Jim

I hear you. But just hearing the continued propaganda from the Bushies makes one want to shout LIAR! Anyway - For now, we're in a dicey position. We've extended ourselves too far and are losing where it counts - in Afganistan - and where the threat is looming in the tribal regions of Pakistan. I think even the most devoted republicans would have to admit we made one of the worst blunders in political calculation with Iraq. It's a mess and there is no good way out. It will haunt us for decades.

This is total BS and a really pathetic reach. There was no evidence that Hussein had any designs on terrorism in the US. He was bottled up quite tight. You don't go in and destroy a country and kick over the beehive using a "just in case" strategy. I want an adult in the White House. Pity is we have to wait another 9 months.

Last night and continuing tonight PBS Frontline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/) is showing Bush's War, which goes through the details of the falsification of intelligence; ignoring seasoned veterns of the Pentagon, State Department, and Foreign Service; false press leaks, propoganda, and truth twisting used by the administration. Cheney and his office clowns, Rumsfield, and the rest of the necons wanted this war at all costs. There's great interviews with many of the inside players and it makes you wonder how, with a nutcase like this in the White House, an unjustified war could be stopped when Congress was spineless and the press complicit. Well, we got what the Idiot wanted and what all the experts in his administration warned against.

So here's the twist. Financial instutions lobbied and recieved the ability to go unregulated into fancy investment vehicles. Banks, which are more regulated, have access to the taxpayer-funded Fed discount window in times of trouble. Now that there's serious trouble in Dodge the cowboys are getting access to the Fed discount window anyway. Great deal boys! Basically shifting, again, the investment risk to the taxpayers. Abosolute corporate welfare.

Kilbeggan - if you can get your hands on it over here. Or for something interesting - Connemarra (peat-smoked single malt). Both made by Cooley - the only Irish-owned independent whiskey distillery. I'm not a whiskey drinker but the spouse, friends, and I went thru a bottle of Kilbeggan pretty quick after a visit with the relatives on the Isle.

I read that Bush is planning to invade China so democracy will flourish.

Interested in a friendly wager? That McCain will lose either way? Yep. Dinner and beer at a local brew pub.

Given the current state of affairs, no matter who is the Dem candidate, they will win. McCain will come off like a sweet grandfather, but not too bright. If it's Obama - it will be a landslide.

In CA recently: "If you're not supposed to eat animals why are they made of meat?"

Muff - what part of town will you be in? Is your SO headed for the cheesesteak place on Capitol Hill (the one where the owner was shot a month ago?) or the funny little one in Madison Valley owned by the ex-Philly guy who also imports Tastycakes from the east coast? I'll pitch a few suggestions for brew that will keep you from driving too far.

I think you need to read your own links. I'm not clear why you posted the GLBA link, which gave banks the ability to get into securities. What was ignored by the Bushies, and to a lesser extent the Clintons, was the ramifications of monitoring investments vechiles, truth in advertising by the rating agencies, and scrunity of lending practices. And as far as the second link to the Primary Dealer Credit Facility - that's just offering more guarantees to the freaked-out banking industry. Not much of a free hand there eh?

I agree with you. The lobbists looking over the shoulder of Congress are not pushing for public interest, but their own.

Well I'm not so sure the deciding factor was that they did not keep up with marketplace changes but chose to ignore the changes and the potential consequences. Some simple rules, which are now in the works, regarding oversight of lending practices (duh - don't lend money to folks who can't afford it) and more oversight of the credit rating firms and wall street who managed to turn investments worse than junk bonds into AAA rating investment vehicles. Capitalism is inherently greedy and cares for nothing but short-term gains, particularly the way it is practiced on Wall Street these days. So with some relatively mild oversight the Feds could have avoided this mess. Instead, they chose to let the market self-regulate, with the ensuing effects well outside the sphere of Wall Street. And now they choose to ignore the market forces solution when the financial elite come knocking at the door. No reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But a more reasoned approach to government regulation of capitalism will make for stronger long-term financial institutions. I'm really tired of the "get government off our backs" crowd, especially when they cost us billions when their get-rich-quck schemes go south.

Another great example of the "free market" at work. Financial institutions allowed to run amuck without adult supervision come up with ingenious schemes to turn risky investments into Wall Street AAA bonds. They start losing their shirts when the inevitable crash comes along. Instead of letting the market sort it out by punishing the losers what do we do? We guarantee the estimated $30 Billion in bad paper held by Bear Stearns and keep slashing interest rates. Amazing that the "market forces" theory of governance is thrown out any time there's a consideration of more money for childern's heath care, transportation, etc. But when the masters of the universe need a monumental government bailout - well that's an exception to the rule. Always has been, always will be. The Idiot and his cronnies are screwing things up even more than I expected. There is going to be more to this story. Seems like we're headed for another S&L type bailout.

There is something charmingly rude about the east coast that I miss out here. This would never happen in Seattle.

Interlaken is cool,but touristy, but very accessible to hiking and climbing. I stayed in Vevey, on Lake Geneva for a couple weeks. You might want to consder looping it into your plans. Very nice place for a romantic couple

This detour was opend up a couple months ago. You can go under the bridge now - it's on one of my commute loops home. There's one sharper turn now because of some construction fencing but you don't have to ride on the road. Some things in the work for the new Seattle Bicycle Master Plan: http://www.seattle.gov/Transportation/bikemaster.htm

Everyone is jumping on the "green wash" bandwagon. There's more money going into PR than actual efforts to DO something.

