Jim

Being a blockhead is sometimes the best security against being cheated by a man of wit.

Pot, kettle.

I haven't the foggiest what this has to do with the subject at hand, but maybe that's the point(?). Less regulation needed?

Holy cannoli - if that's a turd from the Marmot Princess Bride all is explained.

Oh, hop on a horse closer to the ground already. Does this ring a bell.

Another factor is that Rainier is not the Rockies - there's some big honkin' glaciers here that have their own route-finding, objective danger issues unless you are doing the cattle trail route. An extra margin of safety is a good thing. That said - there are very stong and competent folks who can run up and down in a day. I just don't belong in that group.

No. The permit allows up to 3 eagles per 5 years to be killed BY wind turbines. Eagles and other large raptors that ground hunt are susceptible to getting bonked by the blades. The tips of a 100 yard long blade are moving along pretty quick. Generally these are getting sited better. The poster child for bad siting and bird kills is Altamont Pass in CA. Interestingly, migrating bats can also get killed. If they get too close to the spinning blades the air pressure difference can cause blood vessels and organs to explode.

Eric Cantor and the far right wingnuts are making this guy hate his job.

You sir, have no place in the country's electorate.

Tis amusing. I'm avoiding Vashon because of the cluster of non-vaccine crazies out there. +1 It's a shame that so many of my liberal counterparts are total luddites. It's the lack of meat protein in their diets. Makes their skin leathery, their vision poor, their pits smelly, and their brains slow.

More bread and circus

Speaking of Ponzi schemes, WA is moving along as expected.

Given the latest round of Tea Party muscle flexing in the House I'd say we're getting our share and more of batshit crazy.

Five Days One Summer Sean Connery, relationship with younger woman, conflict, mountains. [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8a3d1TLZjg

If not for that avatar you would be merely annoying.

Or head off future problems and just upgrade to a Mac.

Clueless http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/opinion/send-in-the-clueless.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

It's 4:20... it's that time. :brew: So, 4:20 is the end of the day in Jim's part of the private sector? Boy, after all the posturing about his work ethics that guy obviously works very hard For the record. 7:07 and my crew is closing shop now after an 11 hr day. But we do get to be outside the next two days! Now I'm joining Sobo

Neither an MBA or a MEd typically require the defense of a thesis--a significant hurdle. And while a MS is probably, on the whole, a more difficult undertaking than a thesis-driven MA, I'm not sure you can say it necessarily produces a well-rounded graduate. (See mirror for details.) I had to take a orals exam just to get into my Masters program. And no j_b. I'll likely be here to 7:00 this evening as were dealing with some sophisticated sampling starting tomorrow so me and field crews are going over things with pizza. Cheers.

Oh no. I just think that any objective study should just be comparing similar job categories and degrees to have any credibility. But is an engineering or science Masters harder to obtain than one in English, History, or Education? You bet. Never heard of someone dropping out of a History major because it was too hard and picking up a science or engineering major. And English degrees are great for developing a commanding use of the language, sentence structure, grammar, and spelling. So from that last post I'm assuming it's history? Done. Sobo - time check?

Agreed. And that's the point. At least the study should compare an MBA position with an MBA position; or a mechanical eng degree with a mechanical engineering degree. It doesn't. Should have guessed Tvash with all those sine cuves and thingeys in the sculptures.

Umm. No. If you slowly read the above they are seperate sentences that provide different examples of how the Rutgers study lumps degrees. Example 1: Should be comparing (as an example) MS physics to MS physics. Example 2: What the Rutgers study is doing - comparing a MS History to MBA (as an example). Example 3: Rutgers study is comparing degree LEVEL only so a Masters in Education is the same as a Masters in a science field in this study. Hope that is clear now. I don't have any picture books to assist.

