Jim

I seriously doubt if the upper Enchantment Lakes are stocked - WDFW stopped the practice of high lake stocking because these small lakes did not have fish in them to start with and the amphibian populations were decimated from introducing fish. May be some remnants however and I know Colchuck has some cutthroats in the 7-10 in range (yum). Also see: http://www.washingtonflyfishing.com/board/showthread.php/15174-Fishing-in-the-Enchantments

Oh, that's getting awfully close to the devil of a downhill binding.

I know, let's compare it to something kicked out by a random numbers generator for a really high correlation. Oh, wait...

It's a free market thing, you wouldn't understand.

Friends don't let friends wear racing jerseys.

This current parlor puzzle is asinine.

Unfortunately, 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices.

Do NOT do this. You will immediately be recognized as a weakling by other riders. Or worse yet, a road weenie.

Thanks. Good points. The refute from the Party of No Clue is either simpleton (trickle down BS) or some oragami explanation as to why this is good for 'Merica.

Saw this quote from the Citizen's United decision - gotta love it. Reminds me of when that old rainmaker, Trent Lott, was asked about the fairness of moneyed interests having access to the halls of power - his response: "Well, folks can find other ways of gaining access". Uh-huh. ..this court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy. Money equals free speech advocates in 3, 2, 1..

No argument regarding rural issues. But you haven't addressed the market failure in U.S. cities where it is easier to provide access. And your assumption that high speed internet is only applicable to entertainment and not commerce and academics is false. The issue is why are we paying such high rates for lousy service in the US compared to the rest of the world where there is comprehensive planning, and lo and behold, solvent communications companies making a profit.

Meanwhile, the market (and great lobbying) solution: Much of this can be attributed to other countries actually developing and implementing a national plan - what a concept. Yea, yea, we have a lot of land area here but even when you do a city by city comparision the results are the same. Similar to the hodge-podge cell tower system and standards we have here, compared to other countries where cell towers are on one standard and you don't have seperate phone companies planting their own and duplicative towers.

Can't say I ever considered sleeping up there but, heck, why not? Can't go without wine! Excellent trip and photos. Thanks.

This is where the libertarian argument gets silly. Having a simple requirement to get vaccinated elimates the lawyer feeding frenzy. Don't like it? Too bad, so sad - you're out voted in a civilized society. Regarding WA pensions, we're not so bad actually: "First and foremost, all of Washington's ongoing pension systems are healthy and well funded, in fact they are among the best funded pension systems in the country," Treasurer Jim McIntire said in a statement. "But funding for two pension plans that were closed in 1977 - PERS1 and TRS 1 - pose large issues that can no longer be avoided...Over time, it has been easy for lawmakers of both parties to postpone payments to these funds in the face of tough budget decisions. We now face the consequences of those past deferrals." The ones that face issues are about 77% funded and something will need to change there - but not so much given that the folks receiving these benefits are dying off. The system for current employees is different and solvent for the foreseeable future. Your argument regarding some benefits has more merit.

I really enjoy these conversations when they take new and unpredictable turns.

There you go again. Straw-dogging it. The general goal, was, and it worked moderately well, to get broad community viewpoints and news out to the community by using the public interest portion of the license provided by said public. Conservative, liberal, and middle all had access. Common sense tells you that some screening would be required to keep nut-jobs off; and yes, that would actually take some vetting and thinking - what a concept. What we have now is one voice - that of money.

If that 5 paragraph note on the website is your example of widely disminated news, well then... And half of the article was about how Israel denied it was true. Likely this was on page B4 of the hard copy and not their leading story on the webversion. A more applicable example would be: during the day this news broke, which story got more attention - this or Tiger's divorce proceedings?

"Waiting for Superman." If the compromise is swimming in the shallow edge of the cesspool rather than the middle it's a choice I would prefer to avoid. I'll go with ethics, conviction, and someone with a spine, thank you.

As usual you're making the straw dog argument that the choice has to be unfettered markets or a politburo of media. Coherent folks understand that there is a reasonable medium. We're always making choices on how markets work - either through regulation or tax policy. It's just a matter of what type of behavior is encouraged by these parameters. Your example of ethanol is a good one - horrible energy policy, great for Iowa and their senators. Our tax policy currently provides 30 times the benefits to fossil fuel exploration and production than renewable energy. That's a choice that benefits the old fuel network and their corporate structure, but harm as a nation regarding a sustainable future and contributes to greenhouse gas production. Regading a perfect media world. Wrong framework to start, but here's and example of how things have changed. Under FCC rules televsion stations are required, as part of their license, to provide benefits to their community. This was more broadly enforced in the past (maybe you're too young to remember) when stations were required to provide a certain portion of their air-time to public affairs, local political debates for free, and citizens could and did apply for several minute long opinion spots. Somehow the public benefit clause has now come to mean participating in the Walk for whatever disease of the moment, or sending the weatherman to the local schools. Anything but freeing up valuable commercial air time. I think similar requirements for TV including cable channels would be beneficial. Before you start going in the weeds, no, the Food Channel could be exempt. And yes, some decisions would need to be made. Right now there are few choices. The media is dominated by moneyed interests. Even if you're working for the NYT and you're a young reporter, if you stray off the centerline to much you will be put on notice. And if you want a career then you don't rock the boat. I think JB's example is a good one. Why wasn't there a peep from the US media on the UN report on the Israeli boarding, and executions, of those protestors? The right-wing dominated media doesn't want to put out that message; and the center media was scared to death of the shite storm and loss of advertisement revenue. Is that in the public interest? I guess you can argue, in some twisted logic, that it is because folks would otherwise boycott these supporting companies.

summary: The market will figure it out.

Seriously. There several problems with this report; first it is way too long to get on network news - can you say all that stuff in like 30 seconds. Second - there's no opposing opinion - this is, like, one guys opinion and it's not fair to let him have all that air time to himself. Third - there's no chicks. Fourth - what do you think would really happen if this got aired? Holy cow - shite storm, full media blitz by the JDL and their PR folks, pressure on corporate sponsers to pull out of advertisements.

I typed "processed chicken" into Snoops.com and this came up: http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.asp

I should have had some coffee before looking at this.

Ok then. My apolgies for the broader interpretation. Regarding free press. First, I do really believe it's an issue of democracy. The reduction in organizations that actually report on news, well news of any depth and sophistication; and that requires real investigative reporting is a problem. Aside from being replaced by info-tainment the growth of corporate media "news", of which Fox is one example, are just saturating the airways with lies and more lies. Yes, the populace doesn't seem to be inclined do much research these days but if there were more available media I believe it would make a difference. The commercial media - I don't know what if any resolution there is for that. Regading political advertisement - the avalanche of money is having a similar effect. I would prefer disclosure leglistation - and public funding of elections - which in the current climate are both doubtful. When I speak with my representatives on my two yearly visits (ok, their aids) I bring this up as an imortant constituent concern (ok, mine). I do donate to Media Matters as a hope that some information dispersal is useful. Has any of this been effective? Not so given the grand scheme of things. Will I toss it overboard as part of the stuff I do. I doubt it. I guess we could come to the conclusion that the populace gets the government they deserve, sometimes I think that. But it gets a bit depressing.

Oh. Well, I am in mid-50s.