Jim

You think so? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure I give TTK and Nitrox, and especially FW, a hard time for generally being greedy, stuck-up white-bread conservative mouthpieces intent on running cyclists down. Exhibit B .

Well these folks don't seem to be short on cash nor have many of them missed a meal recently.

Is he supposed to edit me or visa versa?

For once I agree with OW. Let it expire for everyone. As for the poor, well, the bottom 40% of wage earners in the US don't pay any federal income tax as it now stands--and they'll continue to get the same sweet deal. Shoot. I think we have a quorum on this one!

TGIF

Switching to the state side; I saw the latest budget predictions that put the coming two-year budget cycle at a stunning 18% over budget. That is pretty grim.

While I have some sympathy, I expect, well, leadership out of our leaders. Now cowering sheep.

Over 2,400 folks earned greater than $100k last year on the Seattle payroll. Just sayin'

....Wait, half a wit libturds and democrap deniers like Pat are still blaming all this on Bush.....right? No need now for an alternative version that might shake them up. Still Bush's fault. Nothing to see here. Same-same as it's ever been with an extra slice of hope and change and this time we mean that last part. Correct you are. Reps - dumbshits, Dems -chickenshits.

Thanks - great trip. Please parse out the other photos to beat the dreary season. I'd love to get back there - spent three weeks there and consider it the recon trip. My wife even loved the climbing. Will hit you up for advice.

WTF? Seems we are wining the race to the bottom of any category you wish to choose. It's not anti-intellectualism, it's anti-common sense. Somehow the conservataive movement has determined that the proper course is to send truckloads of cash down the military rathole as the rationale choice for defending our country, rather than building up the skills, education, and technology that will be needed in coming decades to successfully compete in the changing world economy. Go teabaggers!

Sheesh - can't believe a non-fan beat out PP on the post!