Branding the ELF "eco-terrorists" is a thought-out strategy. Same as branding the name "narco-terrorist" or the "war on terror". Rather than treating these elements for what they are, criminals, and using sophisticated investigative tools, invoking "terrorist" is just another way to keep the masses on edge and from looking behind the curtain. It gives false legitimatecy to a gang of thugs, and provides cover for spending oh so much more on "needed" tools to fight terror. How else can we explain Homeland Security (another great name) providing a $2 million grant to Oklahoma City for a couple of terrorist-proof armored vehicles? Look, there's universal disapproval of the ELF's actions except for a handful of wackos. But what those McMansions stood for - the "green washing" of the all too common suburban enclave is emblematic of American consumption. No need to make any changes in your lifestyle (to accommodate a war, global warming, etc). I know, we can use recycled materials, put a waterfall in the 4,500 sq ft house and call it sustainable development!

Agreed. I'm so tired of the fear mongering.

The Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. The former World Bank vice-president yesterday said the war had, so far, cost the US something like $US 3 trillion ($3.3 trillion) compared with the $US 50-$US 60 billion predicted in 2003. Professor Stiglitz told the Chatham House think tank in London that the Bush White House was currently estimating the cost of the war at about $US 500 billion, but that figure massively understated things such as the medical and welfare costs of US military servicemen. The war was now the second-most expensive in US history after World War II and the second-longest after Vietnam, he said. The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit. "The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system," he said. That led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom, and the fallout was plunging the US economy into recession and saddling the next US president with the biggest budget deficit in history, he said. Professor Stiglitz, an academic at the Columbia Business School and a former economic adviser to president Bill Clinton, said a further $US 500 billion was going to be spent on the fighting in the next two years and that could have been used more effectively to improve the security and quality of life of Americans and the rest of the world. Just a few days' funding would be enough to provide health insurance for US children who were not covered, he said. The public had been encouraged by the White House to ignore the costs of the war because of the belief that the war would somehow pay for itself or be paid for by Iraqi oil or US allies. "When the Bush administration went to war in Iraq it obviously didn't focus very much on the cost. Larry Lindsey, the chief economic adviser, said the cost was going to be between $US 100 billion and $US 200 billion - and for that slight moment of quasi-honesty he was fired. "(Then defence secretary Donald) Rumsfeld responded and said 'baloney', and the number the administration came up with was $US 50 to $US 60 billion. We have calculated that the cost was more like $US 3 trillion. "Three trillion is a very conservative number, the true costs are likely to be much larger than that." Five years after the war, the US was still spending about $US 50 billion every three months on direct military costs, he said. One of the greatest discrepancies is that the official figures do not include the long-term healthcare and social benefits for injured servicemen, who are surviving previously fatal attacks because of improved body armour. "The ratio of injuries to fatalities in a normal war is 2:1. In this war they admitted to 7:1 but a true number is (something) like 15:1." Some 100,000 servicemen have been diagnosed with serious psychological problems and the soldiers doing the most tours of duty have not yet returned. Professor Stiglitz attributed to the Iraq war $US 5-$US 10 of the almost $US 80-a-barrel increase in oil prices since the start of the war, adding that it would have been reasonable to attribute more than $US 35 of that rise to the war. He said the British bill for its role in the war was about 20 times the pound stg. 1billion ($2.1 billion) that former prime minister Tony Blair estimated before the war. The British Government was yesterday ordered to release details of its planning for the war, when the country's Information Commissioner backed a Freedom of Information request for the minutes of two cabinet meetings in the days before the war.

What are people so fearful of that they need a gun in a national park? Seems that Americans are getting more afraid of their own shadows these days. Learn to be aware of you surroundings, travel consciously, and get used to not being the top of the food chain. I've worked in grizzly country on several projects over the past 5 years and you just have to be aware. And a pistol will just likely ensure you'll get a bear pissed and you will get shredded. And is it possible to encounter Charles Manson at the trailhead? I guess. But it's more likely you'll die from a drunk on I405 and I wouldn't suggest arming your car with missles. It's really not so scary in the real world. Don't get suffocated by the long shadow of security. BTW I'm all for hunting, just not in National Parks. They were establisted for a different mission than Forest Service and BLM land; and there's plenty of that for hunting.

To some extent I agree. But if you could build small sustainable work forces that would be helping the forests and parks I'd go for that rather than the current plan which is continually pushing for resoure extraction.

Ya know, the one thing I never understood is why the politos, right or left, never pushed for more money to go to rural communities following the timber bust to give folks jobs in decommissioning old roads, fixing the rec roads that are used, doing trail work, fixing park facilities, etc. I mean those timber guys can work a variety of tools and machines like nobody's business, they're not afraid of hard work outside, would like to continue using their skills. And towns like Darrington and Forks could use some help, as could the parks and USFS lands.

This is more of the same - but if you're interested please send in a comment. Good summary here: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/408/index.html Will a Bush Administration effort open hundreds of thousands of acres of public land to private development? Signed by President Bill Clinton in 2001, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects nearly 60 million acres of the country's national forest lands from most road building, mining and logging. This was the culmanation of a 2 year public comment period, with over 1.5 million public comments received, the vast majority favoring retention of the Roadless classification. Roadless means you can still use these areas for recreation, including snowmobiles and ATVs. Now the Bushies, in their lame duck year, are trying to change the rules and allow State Govenors to apply for changes in designation on FEDERAL LANDS to open these to timber, oil, and gas interests. Over the last seven years, the Bush administration has tried to amend or repeal the landmark regulation to give states more flexibility. Idaho appears to be the first on the chopping block.