blame the skinflint taxpayers for not anti-ing up to put in a guard rail at that spot. But we'll wait till the bus goes over first, then all the pundits will declare how clear it was to them that this needless tragedy was going to occur: after the fact of course. Yep. First thing that has to go is the bloated military. WTF do we need to be spending 2x what the rest of the world spends on defense - I mean offense. Next - repeal all the Bush tax cuts not just for the "rich". Subsidies - corn, coal, oil - really? A lot of this is political of course. I'm not overly optimistic.

"Obama gives himself control of all communication systems in America" Ya goof ball - that was the commentary on that website - where does it say that in the EO?

I read the EO. What is so troublesome?

.........and the fire chief seems brillant. More folks in fire zone + drier climate change conditions = more staff needs? Not! [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3IR_6Y6GhY No new taxes!

Got it from the story you linked. Does that help? You should read it. Interesting story. Oh that - the mayor (who pushed for the cuts) and his fire chief. WTF do you think they are going to say. We made a mistake? An affected citizen thinks otherwise: ....after his burnt house was robbed. If I were on the fringe of the fire would I have wanted 39 more folks that knew how to fight fires? You bet. And you? Maybe not. They made a choice as a community and there are consequenses. Certainly not all this could have been prevented - but it would have helped some proportion. You want to go it alone and avoid community services. Have at it and stop whinning.

No source provided so I assume this is someone's opinion. Mine is I would rather have had 39 more firefighters in my town if it were burning - Colorado Springs made a clear choice - cut and cut public services. It's a choice - live in a fire prone area and - shock!! - you might get scorched!! And ironic that the folks wanting to get government small enough to drown in the bathtub now come running to it with hands out.

If you live in Seattle and haven't earthquake retrofitted your house - at least securing the pony wall to the foundation - it will be your fault when is slides off. Your insurance will not cover this.

Well they argured about money because your community voted to slash and burn the municipal budget - get what you paid for. Sheet. Folks in Colorado Springs had to ban together to pay for neighborhood street lights to get turned on. I guess you could ban together with your neighbors and hire a fire truck. Yea, crybabies!

The walk to the base of the Tieton is more risky than sport climbing.

I'm no expert, but have worked on a couple wildland/urban interface fire projects, and here's what I gleaned from that expereince. For the homeowner the two items of importance are a defensible space and non-combustabile features of your structure. This inculdes decks - as you point out, but also roofs and walls. So yes, metal roofs can make a difference. At the frontal assault of the fire - likely no, on the fringes, yes. Are folks stupid for living up in the hills? - I don't know. What I do know is that fire cycles have changed dramatically in the west over the past 50 years because of supression management and now climate change and the corresponding cumulative effects. And it's going to get worse. I certainly would not live up in those hills now. Mill Creek in WA? Very differnt fire cycle and not so much a threat and likely to remain so even with climate change. Take a look at the UW Climate Impact Group webpage for some good summaries. Government ineptitude? I'd say we've gotten the government we've asked for. Could 40 more firefighters made a difference? If you lived in that neighborhood what would you have preferred - more or less boots on the ground?

This is going to be a growing problem. Given the mix of climate change, warmer winters, corresponding spread of pests such as spruce bud worm, long-term drought, and the spread of the urban-wildland interface - this is going to get expensive.

The place where the Waldo Canyon fire destroyed 346 homes and forced more than 34,000 residents to evacuate turned off one-third of its streetlights two years ago, halted park maintenance and cut services to close a $28 million budget gap after sales-tax revenue plummeted and voters rejected a property-tax increase. The city, the state's second-largest, with a population of 416,000, auctioned both its police helicopters and shrank its public-safety ranks through attrition by about 8 percent; it has 50 fewer police officers and 39 fewer firefighters than five years ago. More than 180 National Guard troops have been mobilized to secure the city after the state's most destructive fire. At least 32 evacuated homes were burglarized and dozens of evacuees' cars were broken into, said Police Chief Pete Carey. "It has impacted the response," said accountant Karin White, 54, who returned Thursday to a looted and vandalized home, with a treasured, century-old family heirloom smashed. No Taxes Please

But you will, sooner or later, use the health care system. Under the current system, through cost-shifting of medical fees and insurance, you are paying tax, just not one levied by the federal government. Without the mandate it would not be feasible to have a working insurance pool. The Supremes' blessed it, it's now passed Constitutional review, it's the law. Try another tact.

Actually, no. They just made it so.

I think it's an interesting decision, and yes, I am surprised that Roberts was the swing vote. Scalia (wacko), Alito, and Thomas (dumb as a fern)everyone knew was going to vote the way they did. This was a pretty simple case, really, and a waste of time and money. Though not a particular fan of the law, as it keeps our tangled mess of health care in place, it was clearly under tax and commerce clauses.

This is sad. I know every reference in that montage.

These are paleo-diet people. The last thing they want is a science-based perspective. I did think this vid was a good one, and likely an example of how most folks in the U.S. eat. Bad Food

I took a quick look at the 30 site. Seems that they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater - no legumes (beans, lentils, tofu??), grains (steel cut oats, whole grains, quinoa)and dairy (yogurt). I don't know. Maybe if you were so out of balance with processed food this is a way of sliding into good eating habits? As a scientist, I'm much doubtful about any "diet" because of the vast amount of evidence that points to the lack of long-term change in behavior. My suggestion for healthy eating habits is to pick up a subscription to Nutrition Action by Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is a science-based nutrition monthly newsletter.

Dude I'm so on it. I picked up a pair of 7.5 lb dumbbells from good will. Once I can do more than 3 pull ups, I'll switch to pulling on the tree branches. Budgeted for wax and oil. Practicing my warm smile. Yeah baby. You can't fly like an eagle with wings of a wren

It ain't rocket surgery. It's math.

...buy a fleet of these trucks and rafts for next-year's ski-in. Down the Methow! Rafting

cut the military budget in half, spend the available funds on education and infrastructure. AND convert all public employee pensions to 401ks. That combined would make a big difference.

Pakistan supply route costs U.S. $100 million per month Oh, the money is there. We just choose to spend it on other things. Now if San Jose or CA would just pull back their efforts and apply it to their pensions we would be set. The point, or at least my point, is that if benefits can't be sustained through a reasonable return on investment, why should middle-class taxpayers be forced to supplement these with higher taxes. So you mean the federal govenment should spend federal tax dollars on providing benefits to works beyound than those that can be expected on conservative market expectatations? I think, as a nation, we can put those fed dollars to much better use than dropping them over the -stans, but wouldn't choose public pensions as the first alternative.

And this is the kicker. Providing pensions and retirement health benefits way above and beyond those that are, or ever could reasonably be, supported by tax-generated capital is a simple math exercise. Nothing more. Would I rather pay for basic services and social and environmental programs - or have those drascially cut in favor of the status quo unsustainable retirement programs. I would favor the former. FYI - WA state's retirement system ranks pretty high up there and only needs minor tweaking. Other states and the feds are in a nosedive.

I'm just curious. If you can lead 11c do you automatically lose all body hair or do they shave for wind resistance issues?