Jim

I took a look at their web site and it looks to me as they are interested in quite a bit more than just genetics (?). They have a decent grants program, seem to be involved in a wide campaign for ANWR, LEED certify new buildings, encourage recycling, etc. Really not bad and much better than most corporations. I'll give them points for making a good attempt. And generally I've found their gear functional and long-lasting. I still have thier first article of clothing, that odd pile jacket that shed water but couldn't be stuffed into a small ball. I use it for odds and ends despite the grease stains from rebuilding that '69 VW bus engine.

But the most efficient providers of medical care in this country ARE run by the government - Medicare and the Veterans Administration. Ok, we're smart here, we have money. Why can't we look at the way other countries run their programs and take the best ideas of those and put together our own? No way it would cost more than what we have to pay now with each insurance company's profit, advertising, and redundancy. And you have to love those doctor's working for the insurance companies who are paid bonuses to keep the "tails" of the bell curve out of the system by delaying and refusing to provide needed care. That and 47 million uninsured. We can't do better than that?

You're probably right about the election. Personally I don't get it. Why are we ok having multiple insurance companies fleece us, have 47 million w/o any health care, and not use the collective bargining power of the US just as Medicare does or the Veterans Administration does for more cost effective health care? Excelent PR by the insurance companies backed up by politicians who are in their back pocket. http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

Likely in Tacoma

The first point is true - but they don't show data on two income earners, which is the more likely scenario in the US. I don't see the second point - looks to me that at 167% the rates are pretty close. The story line that the politicians are feeding you just don't add up. Go and travel a bit. Talk to people. From what I've seen in Ireland, Italy, France, UK, and Greece, people are quite satisfied with the health system and quite happy with the taxes they pay because they see the return on their investment. Here we're paying for the insurance company profits and redundancy of 100 insurance companies and their forms.

I saw Craig speak at a small meeting of biologists in DC about 1988. Very articulate guy, very conservative views. Really a bit tragic, but I'm less sympathetic with the hypocritical ones.

Not sure what your point is but is average income a better phrase. And the spreadsheet I linked to had a good breakdown of income compared to the average. Fair to say that the income taxes are a bit higher in the EU but then they don't have to worry about health care. And no one is left in the gutter or dropped off in front of a homeless shelter because they don't have medical insurance.

health Peter - that's what I get for cutting and pasting. Let's look at 2006 - and UK vs US UK actually pays a bit more taxes than US, but not much. For .67, 100, 137, and 167% of income avg UK pays: 28%, 32%, 33%, 35% US pays 27%, 27%, 32%, and 35% So actually, there is less of a difference in the upper income taxes and a maximum difference of 5%. For free health care? I'll take those numbers anytime. I know, I know, they have to live without really good cruise missles.

In general I got the impression that they are glad the economy is moving along better, but a bit winsome for the older days when things were at a slower pace. Other than Dublin, Galway, and some of the other larger cities it's still a very rural country. Dublin real estate has gotten very expensive, comparable to NYC. Overall I'd say the people I spent time with admire the US and its people, hate the foreign policy of date, and would never want to trade their position for ours. Particularly regarding health care. The ones I spoke to feel strongly that their health care system works well and they are taxed fairly. It seemed to me they lived good lifes, drove decent cars, had nice houses - all a bit smaller in scale to the US and that was just fine. Money seems less of an issue in their lives.

Don't know where you're getting your information but here is a good comparison of average tax rates. An extensive spreadsheet table comparing income tax "wedges" (as theyare called by the OECD) from member countries can be found here: http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,2546,en_2649_201185_1942475_1_1_1_1,00.html in a title repeated no less than three times on the same page: "Average personal income tax and social security contribution rates on gross labour income". The detailed breakdowns (federal tax, local taxes, social security)can be seen in the table itself. The "bottom line" figures for the countries you are interested in are: UK The total tax wedge is 29.7% for the average wage earner ("average" wage is found in the 100% column -- tax wedges for lower and higher wage earners are found in the adjacent columns) Denmark The total tax wedge is 44.2% for the average wage earner (*ouch* -- but they do have GREAT social benefits in Denmark). Germany The total tax wedge is 50.7% for the average wage earner (double *ouch*) France The total tax wedge is 48.3% for the average wage earner US The total tax wedge is 30.0% for the average wage earner In talking to folks over there I'd say they pay a bit more taxes with VAT but the income tax is comparable. And there is no worry about going broke because of medical bills

