Jim

uh-huh Summer of Our Discontent By Paul Krugman The New York Times Friday 26 August 2005 For the last few months there has been a running debate about the US economy, more or less like this: American families: "We're not doing very well." Washington officials: "You're wrong - you're doing great. Here, look at these statistics!" The administration and some political commentators seem genuinely puzzled by polls showing that Americans are unhappy about the economy. After all, they point out, numbers like the growth rate of GDP look pretty good. So why aren't people cheering? Some blame the negative halo effect of the Iraq debacle. Others complain that the news media aren't properly reporting good economic news. But when your numbers tell you that people should be feeling good, but they aren't, that means you're looking at the wrong numbers. American families don't care about GDP They care about whether jobs are available, how much those jobs pay and how that pay compares with the cost of living. And recent GDP growth has failed to produce exceptional gains in employment, while wages for most workers haven't kept up with inflation. About employment: it's true that the economy finally started adding jobs two years ago. But although many people say "four million jobs in the last two years" reverently, as if it were an amazing achievement, it's actually a rise of about 3 percent, not much faster than the growth of the working-age population over the same period. And recent job growth would have been considered subpar in the past: employment grew more slowly during the best two years of the Bush administration than in any two years during the Clinton administration. It's also true that the unemployment rate looks fairly low by historical standards. But other measures of the job situation, like the average of weekly hours worked (which remains low), and the average duration of unemployment (which remains high), suggest that the demand for labor is still weak compared with the supply. Employers certainly aren't having trouble finding workers. When Wal-Mart announced that it was hiring at a new store in Northern California, where the unemployment rate is close to the national average, about 11,000 people showed up to apply for 400 jobs. Because employers don't have to raise wages to get workers, wages are lagging behind the cost of living. According to Labor Department statistics, the purchasing power of an average non-supervisory worker's wage has fallen about 1.5 percent since the summer of 2003. And this may understate the pressure on many families: the cost of living has risen sharply for those whose work or family situation requires buying a lot of gasoline. Some commentators dismiss concerns about gasoline prices, because those prices are still below previous peaks when you adjust for inflation. But that misses the point: Americans bought cars and made decisions about where to live when gas was $1.50 or less per gallon, and now suddenly find themselves paying $2.60 or more. That's a rude shock, which I estimate raises the typical family's expenses by more than $900 a year. You may ask where economic growth is going, if it isn't showing up in wages. That's easy to answer: it's going to corporate profits, to rising health care costs and to a surge in the salaries and other compensation of executives. (Forbes reports that the combined compensation of the chief executives of America's 500 largest companies rose 54 percent last year.) The bottom line, then, is that most Americans have good reason to feel unhappy about the economy, whatever Washington's favorite statistics may say. This is an economic expansion that hasn't trickled down; many people are worse off than they were a year ago. And it will take more than a revamped administration sales pitch to make people feel better.

The article is a very good description of the levee situation - I found it interesting - maybe you can educate youself instead of trying to deflect the criticism of the feds. I'm surprised you're actually getting hot under the collar about this and not just posting a link. But I digress. Yea - I think that lots could have been done, but where the heck do you suppose the major would have ordered thoses busses (we'll take up the insignificant tangent. Broad disaster planning, particularly in floodprone areas is the responsiblity of FEMA (in coor with local jurisdicitons) Jurisdictions like these just don't have the money and resources to mobilize. And with infrastructure that's important from a national scale - ports, oil refinery, chemical industry, etc. they should be taking the lead. Sure - the buses should have been moved, along with all the people that got stuck - but large scale planning such as this needs to be led by the state and feds. And in this case the feds have dropped the ball on planning and rescue implementation.

