Jim

About 12 years ago I was debating about buying in Seattle. I was renting a 2 bdrm house for $500 a month and decided to get some advice from a financial sort. His comment was at $500 per month who needs equity? Bottom line however, is I wished I bought then instead of waiting another 5 yrs. I think Peter is correct, it depends on where you are and the market pressures. The other item is lenght of time you're expecting to be around here. If it's 5 yrs or less then rent. Bottom line is that if you rent then all your money goes down the rat hole. With a house, and long-term view, you get some equity and some tax benefit. The availability of rental units in Seattle is improving with the move to increase density in urban cores related to the Growth Management Act. So rental units are pricing better than in the past. If you're going to be around here a long time I don't see why you wouldn't want to buy. On the other hand you shouldn't buy just for speculative purposes. I have a friend who prefers to rent because he doensn't want to deal with the upkeep portion of home ownership - so lifestyle is a consideration.

To start I wrote letters to my Senators and Congressman, the minority and majority leaders, and the head of the Senate Committee on Armed Services (Don't bother to email - these are generally ignored). I make it a point to stop by my Senators' offices twice a year with my concerns. I consistenly work with a couple of voulenteer groups, one that focuses on foreign policy, the other domestic. If your interested I can PM you information. I know you'll likely poo-poo this, or any other efforts. But it beats sitting on you hands.

Ummm -this also applies to thinking nothing can be done regarding the US's increasing interest in torture.

And this attitude makes for good sheep. You can look around and shrug your shoulders or you can do something, anything, to change things. It's your choice. Or you can be part of the Seattle culture that says how much you hate _________ (insert your choice) but well, I'm busy and someone else will take care of it. If you're really lacking on where to start I work with a couple of organizations that are starving for voulenteer help.

A bill is going through Congress right now that would loosen the restrictions on stem cell research. It has 200 co-sponsers and enough GOP members may vote for it to make it veto-proof. Bush has threatened to veto it - that would be his first for either term!!!

I'm not generalizing anything. I'm being quite frank and specific. Here's the gist - this administration ignores human rights of prisoners on a number of levels while invoking the mantra of "war on terrorism". This is done quite strategically while hypocritically waving the flag and boasting about freedom and democracy. There is a line between being tough in war and falling into the pit of barbarisim. Too many examples are evident that we've fallen into that pit.

Right on Matt. The discouraging part is that the simple minded press, and the public just nod along at the political theater.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. There have been a number of verified reports regarding the US practice of returning suspects in Iraq and Afganistan to other countries for torture. The idea being that we're not allowed to do it, but it's ok to send a CIA supervisor to be present while another country does it. Uzbekistan is a good example. Before 911 the US decried its prisoner human rights record. Now? - we send detainees there for inquisition. Human Rights Watch has documented the level of torture to include pulling out toenails and fingernails (chronic popular one apparantly), burns and electrical shocks to gentials, general back-alley beatings, and one person who was boiled to death. Lovely. From the linked reports, and others, it looks like we have our own home-grown versions going on. It seems to be a consistent policy thread of the Bushies, no less evident than in the memos from now Attorney General Alberto "torture boy" Gonzales.

Then we cry foul when our prisoners are used as photo-ops.

A week of field work next week along the Methow, Columbia, and Okanagon. Bring the shoes for some boulder time.

Manipulation of the press occurs every day. The best example is in the White House press room. Ask a few hardball questions and you'll get sent to the back of the room with the Kansas City Herald, not get invited to have chats on AF1, and generally loose access. Unless the government provides a comment or "undisclosed" source of the story - there is no story. The prisioner abuse at Abu Graib was a classic. A number of independent journalists had published articles but the mainstream press and wire services bascially ignored it until "undisclosed sources" at the Pentagon confirmed it. The level of unaltered government drivel that the press puts forth as news is nothing short of astonishing. It's sad when one of the few good news shows is on Comedy Centra. Mainstream reporters learn early how the game is played, and play along to further their careers. Keep your head low, don't step on toes, and maybe you'll get that coveted White House press pass. Unless your a gay, right-wing, call guy - then you get put to the front of the line.

