Jim

Wow! Impressive climb. I went to see Colin's show with a friend I was climbing with in Patagonia 15 yrs ago. We did some of the minor peaks in the area and thought that was pretty cool. Halfway thru Colin's show he leans over and says "Why didn't we do that when we were down there." We both started laughing because the answer was obvious - we've never had the skill or the gumption to climb something so hard and commiting as fast as this team. And kudos to Colin for patiently answering a few basic questions from the non-climbers in the crowd. And thanks to FF for hosting.

Sorry Peter. It doesn't. I assumed that this article on the web was the same as the one on page 3 of the Seattle Times this morning. It's not. I tried to find this piece but it's not posted on the Times website. But I specifically remember the reference. I'm more interested in if you think the upper incomes can dig this deep, as you're constantly promoting private sector solutions. Here's a UNICEF report to help bring things into persepective. http://www.unicef.org/brazil/repcard6e.pdf

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003589315_welfare26.html One of the more striking items in this article is that the U.S. is the 3rd worst, ahead of only Mexico and Russia, in poverty rates among developed countries. Given that we’re the richest country in the world, shouldn’t we be doing better? This of course will bring out the “government should do more – leave it to the marketplace” rivals. I read an interesting article in the NYT Sunday Magazine a month or so ago. The article took a look at what would be needed to ease poverty effects worldwide by having the rich donate to a fund. The target used was the Millennium Development Goals by the UN Millennium Summit which by 2015 listed: •Reduce by half the proportion of the world’s people extreme poverty (defined as living on $1/day) •Reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger. •Ensure that all children can attend primary school. •Reduce by two-thirds the mortality rate under age 5. •Reduce by three-quarters the rate of maternal mortality. •Halt and reduce the spread of AIDS and incidence of malaria and other major diseases. •Reduce by half the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water. Whew! Lofty goals. Estimated price tag by Jeffery Sacs = $121 billion in 2006 rising to $189 billion in 2015. Considering existing aid promises you only need $48 billion in 2006 rising to $74 billion in 2015. So how could we come up with needed money this? People should donate more. If only the top 10% of US tax payers donated you could raise $171 billion. Here’s the offered breakdown. Top 0.01% - donate a third of income. Left with minimum of $4.3M Top 0.1% - donate a one quarter of income – Left w/minimum of $846K Top 0.5% - donate one fifth of income – Left w/minimum of $325K Top 1%- donate 15% of income – Left w/minimum of $234K Top 10% - donate 10% of income – Left w/minimum of $83K 2004 Tax Data Income Minimal Income by group Top 0.01% - $5M, avg $12,7M Top 0.1% - $1.1M, avg $2M Top 0.5% - $407K, avg $632K Top 1%- $276, avg $327K Top 10% - $92K, avg $132K So – by asking folks in the top 10% of the US to donate, in a manner unlikely to impose significant hardship on anyone, yields a total of $404 billion. Without government intrusion. Likely to happen - I doubt it. Gotta have that lexus and McMansion. And before the bohemian accusations start to fly – I try to donate 10% of my household income annual. Mostly I can’t make that much, but it’s been at least 7% for 15 yrs now. I do some volunteer work to make up. I just though this was an interesting proposal and those interested in private sector solutions might take note.

It's not hard to manage better than the US auto industry.

I commend you on your self-restraint. You waited until the second page to start waving this flag. Again.

Your straw dog argument is tiresome. Of course there are jobs where unions are not essential and the move to a service sector has also contributed to the reduced need. But - areas where works are more vunerable, such as hotel, fatory workers, jaintors, the folks who actually work with their hands, unions are a good thing. Without collective bargining they would get screwed. And GM - as the rest of the US auto industry. If they would stop making shitty cars they might dig themselves outta that hole. And their largest liabilty is medical insurance. Even the big 3 have lobbied for some type of national health insurance because they see the competitive disadvantage they're stuck with. And as far as the shareholders holding CEOs responsible. Most board members are appointed thru the inner buddy-buddy system and then put up for "election". It has become a circle of back-patters. You do me good, and I'll do the same. If there were market forces at work those poductivity gains and huge profits would would be reflected in worker's pay. Instead, and as usual in the US "free market", the elites pocket the profits, while real income for workers has been on the decline since the '80s.

Union Reliance on a larger body - of course - it's called collective bargining. Ah, market forces at work..sort of. The researches found that executive pay levels had exploded in the past decade from 22 times average weekly earnings in 1992 to 74 times average weekly earnings today. And in the finance sector the figures are more perverse, CEOs earning 188 times the salary of customer-service staff. By analysing the performance of companies against three criteria - return on equity, share price change and change in earnings per share - the researchers found that excessive pay levels actually coincide with a worse bottom line. "If you look at the numbers, it is accurate to say the more you pay a CEO the worse the company performs and the less you pay the better it performs," researcher Dr John Shields, from Sydney University's School of Business says. Applying this analysis, the authors identified a performance-optimal range for executive remuneration of between 17 and 24 times average wage and salary earnings, beyond which the performance of a company begins to deteriorate. This means that any company paying its CEO more than $800,000 begins to be a bad bet. This research shows that executive pay is not just a moral issue; it is a shareholder issue and it is a job-security issue. For workers, it shows that an excessively paid CEO is likely to preside over a weaker company, meaning their jobs are less secure.

