Jim

Nice one K. I couldn't find a partner for the NF so I went for a solo ski up there and saw you guys waaaaay up there. Awesome day. I was surprised as the amount of snow still plastering the route. Gotta get up there before the end of the season.

I was up at Squamish a couple years ago and someone half my age was belaying with the BUS system so I went over and asked about it. He walked me through it and we talked about the SSS. Nice guy. We both decided that we liked our own way because that was what we were used to and that both do the job. If he were belaying me I wouldn't be worried. Just give me a competent belayer and I'll be happy. Until the finger crack crux anyway!

This is false. Survival rates of SOME cancer types are better in the US and some less than Europe. http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country So there are some scattered indicators of light among the trash heap. So what. How do we provide access for those that can't get care, significantly reduce cost, and improve efficient delivery?

And they will be comforted to know that they can have the same influence as say, Bank of America, influencing their local congressional race.

So we're back to the basics - income level determines if you have health care. Please don't tell me how affordable catostrophic insurance is. Even if you're middle class you can't afford a reasonable plan for your kids. I think there are a number of undeniable (to thinking people anyway) issues with health care in the US- An army of for profit insurance companies with no standardization. Somewhere around 25-40 million left out; sure some by choice but a heck of a lot of folks are not or under insured. Costs - no dispute here, we pay more than anyone with no cost/benefit outcome to show for it. Profit - it runs the show, from pushing drugs people don't need, to twarting any change, to having insurance companies give bonuses for denying care. While picking on the edges of the argument for change - I'm hearing nothing from the naysayers on how these issues should be addressed.

A couple good summaries: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

I bought a pair of prescription Jublos, I think they are Nomads, here: http://www.opticus.com/ Work well. Just need you prescription specs. You can talk to one of their optometrists about options.

Ignore that outfit in the closet!

You're lucky you get a big block of time off every year. The teacher's I know work their butts off during year but get to take a breather. For most working folks with some level of responsibility it's hard to take off time in such large chunk - compared to other countries where it is encouraged. I think it is a bad idea to not negoiate some big blocks off now and then to have a life. I've taken 3-10 weeks off sporatically and will likely be taking 10 wks in a row this year. Getting up there in age and would like to get up a few more South American peaks before getting creaky(er).

I need that bumper sticker I saw: "I support my wife's habit - she's a teacher"

I'm placing this over-reaching ruling in the same file labled "Stupid" as the Kelo v. City of New London ruling.

...and don't ignore the real world consequences either.

Yes - limits were useful The film? Sticky wicket. I'm not aguring that MF was great, or that it didn't need major tweaks. But the real world consequences of the decision favor those with the most money. That is very clear.

Simple- Were there limits on corporate financing on attack ads by corporations before the ruling - YES Are there any limits now - NO Is my opinion of the ruling based on the idea that moneyed interests now have a greater advantage than those without resources - of course it is. Any real-world perspective leads to the same conclusion. If you're arguing that the overall outcome of free speech is better than this negative fallout - then that's your opinion. But to say that this gives no advantage to the entity with the bigger cash pile is false.

You have to be kidding. I think what you are saying is that McCain Feingold was too broad and limited speech - maybe. And that the ruling opens up speech for all, which is a good thing. But you're ignoring the direct - real world consequences. And it's not a political problem that affects real reform - it's MONEY sloshing around the system problem.

That's clear - I hear ya. I just think the hope that Congress will grow a pair is naive and the public got 8D again. Any freedom of speech for the small guy will get drowned in the comparative tidal wave of corporate money and influence; adding to the current unbalance.

Oh yea, Congress is going to jump on this one. Again - I'm not agruing that there was an issue to resolve - I'm saying the outcome went way, way beyond what the court was being asked to resolve and the consequeces give additional power to moneyed inerests.

I agree with what you say the case was about. But - the decision is much broader than that. While the case brought by the plaintiffs was not about money, the majority found it necessary (for some unknown reason) to address money. It's very clear. The decison lifts limits on financing of political ads. There used to be limits and now there are none.

