Jim

It's a great example of (current) Republican policies. Reduce taxes while going to an unneeded war, reduce oversight on finacial instutions, allow carte blanche in packaging and repackaging dubious mortgages as investment vehicles, and don't invest in long-term growth. Excellent. Great. Highest inflation in 20 years, housing starts have plummetted, foreclousures are going to balloon, huge federal debt, the only folks that have made out well are the CEOs and the Wall Street derivitive marketers, while the normal working folks are just beginning to see the reckoning. And we have 11 months more of these idiots. It will be good to get some adult supervison back in control of things. But it will be like cleaning up after the mother-of-all frat parties.

Here's a comprehensive article in the NYT magazine from a couple weeks ago that should make anyone unconfortable with the touch screen Diebolds. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html While no system is perfect it seems that the pencil-in ballots with scanners is the most accurate, and provides a paper back-up. Some of the stats on the Diebolds are alarming; switching of votes, up to 13% errors in actual elections, lost memory cards. From this article I get the sense that the problem with these machines is less that they are prone to hacking (which they are) but that they don't work well and there is no orginal paper trail to verify that the electronic data are correct. Most of the problem counties in OH and FL have gone back to pencil-scan ballots. PA, because of a bizzare state law, is still going with Diebold. Could be interesting especially for close state elections.

"You don’t have to be a fantastic hero to do certain things – to compete. You can be just an ordinary chap, sufficiently motivated.” ------Sir Edmund Hillary

You're correct on the historial aspect. But yes, I think the concentration of wealth today is analogous to the Gilded Age with similar influences on the political system. One example - debates used to be run by the League of Women Voters - now run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is run by the former heads of the Democratic NP and the Republican NP, with very strong corporate, chamber of commerce ties. What difference does this make? They set the criteria for being able to get into the national debates, and make it very hard for Third Party candidates to get in. Combined with the two-party lock on how to become eligible for a national election in the states and even moneied thrid party candidates can't get in. It could be worse I suppose, but it could be a heck of a lot better. And the general public bears some responsibility for swallowing anthing that's thrown their way.

I think the political coverage is actually getting worse. Even NPR and PBS seem gripped by the horse race aspect or the latest "who-gives-a-rats-ass" fact, like the weepy Clinton story, instead of issues, needs, and analysis. As far as the general media - there is no liberal media in the US. And KK is correct about a controlling political machine. Both come down to money these days. Our political system is broken. Without sidling up to corporations with deep pockets you don't have a chance in getting your voice heard. Many folks say the internet is our salvation for new stories, but there is little, if any investigative reporting done by web sources. This is still done by large print organizations. The web is good for rehashing, opinion, and naval fuzz contemplation.

$5k per spouse if 50 or over in 2007. Goes to $6k in 2008.

No, no silly. It's to express their (collective) individualism. Passed a fat chick with the died black hair thing on a fixey the other day. She had a tattoo on the back of each ankle - an exploding firecracker on each, on the left it said "Cherry" on the right it said "Bomb". Oh, please.

Know what you mean. "That 17-55 is a chunk of cash, and I have to computer upgrade soon. Someone PMed and suggested the Nikon 18-35 as a decent lens for around $500, about a third of the 17-35/2.8 - similar to your Tamron. I've just found for climbing/skiing that that range is optimal and managable.

Transisitioning from film to digital, slowly. Looking for a good wide angle - normal zoom for a D80. Candidates: Nikon 17-55/2.8 fast, big, expensive Nikon 17-35/2.8 AF film lens, expensive, hardy Tokina ATX pro 16-50/2.8 good quality, moderate price Tamron 17-50/2.8 same as above Nikon 18-70/3.5 light, moderate price, moderate performance Bother with having to get a 2.8 if it's all outdoor photography? Invest in the better quality for the long run? Any experience or advice. Thanks.

Brit lost custody of the kids before losing the baby fat, maybe PH will lose custody before they're born.

Seems like the US has a strong propensity for remembering what we want to (Beat the Nazis!! which was good) and forgetting events that would be informative in making further foreign policy blunders. Helped put Saddamn in power - forgot! Ousted him - remember! Lied about going to war in Vietnam - forgot! Lied about going to war in Iraq - not even on the radar! Instituted coup in Chile, democratically elected president asassinated - way forgot! Starting the Spanish American War to increase our Empire, stomping on the Native Americans - good reasons were put forth for these events at the time, and the enemy vilified. 100 or 200 years later there is some perspective, but the same fear tactics are used now to justify. While we probably can't approach the numbers of the gulag, Mao's re-education programs, or the Nazi's brutal efficiencies, from a historcal context the US is not a moral leader. We talk the talk but have a consistent history of supporting brutal regimes, having the CIA muck around in the politics of other countries, war, and pillage all in the name of "National Interest". Intersting phrase that one - usually synonymous with some corporate interest. Gore Vidal has an interesting term - the U.S. of Amnesia. Reflecting our inability to remember even recent events against the politicos and media talking points.

Thank you. Amen. Merry Christmas.