I'd qualify that and say some unions have become fat and lazy. Not all. In general what have unions accomplished? eight hour work day five day work week health insurance pensions paid sick time fair treatment for women, minorities, and the disabled higher wages overtime pay job safety paid holidays paid vacation family and medical leave Market forces are cold and calculating. The Friedman-lovers think tha somehow the marketplace will take care of all this. History proves otherwise.

U.S. Leads Richest Nations In Gun Deaths BY CHELSEA J. CARTER THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found. The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000. The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology. The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States. ``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.'' The National Rifle Association called the study shoddy because it failed to examine all causes of violent deaths. ``What this shows is the CDC is after guns. They aren't concerned with violence. It's pretending that no homicide exists unless it's related to guns,'' said Paul Blackman, a research coordinator for the NRA in Fairfax, Va. The 36 countries chosen were listed as the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, with the highest GNP per capita income. The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article. Japan, where very few people own guns, averages 124 gun-related attacks a year, and less than 1 percent end in death. Police often raid the homes of those suspected of having weapons. The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia. Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.

Several interesting articles about how well the present administration is taking care of our wounded. Shameful. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html

While free speech is protected it is not unregulated. The oft noted Oliver Wendal Homes quote regarding yelling fire in a crowded theater is but one example. Under the First Amendment, government has some power to regulate speech, but may not favor one viewpoint over another. If the free speech crosses into intimidation and harrassment, then there's a bunch of case law to back up prohibition of that. Go out to a street corner and yell slurs to minorities, Jews, or women and see how far you can stretch that. Your example of the public pool is a good one but it also applys to the school newspaper. If the paper had picked on all religious groups then it would have been in bad taste but not viewed as bigoted. And because the paper is using public money the public has a say in how it is used. If it can't stand up to the public criticism then the editors can pool their own money and start Paper X.

Expecting the resurgent Taliban to stage a spring offensive, the U.S. military is moving a brigade of troops into Afghanistan, instead of Iraq, Pentagon officials said Wednesday. About 3,200 soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade base in Vicenza, Italy, will go this spring to the porous eastern Afghan border with Pakistan. The soldiers will replace the already extended 3rd Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division. The 173rd already was training to deploy to Iraq, Pentagon officials said.

I'd say you're stretching this analogy a bit far. Let's take, for instance, the case where 3 Muslim clerics were on a flight (United?) and they prayed before getting on board. They passed all security measures in the airport and again at the gate. But passangers were "uncomfortable" with the way they looked, and some got quite vocal. The clerics were asked to leave the plane prior to take off. I'd say this was discrimination less related to their religion than that they were by culture and skin color lumped into the islamofacist category we've created. I do like your earlier point that most of the islamo-terrorists are second or thrid generation westerns, not breeding in the middle east. That puts an excamation point on our recent adventures over there.

This explains a lot

I like this religion: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/ And their explanation is just as plausible as the Christian thing.

I can relate. A few years ago I had some serious SI joint issues. It took going to 5 different PTs before I found someone who actually knew the biomechanics. It's amazing how the others just threw the usually PT stuff at me. Anyway - Olympic PT over on Mercer Is., in Kirkland, and in Green Lake area seem to have very good folks. The problem is that they are so good they are about a month out on scheduling!!! I know, I just made an appointment. These guys do some gentle spinal manipulation that got my joint back in place and then we worked on the stabilization aspect. Once in the correct position I went uphill fast. I was, still am, unable to find a chiropractor that can set this straight when it acts up. They just seem to want to do the standard leg over the side slam, bam thing. Hey Layto - know any good Chiros in Seattle for SI work? You're too far away, otherwise...

I've had a Nikon 5200 for a couple of years and it has taken some great photos for a little point and shoot. I think Nikon has already updated their line of Coolpix, so I'm less familar with what they now offer.

Likely because it is a bold public health move in the current atmosphere of religious scare-mongering.

Vaccinations are a requirement for attending public school unless you can show some religious reason not to be included. Seems that it's a simple public health issue. That's why our kids are no less or no more sexually active than other countries but we manage to top the charts in teen pregnancy and STDs - it's all that religious hand waving over teaching sex ed in schools. Dog forbid that we actually give them accurate information.

