Jim

Oh there's a tough sell, but I've been surprised before. haven't the Twilight movies laid the groundwork for that? just print some posters of topless "werewolf" hunks running around That's the ticket! Once in a while my wife and I would get over to the Quinault Reservation and rent a cabin for the weekend - but now there is a three day minimum because the Twilighters have ticked up the hotel demand. Good for Forks - maybe good for wolves using your pitch!

Oh there's a tough sell, but I've been surprised before.

Yea, saw that. Good news. Here's a smaller dam removal project I worked on in Oregon - Bull Run. A couple friends are working on a similar film for Elwa. [video:youtube]

Seriously. After this "discussion" I'm ready to go have a beer with you and KK as you would be more fun.

Still waiting for a source. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

No. Rather I'm saying that 1) it doesn't matter how many "observers made these claims" if there are no facts to back it up; 2) if you claim it is "widely known" then it should be readily easy for you to come up with a documented source, eh? and 3) Damn! You are whiny.

liar. Ok. I'm trying to be patient here. No reference but is "..most certainly true and obvious". That is nothing but your opinion based on? Done here if we can't even get you to agree on what is a fact. A corollary statement would be "Some observers believe the moon is made of green cheese" Well I suppose that statement in itself is true - the underlying supposition is false. Get it?

Ok then - maybe I am wrong - show me the analysis or data report for this statement: Nothing is cited and is therefore opinion.

What I love about articles like this is the pile of unsubstantiated statements No data cited - is in complete contrast to several studies done by non-partsian economic groups. Great -it's his "opinion" So let's take a local look at WA's pension program. Here's what the govenor's office says: The actuary's office has recommended that lawmakers contribute $774 million to pension funds this spending period, which ends in 2011. Gov. Chris Gregoire's budget allocates funding levels in line with the actuary's request. "It is in the long-term interest of the tax-payers to fully fund all pension plans with consistent and adequate payments so as to avoid higher long-term costs. As the legislature grapples with the current budget shortfall, I hope they avoid making next year's pension problems bigger," the treasurer said. And from the state actuary: Yea - no problem here. Now if you could provide more than an Op Ed I'll be willing to look at it. Where do think these funds are going to come from. It's not going to be from tax revenue - the voters are capping that. If the current trend extends itself it will come at the expense of the lower social and economic spectrum. While protecting public employee unsustainable pension programs you are advocating for less social good programs.

All this is saying is that the pension program deficits did not cause the current big budget hole from the reduced revenue stream. No friggin' duh!! As Tvash said - interesting, but still doesn't solve the unsustainability of the pension programs. They were unsustainabale during flush times, it was just papered over a bit with some extra revenue. Now that facade is stripped bare there is more urgency. While I understand your apparant frustration with the financial wizards putting us in this bind, and the lack of wisdom of the state voters to tax a bit more, I don't understand the concept of keeping an unsustainable system in place that is robbing funds from,what I consider, more benifical uses for social programs.

Thanks D! Got it. Now all I need is some cold weather or a trip north. --great website by the way.

Fixing a problem that is $15B will not help? And times that by say, 5 over the next 50 years? Yea, you're right. Doing nothing will help more

It IS a concern now - you don't seem to get the basic fact that the pension systems are paying out more than thy accure - it's basic math. WA is genreally better than most states and ours is around 75% funded - where do you think the money is coming from - fairy land? Reneging on pensions for public workers now will help almost none toward making states more solvent in the mid-term, little less in the short term, which is what we should be working on instead of playing disaster capitalism along with neoliberals to better bash on public employees who worked for these pensions (or most of them anyway). Shame on you for not distancing yourself from the partisans for the race to the bottom. Another straw dog. Read the post. No one said pulling existing pensions. But if you don't want to make changes in the current system - how are you going to close the $15B pension shortfall in WA - and that is if the fix could happen today - add about 10% a year and that is the definition of unsustainable. If you add more neoliberal, disaster capital, maybe jackboot to the string of adjectives it provides little substance to your argument - which seems to be - do nothing. Great- meanwhile the WA health care plan is going to be eliminated with the free drug care for the elderly poor. I'd rather see public employees go with a 401k plan then see contributions to a non-sustainable plan - for decades to come - by the taxpayers. What is your alternative - please be specific instead of "it can wait till later" or modest adjustments will do. How are you going to find an extra $15B right now, and then $15B say, every 10 years from now on. A tax? Good luck with that one. Any other plausible suggestions?