Here's an interesting series of articles done by the New Orleans Times-Picayune on the vunerability of the levee system. Interesting reading about the system - physical and political. http://www.nola.com/hurricane/?/washingaway/

Besides the recent budget cuts the Bushies put a political hack in charge of FEMA - one with no such experience. Check out his statements vs what was going on. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/02/katrina.response/index.html PP - I don't see the mayor of New Oreleans is to blame. They have been hammering on the feds for a decade to 1) improve the levees, 2) protect the pumping system, and 3) solidify the disaster plan. It is a federal levee system ya know. Certainly this spans more than one administration - but the recent budget slashing for anything except Iraq is coming back to haunt us. It is a natural disaster, but human decisions have certainly made things worse than they had to be.

Isnt that mostly just downtown seattle? Seems like the hills most stuff north of the the montlake cut would be fine. Of course the waterfront will liquify. I wonder if anyone has done some work predicting what magnitude a quake would set that off? Correct - that would be the bigget problem - the fill zone from the stadiuums to the market. Not that the rest of the city and residental areas wouldn't sustain damage but the isolation would be nothing like what were seeing down south.

(CNN) -- The director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency said Thursday those New Orleans residents who chose not to heed warnings to evacuate before Hurricane Katrina bear some responsibility for their fates. Yea - especially the 45% of the city that lives below the poverty line, has limited resources and no car. Excellent point!

I think better than what is going on now - it is such a unique situation. At least with an earthquake you probably will have some remnant infrastructure and you could get around a bit. This - inundation of a city of 500k, no phone, water, sewer is grim. There is a good interview with the Major of New Orleans on CNN - sounds like the ball was dropped on a number of occassions that made things worse than they had to be. Wish we had a leader in the White House.

I think Peter hit on a major problem - land use planning. I mean are floating casinos a good idea in a hurricane prone area with a relief of 1 inch over 2 miles? And the scenario of the the New Orleans dikes breaking has be pondered by a number of government agencies and disaster NGOs over the past 20 years - but no coherent plan seems to have materialized. I think this also is a sobering point indicating how stretched our resources are right now. National Guard units had to be called from the mid-west and west because - guess where a lot of them are now. The financial burden of this disaster is going to be more than a blip - the scope of how much so many people lost is staggering, and the cost of getting New Orleans back on its feet will be significant. Our treasury, military, and National Guard are spread a mile wide and an inch deep. I'm not sure what this administration's policy is except cut taxes, fork out to the business interests, and cut worthwhile dometing spending. Before I diverge too much - did anyone see Bush's interview with Diane Swayer yesterday? She is a fluff ball but made Bush look like an idiot trying to answer the common question of why is relief taking so long? He smirked and chuckled - gosh darn it - help is on the way, "I fully understand..." One of his favorite openings. No, I don't think you do.

Likely not news to you, but interesting. A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken. After a flood killed six people in 1995, Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, in which the Corps of Engineers strengthened and renovated levees and pumping stations. In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut the Corps of Engineers' request for holding back the waters of New Orleans' Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the Corps to impose a hiring freeze. The Senate had debated adding funds for fixing New Orleans levees, but it was too late. http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/08/31/disaster_preparation/index_np.html I remember seeing some Army Corps reports of the possible post-hurricane events back in 1981. Nothing like preventive maintenance. Destroying the coastal wetlands that act as a buffer, and global warming (maybe) contributed to the +4 degree increase in Gulf that allowed a Category 1 to strengthen to a Category 5 in 72 hours. Global warming models have predicted such increases in storm strength. Sobering for low lying areas.

Non- issue - dark-skinned people - it's Africa - harder to get the traffic copter cam over there

Exactly. E. heracleoides: in whorls; usually less than 1 cm wide, at least 3 times as long as broad; linear to linear- lanceolate, not cordate or truncate at the base; greyish-lanate on both surfaces (sometimes only sparsely tomentose and much less greyish above. First hint - leaves are not in whorls. And he said is smelt like a mint. Also looks like opposite leaves w/square stem. HMmmm. Maybe. Open to other suggestions.

Personally - I would be driven crazy have to work on computers and work indoors all the time. That said - where is that IT person so I can get this stats program working again?