Actually no, it has no validity. It cracks me up when these discussion get going. Religion and science are two different spheres, they don't, or should not cross over. It you believe in the concept that the world is young that's fine. But it's faith. There is no scientific evidence to support it. A creationist once asked me "What if God created the earth with the appearance that it was old?" Now that would be a great parlor trick, but science is based on observation and deduction. I have no problem with religion and creationism, it's when the fanatics try and make the cross over and attempt to teach faith as science. The best one lately is the "Teach the Controversy about Evolution" Well get on the clue train - in Science there is no controversy. Just 'cause the bible thumpers say there is does not make it so. Keep faith where it belongs and out of the realm of science.

Congrats! And it is pub club night isn't it?

these guys are relentless in finding ways to cement control! NY Times Jan 29 WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy. In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities. This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats. The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. In an interview on Monday, Jeffrey A. Rosen, general counsel at the White House Office of Management and Budget, said, “This is a classic good-government measure that will make federal agencies more open and accountable.” Business groups welcomed the executive order, saying it had the potential to reduce what they saw as the burden of federal regulations. This burden is of great concern to many groups, including small businesses, that have given strong political and financial backing to Mr. Bush. Consumer, labor and environmental groups denounced the executive order, saying it gave too much control to the White House and would hinder agencies’ efforts to protect the public. Typically, agencies issue regulations under authority granted to them in laws enacted by Congress. In many cases, the statute does not say precisely what agencies should do, giving them considerable latitude in interpreting the law and developing regulations. The directive issued by Mr. Bush says that, in deciding whether to issue regulations, federal agencies must identify “the specific market failure” or problem that justifies government intervention. Besides placing political appointees in charge of rule making, Mr. Bush said agencies must give the White House an opportunity to review “any significant guidance documents” before they are issued. Peter L. Strauss, a professor at Columbia Law School, said the executive order “achieves a major increase in White House control over domestic government.” “Having lost control of Congress,” Mr. Strauss said, “the president is doing what he can to increase his control of the executive branch.” Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said: “The executive order allows the political staff at the White House to dictate decisions on health and safety issues, even if the government’s own impartial experts disagree. This is a terrible way to govern, but great news for special interests.” Business groups hailed the initiative. “This is the most serious attempt by any chief executive to get control over the regulatory process, which spews out thousands of regulations a year,” said William L. Kovacs, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce. “Because of the executive order, regulations will be less onerous and more reasonable. Federal officials will have to pay more attention to the costs imposed on business, state and local governments, and society.” Under the executive order, each federal agency must estimate “the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all its regulations” each year. Until now, agencies often tallied the costs and the benefits of major rules one by one, without measuring the cumulative effects. Gary D. Bass, executive director of O.M.B. Watch, a liberal-leaning consumer group that monitors the Office of Management and Budget, criticized Mr. Bush’s order, saying, “It will result in more delay and more White House control over the day-to-day work of federal agencies.” “By requiring agencies to show a ‘market failure,’ ” Dr. Bass said, “President Bush has created another hurdle for agencies to clear before they can issue rules protecting public health and safety.” Wesley P. Warren, program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who worked at the White House for seven years under President Bill Clinton, said, “The executive order is a backdoor attempt to prevent E.P.A. from being able to enforce environmental safeguards that keep cancer-causing chemicals and other pollutants out of the air and water.” Business groups have complained about the proliferation of guidance documents. David W. Beier, a senior vice president of Amgen, the biotechnology company, said Medicare officials had issued such documents “with little or no public input.” The White House told agencies that in writing guidance documents, they could not impose new legal obligations on anyone and could not use “mandatory language such as ‘shall,’ ‘must,’ ‘required’ or ‘requirement.’ ” The executive order was issued as White House aides were preparing for a battle over the nomination of Susan E. Dudley to be administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget. President Bush first nominated Ms. Dudley last August. The nomination died in the Senate, under a barrage of criticism from environmental and consumer groups, which said she had been hostile to government regulation. Mr. Bush nominated her again on Jan. 9. With Democrats in control, the Senate appears unlikely to confirm Ms. Dudley. But under the Constitution, the president could appoint her while the Senate is in recess, allowing her to serve through next year. Some of Ms. Dudley’s views are reflected in the executive order. In a primer on regulation written in 2005, while she was at the Mercatus Center of George Mason University in Northern Virginia, Ms. Dudley said that government regulation was generally not warranted “in the absence of a significant market failure.” She did not return calls seeking comment on Monday.

Amen. Given the demands on teachers these days if they light up once in a while who cares? I'm surprised more of them aren't main-lining. Loads of time, unreimbursed school supplies for kids, and ever increasing demands from administrators and parents make it one tough job. Given the pay rate if you start drug testing - good luck.

The axis of evil talk was another blunder. There was an opportunity for skillful diplomacy. What we have instead is ham-fisted stumbling from one self-created crisis to another.