Got news for you. If it's not published in a peer reviewed journal - it's not science. Anyone can post something on the web or get something in some general interest publication that does not have any peer-review process. Publish anything you want in People magazine, just don't try and claim it's science. You're looking foolish. Ummm... that's really not true at all. It could be science, it's just not yet been put to test by other objective critics. Could be???? I guess a story on Brittney Spears could be science too, just hasn't been submitted to the Journal Nature. And it it hasn't been vetted, why try and drag some piece of literature from a Creationist website into a (supposedly) argument regarding the most scrutinized scientific theory.

Got news for you. If it's not published in a peer reviewed journal - it's not science. Anyone can post something on the web or get something in some general interest publication that does not have any peer-review process. Publish anything you want in People magazine, just don't try and claim it's science. You're looking foolish.

Yikes! I think I'll be riding chairs or skate-skiing this weekend.

Your correct on the first count. That's because one is religion and one is science. Faith is what it is, it does not require any backup - and that's fine for those who choose to adhere to their beliefs. But science and religion don't, and should not, mix. And if you're pinning the foundations of evolution on a high school science course, well I would agree that your school did not teach it well - or maybe you were as open minded as you are now. Evolution is not just some trival side show in biology. It is the foundation of ecology, biology, many components of medicine and genetics, animal husbandry, (except in Enumclaw), crop science, etc. No scientist would say that belief in evolution negates belief in God. But the Christian right, for whatever reason, believes that faith in God eliminates adhernce to a scientific theory that has withstood scruinity for 150 years. I'd sugget two books to read: "The Panda's Thumb" and "Letter to a Christian Nation" evolution is not the foundation of science. It a fricking theory. Science can stand on it own with out the theories of evolution. You understanding of science is outpaced only by your reading comprehension. Try and read it again s-l-o-w-l-y. And your perceptions of what is a theory are ignorant. "In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution." - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981 Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

I noticed you forgot to cite the Creation Institute on this one (http://www.icr.org/article/2033/61/). Mary Schweitzer found some T. rex bones with dried blood cells in them in 1990. This was surprising because the blood should have completely disintegrated if the bones were really 65 million years old. She published her findings in the June 1996 issue of Earth, a now-defunct science magazine written for the general public. It was not a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal. The article was reviewed in the September-November 1997 issue of Creation Ex Nihilo, a creationist magazine published by Answers in Genesis. Mary Schweitzer was from Montana State University Northern, and had been figuratively tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail for publishing her discovery in the popular press. (Mary is now at North Carolina State University.)

Your correct on the first count. That's because one is religion and one is science. Faith is what it is, it does not require any backup - and that's fine for those who choose to adhere to their beliefs. But science and religion don't, and should not, mix. And if you're pinning the foundations of evolution on a high school science course, well I would agree that your school did not teach it well - or maybe you were as open minded as you are now. Evolution is not just some trival side show in biology. It is the foundation of ecology, biology, many components of medicine and genetics, animal husbandry, (except in Enumclaw), crop science, etc. No scientist would say that belief in evolution negates belief in God. But the Christian right, for whatever reason, believes that faith in God eliminates adhernce to a scientific theory that has withstood scruinity for 150 years. I'd sugget two books to read: "The Panda's Thumb" and "Letter to a Christian Nation"

It must be God's will.

Correct, they did float that hedge fund income idea, again shot down by the GOP. These guys just want to increase spending without paying for it. Without a strong, 60 vote majority by the Dems, and/or a Dem president, this is the way it's going to be. One more f****** year with this idiot.

OK - so Congress adjusted the AMT so the middle class (whatever that is) doesn't get snared. It needed adjusting. But WTF is up with the GOP? So you punch a 50 million hole in the revenue side, wouldn't it be smart to make an offset? Duh!!! The Dems suggested closing the oil company tax loophole that provided Exxon with tax reductions to spur exploration. Like they need any more motive with the current oil price and their record profits the last 5 yrs? No - the GOP threatened fillabuster and Bushie said he would veto it. This is fiscal responsibility. Interesting that Bush allowed the Republican Congress to increase domestic spending 7-9% a year ($200 Billion this year for war is off the books - go figure) and now, suddenly (what legacy?) he wants to sqeeze the quarter. The guy is an idiot.

Best advice is pick up this book: The Tortise Trust Guide to Tortoises and Turtles - Andy Highfield. Available thru Amazon. Tortoises, in the wild, get most of their water through succulants and thru metabolic water - basically very efficient users. Toys not necessary - their not the smartest critters in the world. I used to keep a few and with a heavy water bowl. Never saw them drink from it but once. The would occassionally sit in it. Feed regulary, mix leafy stuff and veggies with commercial dry food. Remove uneaten food to keep out the fruit flies. These little guys live a long time but are easy to care for. good luck.

I have good lights and flashers but I think I'm going to die of hypothermia this week. Brrrrr.

Kendal ridge across from the Summit on 90 is a short tour. You can yo-yo the clearcut and tour to the upper basin through the trees. The trail to Windy Pass from Hyak is pretty straight-forward and you can do the clearcut above Ollalie Meadows. You could venture into the lower bowl of Siver Peak but I would stay away from the upper slopes. Likely high avy conditions so choose your slopes wisely.