I think this already being done, from the looks of it.

Well one problem I can think of is that many of them were later released because we found out they were low level sorts, innocents caught up in our net, or had no useful information. Second, aren't those in Iraq classified as POWs and afforded rights under the Geneva Conventions? (at least Iraqis - not the foreign fighters). And third - do we want to stoop to their level of barbarisim? I thought we were the freedom leaders, etc. The statement "because they do it" is a grade school rationalization, not the decision making process of a great nation. I know, I know. Cite George Orwell about good people sleeping well at night 'cause the tough guys are out there protecting us.

It's often most revealing to figure out what is not in the mainstream press rather than debating the bias of what does get covered. The mainstream press has become a lapdog.

Ya just gotta love the analyis that essentially says "Saddam was a bad guy, we took a sober analysis of the situation, and then methodically concluded it was the right thing to do" What a crock. Any objective analysis of facts rather than conjecture, would look at the first administration rehashes in the GW's, the plans to boot Saddam that were resurrected, and the fishing for paper thin reasons for going to war. Then following an exposition of the lies, the hop-scotch for other reasons. If it was such a good idea then why not just lay out the truth for your reasons, not lying and trying (and succeeding) in scaring the public. Then comes the "water-under-the-bridge" logic. No need to rehash past events, we're fighting for freedom, etc. etc. I agree with one thing, that we can't just cut our losses now. We're screwed, as are the people of Iraq. Not only did we blunder our way in there, we did it without sufficient troops and any reasonable post-war planning. Remember how the Iraqi oil revenues would pay for all this? That went by the wayside quickly enough. To date: approximately 100,000 civilians killed In the 2 wks since a parliment was formed: 400 dead Latest appropriations request for Iraq and Afganistan: $81.9 Billion

The more compelling our journalism, the angrier the radical right of the Republican Party gets," Moyers said. "That's because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth. And the quickest way to be damned by them as liberal is to tell the truth."

Your are obviously not concentrating on the real news of the day - such as the Michael Jackson trial.

I can imagine. I haven't been back since I left. No bs-ing while sitting on the Capitol steps while munching a sandwich anymore. Bummer that some really striking archticture (such as the rotunda) are not available to the public anymore. Traffic must be interesting with all the jersey barriers up.

I did the messenger thing for a while and the primary reason, other than bravado, is that single speeds are less of a hassle. No derailer, cables, brakes to be screwing around with. If you have a commute without killer hills it's not a bad way to go if you don't mind standing in the pedals once in a while. Some folks I know also use the single speed for the commute in the drizzle and road grit and have the better road bike at home for longer rides in good weather.

There's an artist type in Seattle that was making these offical looking parking signs that said No Bike-Weenie Clothes and had a stick figure bike guy with circle and slash over it. He was hangine them in front of coffe shops on telephone poles. Classic.

From commuting on my 25 yr old frame (my bike, I'm 2x that) I've noticed a direct correlation between the amount of spandex/flashy jerseys and lbs overweight. The Scott handlebars are the kicker. In mountain biking it used to be underweight guys on overweight bikes, now it's overweight guys on underweight bikes.

Not much on the mainstream press about any of this. Just filled up with the evacuation of the capiol yesterday and endless graphics of how F15s are scrambled. The complacent public is getting the government they deserve. But it will come back to bite us big time.

Check these out - custom made. Got my wife one a couple years back and myself one this year. Excellent product. http://www.beyondfleece.com/

Quickly breezed it - interesting article on US vs European work habits and the connections (or lack thereof) between labor unions, protestant work ethic, cultural values and percieved tradeoffs.

JayB gets points for self-powered transport. He may yet leave the dark side.