A friend of mine’s 12-year-old daughter has taken to wearing a bracelet, one of those rubber, Lance Armstrong-style affairs, that says on it, “I ❤ Boobies.” “Oh, yeah,” she said, vaguely, when questioned about it. “It’s for breast cancer.” Really? It’s hard to remember that, not so long ago, the phrase “breast cancer” was not something women spoke aloud, even among themselves. It wasn’t until the early 1970s, with the high-profile diagnoses of the former child star Shirley Temple Black, the first lady Betty Ford and Happy Rockefeller that the disease went public. A short time later, Betty Rollin, an NBC-TV correspondent, published the groundbreaking memoir “First You Cry.” Back then, her grief over losing her breast and the blow cancer dealt to her sex life was greeted with hostility by some critics and dismissed as frivolous. Mammography was just coming into use to detect early-stage tumors. The American Cancer Society was still resisting the idea of support groups for post-mastectomy patients. A woman like Rollin, some said, was supposed to be grateful that she qualified for a radical mastectomy, stuff a sock in her bra and get on with it. Fast-forward to today, when, especially during October, everything from toilet paper to buckets of fried chicken to the chin straps of N.F.L. players look as if they have been steeped in Pepto. If the goal was “awareness,” that has surely been met — largely, you could argue, because corporations recognized that with virtually no effort (and often minimal monetary contribution), going pink made them a lot of green. But a funny thing happened on the way to destigmatization. The experience of actual women with cancer, women like Rollin, Black, Ford and Rockefeller — women like me — got lost. Rather than truly breaking silences, acceptable narratives of coping emerged, each tied up with a pretty pink bow. There were the pink teddy bears that, as Barbara Ehrenreich observed, infantilized patients in a reassuringly feminine fashion. “Men diagnosed with prostate cancer do not receive gifts of Matchbox cars,” she wrote in her book “Bright-Sided.” Alternatively, there are what Gayle Sulik, author of “Pink Ribbon Blues,” calls “She-roes” — rhymes with “heroes.” These aggressive warriors in heels kick cancer’s butt (and look fab doing it). Like the bear huggers, they say what people want to hear: that not only have they survived cancer, but the disease has made them better people and better women. She-roes, it goes without saying, do not contract late-stage disease, nor do they die. That rubber bracelet is part of a newer, though related, trend: the sexualization of breast cancer. Hot breast cancer. Saucy breast cancer. Titillating breast cancer! The pain of “First You Cry” has been replaced by the celebration of “Crazy Sexy Cancer,” the title of a documentary about a woman “looking for a cure and finding her life.” Sassy retail campaigns have sprung up everywhere, purporting to “support the cause.” There is Save the Ta-Tas (a line that includes T-shirts and a liquid soap called Boob Lube), Save Second Base, Project Boobies (the slogan on its T-shirts promoting self-exam reads, “I grab a feel so cancer can’t steal,” though the placement of its hot-pink handprints makes it virtually impossible for them to belong to the shirt’s wearer). There is the coy Save the Girls campaign, whose T-shirt I saw in the window of my local Y.M.C.A. And there is “I ❤ Boobies” itself, manufactured by an organization called Keep a Breast (get it?). Sexy breast cancer tends to focus on the youth market, but beyond that, its agenda is, at best, mushy. The Keep a Breast Foundation, according to its Web site, aims to “help eradicate breast cancer by exposing young people to methods of prevention, early detection and support.” If only it were that simple. It also strives to make discussion of cancer “positive and upbeat.” Several other groups dedicate a (typically unspecified) portion of their profits to “educate” about self-exam, though there is little evidence of its efficacy. Or they erroneously tout mammography as “prevention.” There’s no question that many women, myself included, experience breast cancer as an assault on our femininity. Feeling sexual in the wake of mastectomy, lumpectomy, radiation or chemo is a struggle, one that may or may not result in a new, deeper understanding of yourself. While Betty Rollin acknowledged such visceral feelings about breasts, she never reduced herself to them. And in the 1990s, the fashion model Matuschka’s notorious photo of her own mastectomy scar (published on the cover of this magazine) demanded that the viewer, like breast- cancer patients themselves, confront and even find beauty in the damage. By contrast, today’s fetishizing of breasts comes at the expense of the bodies, hearts and minds attached to them. Forget Save the Ta-Tas: how about save the woman? How about “I ❤ My 72-Year-Old One-Boobied Granny?” After all, statistically, that’s whose “second base” is truly at risk. Rather than being playful, which is what these campaigns are after, sexy cancer suppresses discussion of real cancer, rendering its sufferers — the ones whom all this is supposed to be for — invisible. It also reinforces the idea that breasts are the fundamental, defining aspect of femininity. My friend’s daughter may have been uncertain about what her bracelet “for breast cancer” meant, but I am betting she got that femininity equation loud and clear. I hate to be a buzz kill, but breast cancer is just not sexy. It’s not ennobling. It’s not a feminine rite of passage. And, though it pains me to say it, it’s also not very much fun. I get that the irreverence is meant to combat crisis fatigue, the complacency brought on by the annual onslaught of pink, yet it similarly risks turning people cynical. By making consumers feel good without actually doing anything meaningful, it discourages understanding, undermining the search for better detection, safer treatments, causes and cures for a disease that still afflicts 250,000 women annually (and speaking of figures, the number who die has remained unchanged — hovering around 40,000 — for more than a decade). As for me, I bear in mind the final statement that a college pal of mine who was dying of breast cancer (last October, in the midst of all that sexy pink) made to her younger brother. She was about to leave two young sons to grow up without a mother; her husband to muddle through without his wife. She could barely speak at the time, barely breathe. But when her brother leaned forward, she whispered two words in his ear: “This sucks.

I think you're mixing up national and state/local issues. Ok - let's stick to the state/local for a moment. So because pensions are not fully funded, woefully so, it's not an issue because? Yea the tanking economy has exacerbated weakness in state/local budgets, but because unsustainable pensions (in any economic climate)didn't cause the banking meltdown there's no reason to adjust? That doesn't make sense.