[quote=JayB Having said all of that, and despite loathing Boston with a pathological intensity, I have to say that if someone put a gun to my head and forced me to live the rest of my life East of the Rockies, I'd probably choose New England - but I'd be in New Hampshire, Maine, or Vermont, or the Adirondacks instead. I grew up on the east coast and New England is a great place. If I couldn't live out west it would be the place to be. The scale of the landscapes are a bit smaller but there are some great climbing (rock and ice) and some really wonderful rivers. Came very close to taking a biologist position with NY state in New Paltz 20 yrs ago. Probably would never have learn the tele-turn if that happened. But would have been pulling over some great overhangs!

Gotta say however, after visiting some relatives in England this summer, we're getting hosed over here regarding health care. I brought up the subject numerous times with relatives, neighbors, and their friends. No one had a bad story. They were appalled about hearing the costs involved in care over here and that there are so many folks without coverage. Even went to the clinc and pharmacy with my cousin. She's 65 and on several medications for diabetes. No charge for the checkup, about $10 charge for a months worth of insulin that included her insulin meter pipettes. Neighbors had a baby, no charge; friend had heart surgey, no charge; broken ankle, no charge. I didn't see MM's "Sicko" until I got back. Man we are being swindled big time by the insurance companies. Duh - why do you think we're the only industrial country not to have a universal system. Sad to say it will not come from Hillary - take a look at her donar list these days. My Irish citizenship papers are in the works (will have dual) and as part of the EU that keeps options open.

"The modern mountineer carries his courage in his rucksack." Reinhold Messner

So rather than offering them tea and crumpets you....

Actually, the Bible thumpers DO actually read the Bible. A lot. At least be accurate on what you criticize them for. yea. They just forget all the good parts.

Too funny. The offering of daughters to the crowd is one of the many passages not brought up by the Bible thumpers too often. Likely many of them haven't actually read the good book.

A Sobering Census Report: Americans' Meager Income Gains The New York Times | Editorial Wednesday 29 August 2007 The economic party is winding down and most working Americans never even got near the punch bowl. The Census Bureau reported yesterday that median household income rose 0.7 percent last year - it's second annual increase in a row- to $48,201. The share of households living in poverty fell to 12.3 percent from 12.6 percent in 2005. This seems like welcome news, but a deeper look at the belated improvement in these numbers - more than five years after the end of the last recession - underscores how the gains from economic growth have failed to benefit most of the population. The median household income last year was still about $1,000 less than in 2000, before the onset of the last recession. In 2006, 36.5 million Americans were living in poverty - 5 million more than six years before, when the poverty rate fell to 11.3 percent. And what is perhaps most disturbing is that it appears this is as good as it's going to get. Sputtering under the weight of the credit crisis and the associated drop in the housing market, the economic expansion that started in 2001 looks like it might enter history books with the dubious distinction of being the only sustained expansion on record in which the incomes of typical American households never reached the peak of the previous cycle. It seems that ordinary working families are going to have to wait - at the very minimum - until the next cycle to make up the losses they suffered in this one. There's no guarantee they will. The gains against poverty last year were remarkably narrow. The poverty rate declined among the elderly, but it remained unchanged for people under 65. Analyzed by race, only Hispanics saw poverty decline on average while other groups experienced no gains. The fortunes of middle-class, working Americans also appear less upbeat on closer consideration of the data. Indeed, earnings of men and women working full time actually fell more than 1 percent last year. This suggests that when household incomes rose, it was because more members of the household went to work, not because anybody got a bigger paycheck. The median income of working-age households, those headed by somebody younger than 65, remained more than 2 percent lower than in 2001, the year of the recession. Over all, the new data on incomes and poverty mesh consistently with the pattern of the last five years, in which the spoils of the nation's economic growth have flowed almost exclusively to the wealthy and the extremely wealthy, leaving little for everybody else. Standard measures of inequality did not increase last year, according to the new census data. But over a longer period, the trend becomes crystal clear: the only group for which earnings in 2006 exceeded those of 2000 were the households in the top five percent of the earnings distribution. For everybody else, they were lower. This stilted distribution of rewards underscores how economic growth alone has been insufficient to provide better living standards for most American families. What are needed are policies to help spread benefits broadly - be it more progressive taxation, or policies to strengthen public education and increase access to affordable health care. Unfortunately, these policies are unlikely to come from the current White House. This administration prefers tax cuts for the lucky ones in the top five percent.