I'd say I lefty socially but fiscally - well - I call it common sense. In a dinner conversation or two that went from my commitment to a single payer health system - because it makes more sense fiscally and for social fairness - when applying similar logic to a pension reform plan - it's like I spit in their food or something. funding

And this is not something to worry about now? Friggin' A - it's sucking up capital from benefical programs. The social safety net is hacked to pieces and we don't need to fix this? Give me a break.

It IS a concern now - you don't seem to get the basic fact that the pension systems are paying out more than thy accure - it's basic math. WA is genreally better than most states and ours is around 75% funded - where do you think the money is coming from - fairy land? In CA 85% of tax revenue is being used to service two items - public pensions and current employee pay and benefits. What? You would want to wait untill it gets to 150% to change it? Every dollar put to an unsustainable program is one that cannot be put towards worthwhile social, environmental, health, and safety programs. The "ignore the problem" solution you offer is what has led to the current and growing issue.

We've been here before, but why not. I'll repeat. Yes the recent financial crisis is something seperate from state pension issues, yes the government did a bad job of monitoring the markets, yes the greedy bankers and wall street folks are getting of lightly. But - fiscal crisis or not - the majority of pension plans are unsustainable and the extra fiscal pressures now put on states is shining a brighter light on these unsustainable elements. In most, not all (about 85%) of states pensions have been promised that require an amazing amount of investment capital to be parked to get sufficient returns for payout. How the heck does a system manage to payout a 80% wages earned in the last few years of employement for life? Say that is $75k and a conservative 5% return - then that mean you need to have $1.5M parked!!!! Some retirement plans, notably CA, are even more generous in how they calculate your retirement. Given that the employee in this example would contribute, maybe, 25% of this - the tax payers should be on the hook for this? Honor the existing agreements, limit increases, and convert current holders to 401ks. Any arument about dealing with it later is an excuse to carry on an unsutainable practice - wait for what and why accrue more debt?

But that isn't what Dane was referring to (or at least that's what I'm reading). I understand that each tool is a backup but not clear on this statement that is referring to the umbilicals: Sorry to be dense - but is it meant to convey the idea that if you fall and the tools are stacked vertically the stretchy umbicals are ok for a minor fall? Or is it meant to just hold you in position for a bit if you need both hands for setting a belay anchor. Thanks!

So then "belay" is meant for say, keeping you on the wall while you use both hands to put in a real belay?

I think this is a good tool to harp on when discussing the issues with the smaller gv'ment crowd. But as policy it goes nowhere and then you start arguing about the greater good for any project, 520, viaduct, light rail, etc. The greater good is a difficult concept for knuckleheads to grasp, however.

Hey D - Getting back into ice after a decade away. Would you mind expanding on the "moving belay" comment. I used to use perlon as umbilicals back in the day, but the stretch factor would seem to make this difficult on the new gear. Clarification? Thanks.

Some planners I work with recently compled a large, regional study on the effect of military bases on the surrounding communities. Yea, the typical tatoo parlors and bar fights; but it was surprising to them the number of military families that make use of social services such as food stamps, food banks, mental health clinics, health clinics. Part of scaling back the military balooning budget should be knocking back the amount of expensive toys, ovresea bases and adventures, and taking care of their own.

Too late. They are likely on their way already.

Hey - I had a '69 that I rebuilt the engine to turn 1776 cc - up Snoqualmie Pass in 4th! balanced cam, lw flywheel, oversized pistons. So there.

Uh Jim? Fuck you. Saw that one coming Jimbo. I actually think pretty highly of Evergreen, but if I didn't I'd be careful never to mention that unless I'd already mapped out an escape strategy to extricate myself from whatever enclosed space I happened to be in Seattle, Olympia, Bellingham, or Portland. "[Pointing]Look - over there! Someone's being judgmental and intolerant[rapid transition to fleeing...]! 10 to 1 says that you could defend female genital mutilation as a practice that the proper application of multi-culturalism (not to mentionthe West's sorry neocolonial legacy, etc) renders off limits to critiques by Westerners and elicit little more than a yawn, but make a single modestly unflattering aside about Evergreen and you'll ignite a pious rage that even a third glass of organic, biodynamically cultivated, fair-trade Pinot can't squelch.... Sigh. My east coast roots, humor included, requires the response It-was-a-joke all too often. Jeesh.