From a state and local perspective - because that is the law. They cannot run deficts. From the national perspective - because in the long run it's not sustainable under the present course. I'd agree that proposed austerity measures are used by the Republicans most often reflect their petulance to pay off their contributors. The Democrats are just as guilty to contributing to the problem and tip-toeing around and serious considerations. The tax structure has to become more equatible but public employee benefits and pensions need to be closely examined and brought back to something sustainable. As an example - Jay is on the mark regarding pensions - it's not possible to sustain and will affect the delivery of social services. In Washington we are not so bad off because some changes were made a decade ago but we still hover around 80% funded, so some tweaking is needed. Other state, notably California, are in crisis.

With or without the current financial mess there are policies in place that continue to be unsustainable. Wether that's benefits/pensions, a tax structure that favors the rich and corporations, and figgin' military outta control. It has to change. I'm not optimistic, however. It will be forced and it will not be pretty.

Example of the King County sheriff's department, who refused to postpone scheduled pay increases. Guess which department is taking large cuts in personell, read: services. Also - great video clip.

After more yaking and trying things on I went with: K2 Coombacks BD Push 22 Designs Axl Trial report coming soon. Thanks again for advice.

Matt: Given fiscal realities - government will be reduced. The only question is how. When push comes to shove I'd personally prefer to see the government using the limited resources as its disposal to focus on things that only it can do as efficiently as possible. Consequently, when it comes down to a choice between a 5X5% compounded pay increase for cops, subsizing the Seattle port to the tune of ~3/4 billion per decade, COLA's for all irrespective of the budget, pension and benefit reform, etc - or providing state services for schizophrenic drug addicts, people who require a public defender, Medicaid funding, Fish and Wildlife enforcement budgets, etc I'll take the latter. I still have no idea how asking public employees to pay as much out of pocket for their retirement and health benefits constitutes a war on public sector employees. Is this because you don't understand how pension finance works, or some other reason? For starters, plug in an inflation-adjusted pension payout of $50K per year for ages 55-65 using immediate annuity calculators and see what kind of lump-sum it would require to fund the said payout. Then add medical care. The value will never be below seven figures. How many people do you know that put enough aside out of their earnings to have a seven-figure balance when they retire? If a public sector employee has a retirement package that requires seven figures in the bank, and the combined value of their contributions and returns is in the high-five to low-six figure range where, exactly - do you think the money required to cover he difference is going to come from? There are a few erstwhile progressives out there who can do math who know the answer to that question. Jeff Adachi is one of them: http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-01/opinion/17841791_1_pension-fund-pension-debt-retirement-fund While I don't agree with all of this (the port thing) this is the conversation that needs to occur or else local governments are going to default. At some point. And then social services will really get the ax. I'm not encouraged either locally or on the national level that this will happen anytime soon. On the national level big ticket items such as the Medicade Drug benefit bill and Pharma giveaway is going to swamp the Stimulus and Bailout (at least there's some revenue recovery here) in terms of debt blowout and should be repealed. The military budget needs to be cut in half, at least. Raise corporate taxes to a reasonable level, discontinue the limit on upper income Social Security tax, and end the disasterous Bush tax cuts on the upper income brackets - now.

The 101. Tough nuts those guys. And the last good fight before we lost our bearings.

Oh. I thought this was another thread about Democrats.

I agree. But I also beleive that most of the populace is a dumb as a stump when it comes to a logical thought process regarding a reasonable tax plan.

That's reasonable. But I'd go for creating a fair income tax for everyone and significantly reducing the sales tax. But - I don't see WA instituting an income tax. Ever. Because most folks will not vote for it.

Well then what do you do? The people spoke clearly and in a vast majority to 1) repeal the candy and soda tax, and 2) eliminate the possibility of an income tax for the rich. Now what? Yea, the economy tanking is the cause of revenue reduction. It's either belt tightening such as delayed COLA and other annual increases, having employees pay more of the medical benefits, OR a cut in public services. Or both I suppose. Dispensing of the hyperbole - what would you suggest for balancing the budgets?