No problem there. I'd like to see some type of carbon tax. But you know the bankers and real estate lobby will be crawling all over this one pretty fast. Sustainability is a great catch phrase these days, often seen on bumper stickers of folks driving to the suburbs on their 20 mile commute.

I forgot. We tried that already.

Strategy solution: Turn over security to Michael Vick and friends.

Keep an eye on the media onslaught that is just beginning by the Bushies. After years of "...comparisions to Vietnam are inappropriate" we now have the shrub telling us we can't let this turn into an Vietnam scenario by cutting and running. This drumbeat will continue through another high profile 9/11 expoitation and come to a crecendo the day before General Petraeus will testify before Congress. The White House has already relieved the General from the responsibility of writing his progress report - they will do it for him thank you. I'm sure there will be a logical discussion regarding the benchmarks set for the surge - Ha! The strategy will be to fill the cup to overflowing with vague references to progress in Baghdad and Anbar Provience. Our primary stated goal of the surge was to give some breathing room for political solidification. Well that's gone as well as most of our plans. Half the cabinet has bolted and the other half is boycotting meetings. Wonderful. Our goals were strategic not tactical. Guess which will be emphasized in the report. We will not be able to keep the current presence of troops without doing something like extending rotations to 18 months. That will be pleasant for the troops. And in Anbar the glue that holds the Sunni/Tribal coalition together is money, lots of it. When that faucet is turned off, eventually, the usual sectarian squabbling will start in earnest. We are stuck in one tight box. There is no good ending, just a choice of lesser evils. When we pulled out of Vietnam we created a decade of hardship for our allies in the area, but our ham-fisted middle east strategy is going to cause us grief for a long time.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nightmarish political realities in Baghdad are prompting American officials to curb their vision for democracy in Iraq. Instead, the officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security. A workable democratic and sovereign government in Iraq was one of the Bush administration's stated goals of the war. But for the first time, exasperated front-line U.S. generals talk openly of non-democratic governmental alternatives, and while the two top U.S. officials in Iraq still talk about preserving the country's nascent democratic institutions, they say their ambitions aren't as "lofty" as they once had been. "Democratic institutions are not necessarily the way ahead in the long-term future," said Brig. Gen. John "Mick" Bednarek, part of Task Force Lightning in Diyala province, one of the war's major battlegrounds

I'll be in Tahoe for work early September and my original plans haven't worked out. I have some time Septebmer 7-11 and would like to get on some alpine rock classics, or some good cragging, or some good scrambles. Me, 51 yr old, probably will do best at 7-9s or below at altitude. Have to be back near Reno evening of the 11th.

15 yrs ago I spent some time with the late Charlie Porter while climbing in Patagonia. After learning we were from WA he went on to talk about getting weathered off some peak, hiking in the rain, soaked, tired, and bonking they drove to Marblemount to find a place to crash and in the middle of the night paid for one those small cabins. Stumbling to the door in the early morning he yelped when finding 50-something bunnies surrounding his threshold. He and his partner thus named the place.

Bunny Death Bivouac