Jim

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.

Not to be too stoopid but this is the place on Roosevelt in the U- correct?

Good thing we have a sound fiscal policy to pay for Iraq.

All that glitters....

Actually in the middle of planning 5 months off. Spreadsheets and logistics. Likely plan is one month in Bolivia then 6 wks in Chile/Argentina. Back home to check on the cat and house then load up the car and meet friends in New Mexico for a climb/hike/ski thru NM, CA, OR, WA.

BD Crossbows, though the Havocs seem a great choice as well.

FYI Subgroup Therapy "This rigorous, large-scale study showed that the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate1. a glycosaminoglycan that predominates in connective tissue, particularly cartilage, bone, and blood vessels, and in the cornea. 2. a preparation of chondroitin sulfate from bovine tracheal cartilage, administered orally for the treatment of osteoarthritis and joint pain. ..... Click the link for more information. appeared to help people with moderate to severe pain from knee osteoarthritis, but not those with mild pain," says Stephen Straus, director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. (NCCAM NCCAM - National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NIH) NCCAM - National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month helped organize and fund the GAIT trial.) How did he reach that conclusion? A quarter of the GAIT participants started the study with moderate to severe pain in their knees, pain that "generally worsens a person's quality of life," explains the study leader, Daniel Clegg of the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City. When the GAIT researchers looked only at those 354 people, they found that 79 percent reported at least some relief with the glucosamine-chondroitin combination, more than those taking Celebrex (69 percent) or the placebo (54 percent). "I think the finding in those with moderate to severe pain is important," says Clegg. "But it should be interpreted cautiously." Others aren't so cautious. "People who experience moderate to severe joint discomfort are the ones most in need of treatment," Jason Theodosakis told Business Week magazine in February. Theodosakis, who was a member of GAIT's oversight committee, is the author of The Arthritis Cure, a 1997 bestseller that introduced the public to glucosamine and chondroitin. "For this group, the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin resulted in significant pain and function improvement," he says. Boston University's David Felson is buying none of it. "If you mess around with data long enough, you'll find something," he says. But that doesn't mean the results are valid. "If you do 100 studies of a treatment that show no effect, in 90 of them you can find some subgroup where the treatment had an effect just by chance," he explains. To keep from being swayed by those chance (but tempting) findings, researchers try to look only at what the study was designed to look at. And the GAIT study wasn't designed to look separately at people with moderate to severe pain. "There's no data from previous studies that suggests that this particular subgroup would be more or less likely to respond to glucosamine or chondroitin," notes Felson. "The GAIT researchers pre-defined a primary outcome and seven secondary outcomes they would measure to see if the two supplements worked," he explains. Glucosamine and chondroitin had no impact on the primary outcome (at least a 20 percent decrease in pain) or any of the secondary outcomes (like reduced stiffness). "None of the outcomes targeted the subgroup of subjects suffering moderate to severe pain," he adds. Tempting Sulfate? Why did the GAIT study contradict some earlier studies? One possibility is that the glucosamine hydrochloride used in GAIT doesn't work as well as the glucosamine sulfate used in most earlier studies (and found in most supplements). GAIT's lead investigator explains why the study used glucosamine hydrochloride. "The National Institutes of Health required us to test glucosamine like a drug," says Daniel Clegg. "At the time, only glucosamine hydrochloride was manufactured to pharmaceutical specifications." But the GAIT researchers concluded that people could absorb glucosamine hydrochloride as well as they could absorb glucosamine sulfate. "We did solubility trials that indicated that glucosamine was readily available in either form," says Clegg. If the GAIT planners had thought the form would matter, they could have had glucosamine sulfate made just for the trial. That's what they did for chondroitin, because "there were no commercial chondroitin products available that were manufactured to drug standards," explains Clegg. Boston University's David Felson has another explanation for why glucosamine and chondroitin seemed to work in some earlier studies but flopped in the GAIT trial. "Meta-analyses have shown that industry sponsorship of drug trials produces biased results," he says. Indeed, most of the earlier trials were underwritten by supplement manufacturers. In contrast, "all of the four publicly funded studies have found no effect." It's not necessarily that industry-funded researchers are fabricating results, but that publicly funded trials are larger and more careful to ensure that when something works, it's not due to chance. Where does that leave arthritis sufferers? "Because of the small size of the GAIT's moderate-to-severe-pain subgroup," says Clegg, the findings "need to be confirmed in a study designed for that purpose." While Felson doesn't advise his patients to stop taking the supplements, he thinks that further studies would be a waste. "If my patients think glucosamine and chondroitin are helping them, who am I to tell them to stop?" he asks. "It doesn't cause any harm and it's not that expensive. But I think there's convincing evidence now that this is not an effective therapy for osteoarthritis and that no further research needs to be done. "We have many other investments we need to make in arthritis research, especially treatment, since there are few effective treatments." The Bottom Line * Glucosamine alone and chondroitin alone don't relieve pain from osteoarthritis of the knees any better than a placebo. * The combination of glucosamine and chondroitin doesn't help people with mild arthritis pain. * Glucosamine plus chondroitin seems to help people with moderate to severe arthritis pain, but those results may have been due to chance. * There's no evidence that taking glucosamine and/or chondroitin is harmful.

I know one commercial bee operator and let me tell you, they are very worried. They can't sustain losses of 75% of their hives more than a couple years. They will go out of business. Commercial scale agriculture would be impossible without them. There's a few places in China where honeybees were depleted because of industrial pollution and the fruit growers acutually pollenate BY HAND. Now that would be fun to do to 300 arces of vegetables. Maybe they will figure out the issue soon enough.