Because they're stuck in cubicle land for the rest of their lives they're driven to wall climing - literally.

Bzzzzzzzzzzz. Wrong. No way is this an Eriogonum. It is looks like a Monardella, which is a mint. Need to have it in hand to key it out.

Ignore the nit-pickers. Let them do it then tell you it should be down-graded. If I run into you at pubclub I'm buyin'. A bold trip. Extra points for the imigination to brew it up and more so to implement. My vote for best TR in a long time.

Likely a great horned owl. They can be nasty. You do not want one of these guys to sink their talons into the back of your neck.

Climb: Vesper Peak-North Face Date of Climb: 8/29/2005 Trip Report: We debated about the forecast and opted for a one day climb of Vesper rather than our 2 day outing somewhere else. I recently saw the discussion about the 3rd class ledge short-cut to avoid the glacier, which looked like it would've been a problem anyway. Big moat and lots of crunching and cracking going on. So it was a scramble along the ledge until we got to some solid rock. Then two traverses along small rock ledges. Then the fun part. I think we were maybe over a bit too much to the right as I led two pitches of 5.3-5.5; one with one piece of protection the other with two. We angled over towards the left on the next pitch via slab and sramble ledges. The last long pitch was more relax ing with a series of cracks to take some pro. All in all an enjoyable day out. From the car it was about 2.5 hours to the notch, 30 min scramble, 3 hr climbing (party of 3 in no rush) and 2 hr back to the car. We saw one campsite at the lake, passed a couple of folks on the way up, and heard some folks on the summit while we climbed but no one was in sight when we topped out. And there is a bumper crop of blueberrys to be had. Very different place now then for the usual spring ski. Nice to see the place in different seasons. Gear Notes: 50m rope (60 would be better) small rack to 2 in

I've a few friends that work in the Park Service in D.C. These guys, who are looking out for public lands, are under siege right now. Starved budgets, privitation fatatics in political positions, and an open door policy for the motorized vecicle crowd. It's sad.

And in THIS instance, the guy neither made a mistake (unless you consider soloing 4th class a "mistake", I don't), nor did he turn it into a big media adventure story (he ain't gettin' rich from that summitpost trip report). Points for reading comprehension. The 15 minutes of fame thing is a bit odd in our culture. A relative gave me the Ralson book and I did read it. Seems like it was an endless tale of reckless and poorly planned trips that became "adventures". Though the he did keep his head about him once his arm got stuck. Was it Nanson who said "If it turns out to be an adventure it wasn't planned well". Upon return to his ship from the south pole Admunsen basically said things went as planned, it was a little cold, but no big deal. And then there is Scott. If he survived which one would have a book deal? Or an internet site?

Single speed can be fun for the commute but for a MB doesn't seem practical unless it's mildly rolly and w/o much steep elevation gain. Granted I'm no expert but the rides I go on are mostly a lot of grinding uphill (5,000+ ft) and then traversing and downhill. With a single speed on these trails you would be pounded into pudding on 15 mi uphills or not able to keep up on the fast, big ring, traverses and downhills. No single speed would serve well on both.

Ironically, Jack Lambert was probably one Steeler less likely to have been using steroids at that time. His playing weight was only 220 pounds. Furthermore, I have met him a couple times since then. He is a forest ranger, and he looks to be about the same size now. He's a wildlife enforcement officer for the PA Game Commission. I ran into (I mean met) him a couple of times while doing some research in northern PA. I don't suspect he gets much back-talk.

Another example of idiocy in action and then writing an "adventure story" about it.

Oh - I keep forgetting it's our job to tell other countries how to run their own. And I'm as worried as you that Venezuela will roll into Brazil unobstructed! Then where will we be?!

This clown is such a lightweight. Doesn't read or dwell on issues. Just goes down to the ranch and "clears brush". He's going to go down in the same league as Nero.

I thought the right-wing supported democracy - the guy was voted in. End of story. Oh yea -that "national interest" thing. Read - oil.