Here you go: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute crickets ... I still don't see the difference. You have one group - Unions, who have hired academics. They clearly have an agenda - that is, preservation of their position - wages and benefits. You have a second the AEI - with a clear bent on private enterprise and pro-business, generally anti-union approach. Both have paid economists to come up with a study. Each have reached opposing conclusions. I'd have to say that the AEI seems more thorougly sourced and lays out the assumptions they made. The Rutgers study, not so transparent. So the poison the well logic really doesn't carry much water. But that's likely my science bias for objectivity. One item you SHOULD find intersting in the Rutgers study is that no attempt was made to compare like degrees. Rather, it compares "level of education". So, rather than compare say, a Masters in Physics with a like degree, it just compares all Masters degrees. That doesn't make sense. So you're comparing someone who has a Masters in History with someone with a MBA. Not so objective. Or, a Masters in Education, which you can do in a summer, compared to a Masters in a science, which typically takes 2 - 3 years. The AEI institute makes an attempt at comparing like positions and education in similar fields. They at least tell you what they are trying to do. The Rutgers study doesn't attempt this and doesn't address the effects of such an assumption. Also, the Rutgers study doesn't include retirment health benefits. That seems odd, doesn't it? You retire from the feds after 20 yrs and you have life-time health benefits at the same cost you're now paying. Great bargin if you can get it. But it at least should be put in the forumla, eh? Then there is the guaranteed pension return (thanks taxpayers ) vs. a vanilla 401k, much higher matches, more vacation days, less hours worked, and generally earlier retirement. So pointing the finger at the evil AEI just isn't an argument. Now if you can come up with some logical argument we're listening.

Keefe leads with a table that appears to undercut his own argument--unless he means simply to impugn the integrity of The Star-Ledger. That table (on page 3) shows that New Jersey has the second-highest level of public-sector wages in the country (and the highest salaries for police officers and firefighters), and the fourth-highest level for private-sector employees (and, oddly enough, for teachers). Furthermore, that table does show that private-sector employees tend to earn less. That is only one flaw. In addition, Keefe neglects to show the denominators in his data. He cites averages wages and benefits, but does not demonstrate that he has applied any statistical tests to remove "outliers"--exceptional high-end or low-end earners who would skew the results. Moreover, some commenters suspect that Keefe might have included among private-sector "employees" certain persons who are not, strictly speaking, "employees," and in fact live in New Jersey but work out-of-State (usually in New York, especially in the financial district). Nor, one suspects, does Keefe answer either of these questions: Did he, and should he not, count unemployed (including chronically unemployed and "discouraged") former private-sector workers in his denominator, especially if they live in New Jersey? Why did he fail to mention former public-sector employees, who retire at age 55 and are now drawing defined-benefit pensions, while so many of their private-sector counterparts are instead drawing distributions from Individual Retirement Arrangements and 401(k) and 403(b) plans? (Nor did Keefe think to examine whether the establishment of 457 plans, the government equivalent of 401(k)s, might save the State money.) Keefe might have considered this question beyond scope: Do the State and local governments in New Jersey simply employ too many people? Private companies have every incentive to get the same work done with fewer employees. The government has the opposite incentive. Not only do unions have a motive to insist that the government hire more people, but any bureaucrat knows that his power varies directly as the number of employees in his department. Indeed, Friedman quoted Jerry Cantrell of the New Jersey Taxpayers' Association as reminding people that private companies have downsized in the recession, while government has not. Last year, Catherine Rampell of The New York Times linked to this chart by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, showing that state and local governments pay far more in wages, salary and benefits per hour worked than do their private-sector counterparts. This is where the Keefe analysis is most vulnerable: government departments do not necessarily keep fewer hours of operation just because any given employee might work fewer than 40 hours a week. Finally, Keefe ends with the counterintuitive prediction that "the State's budget-balancing efforts [might] prolong the economic downturn by increasing unemployment." Here he reflects the common pro-government paradigm that says that an economy is always demand-driven, while ignoring the depression in aggregate demand that results from the heavy taxes necessary to support a bloated government. Then he predicts that "thousands of New Jersey public employees will lose their jobs," without saying why or even how

Seems anecdotal an an opinion. Nothing more.