I call BS on this statement, which is disingenuous at best. Sure there still are direct contribution limits but, duh, they will be overwhelmed by the indirect limits. The ruling specifically releases corporations from having to form PACs as middlemen and the financing constraints around PACs. They can now funnel money directly into whatever PR program they wish, with no limits. Does the author really think it's reasonable to equate the financial power of Exxon with even the largest Unions in the country? I don't think so. Yes, there are some issues that needed parsing out but there have always been limits on free speech, particularly in recognizing the unbalanced power of large corporations. The Supreme 5 sidestepped the relative narrow question in front of them to take on an issue that was not it play. And Congress devoted to real campaign finance reform? I'll take my chances that the Easter Bunny is real first. Say you're a congressman from a small rural district and you've been making noise about strong bank reform and making some headway. What's to prevent Goldman or whoever from throwing money at a local Swiftboat process? So now that congressman will be more reluctant to take on controversial issues because he doesn't want to disturb the firms with deep pockets. In addition, the 24 states that have campaign finance laws will be affected. You've addressed several of your concerns, all of which could well stand some legislative reform. As Ira correctly stated, however, none of these issues were at issue in this case. No kidding they weren't part of the case but ARE directly affected by the decision made by the SC. The SC went way beyond the question that was being asked. Are you saying these elements are not a direct outcome of the decison?

An interesting question, but not the one that was in front of the SC. I don't think anyone in the case, or here, was advocating a gag on all organized speech, but recognizing the need for some limits because of the potential and realized effect that large institutions can have on the democratic process. Easy solutions? - No. But the baby was thrown out with the bathwater on this decision. It's getting to be all money all the time - from lobbying, direct contributions, and not this.

Here's the deal - there are limits on how much say, Exxon, can give to, say McCain's re-election committe - which is controlled by McCain and his assistants. Those are still in place. There used to be limits on how much money corporations could use for funding attack ads (or support ads) that don't specifically say "go vote for John McCain." Typically a Political Action Committee would form in support of a candidate - not by the candidate but by supporters. There is not supposed to be coordination between the PAC and the candidate (in theory). The PAC would then garner money from corporate and individual doaners that would pay for ads. These proved very powerful in the Swiftboat ads against John Kerry. Now there are no limits to how much money corporations can spend on such ads. They do not have to form PACs, the associated financial limits are gone. Corporations can now pay directly for attack ads with no limits.

I call BS on this statement, which is disingenuous at best. Sure there still are direct contribution limits but, duh, they will be overwhelmed by the indirect limits. The ruling specifically releases corporations from having to form PACs as middlemen and the financing constraints around PACs. They can now funnel money directly into whatever PR program they wish, with no limits. Does the author really think it's reasonable to equate the financial power of Exxon with even the largest Unions in the country? I don't think so. Yes, there are some issues that needed parsing out but there have always been limits on free speech, particularly in recognizing the unbalanced power of large corporations. The Supreme 5 sidestepped the relative narrow question in front of them to take on an issue that was not it play. And Congress devoted to real campaign finance reform? I'll take my chances that the Easter Bunny is real first. Say you're a congressman from a small rural district and you've been making noise about strong bank reform and making some headway. What's to prevent Goldman or whoever from throwing money at a local Swiftboat process? So now that congressman will be more reluctant to take on controversial issues because he doesn't want to disturb the firms with deep pockets. In addition, the 24 states that have campaign finance laws will be affected.

Dude - it's not a rodent. Genus Ochotonidae in the Lagomorpha family (rabbits and hares). Sheesh!

start by mandating that insurance companies are non-profit Couldn't agree more. There are some good models across the globe to follow where there is a private health insurance market but the profit is very constrained, prices for services are standardized, and there are subsidies for low income folks. I could go for that. Problem is that the pharma and insurance firms are standing on the neck of Congress. Or rather - they have paid Congress to stand on public's neck. With all the money flowing and the continual equating money with speech by the Supreme Five, I'm not optimistic in change anytime soon.