chelle

Now you just have to figure out your spring road trip schedule. Unemployment is a good time to figure out what to do for your next career. Hope you got a decent severance.

Bush's new budget proposal

Not going out on a big powder day and my second day of snowboarding. I could have avoided spraining my neck and I wouldn't have had to take 2 years off climbing and most everything else fun.

Hhmm. Maybe notorious "borrow the car for 24 hours" bandit stuck again. He just liked your CDs better than mine. Just kiddin 009. But

What about these new labs that they found in the past couple days. Apparently whatever checmical they are using can kill you if you inhale it.

CBS. Gollum was so enchanted by it he just wanted to gaze. Plus if he'd disappeared how could we have watched him fall and become part of the Mt. Doom stew.

Muffy, did you mean banking? Cause I think making cookies is pretty simple married or single. Bug - you are right that having grown up in the US I carry some judeochristian values in my world view. Some I like and others I have tried to rid myself of. As for being jaded on marriage (can't recall who said that and I'm too lazy to go back one page...) I am not jaded on marriage. I think it is a really good thing when done well. Mine wasn't done well and ended. That was my ex and my problem, not marriage per se. The failure mostly occured because we were too young and niaeve to truly understand what life long commitment meant, nor did we know who we were as individuals yet to commit ourselves to another person. Next time around I will be much wiser and understand the work and rewards more deeply.

Hhmm. Not sure to whom, but have a great birthday!

Wow, Jon. Thanks for that link. I find in pretty interesting that a reporter for the NewYorker can find enough sources to put together a well documented account of policy changes with respect to intelligence gathering and the circumvention of vetting "safety standards" by white house staff. It actually sounds like they set up their own intelligence analysis department with people too invested in a particular outcome deciding what was "good" and what was "bad" intelligence info. Yet at the same time Congress can't seem to get enough information on the issues to make a determination of whether there was underhandedness on the part of the white house or CIA leading up to 9/11 and the Iraq war.

No problem Moth...it was an interesting tangent.

Don't know if there should be a law to require state agencies to take Feng Shui into account in their buildings. But I think that they should respect other people's views of Feng Shui. When I lived in CA there was a Chinese business owner in a town in Marin who was a firm believer in Feng Shui. His business was successful for many years until the city decided to plan a tree at the edge of sidewalk directly in front of his door. He begged and pleaded with them to move the tree 3 feet to either side of the door, fearing it would kill his business. They refused because it wasn't in their plan. Well the guy's business went down hill quickly after that and he firmly believed it was because the tree blocked all chi from flowing into his business. He tried many fixes and his business started picking up again. But after 6 months was not as profitable as it had been before the tree was planted. I think he should have just replanted the tree one night and paid some fines.

Here's a couple.

An unmarked vehicle with no connections to TG.

in the US liberal press. Where's fairweather? Bush on WMD

I'm thinking that some of you should have thought to record your childhood entertainment/explorations and put out Jack Ass the movie back in the 70s. It is a wonder any of you made it.

About the separation of church and state...at least in Georgia. Pretty sad that those kids won't learn about some fairly basic concepts in biology. IMO this is just wrong! - - - - January 30, 2004 Georgia Takes on 'Evolution' By ANDREW JACOBS ATLANTA, Jan. 29 — A proposed set of guidelines for middle and high school science classes in Georgia has caused a furor after state education officials removed the word "evolution" and scaled back ideas about the age of Earth and the natural selection of species. Educators across the state said that the document, which was released on the Internet this month, was a veiled effort to bolster creationism and that it would leave the state's public school graduates at a disadvantage. "They've taken away a major component of biology and acted as if it doesn't exist," said David Bechler, who heads the biology department at Valdosta State University. "By doing this, we're leaving the public shortchanged of the knowledge they should have." Although education officials said the final version would not be binding on teachers, its contents will ultimately help shape achievement exams. And in a state where religion-based concepts of creation are widely held, many teachers said a curriculum without mentioning "evolution" would make it harder to broach the subject in the classroom. Georgia's schools superintendent, Kathy Cox, held a news conference near the Capitol on Thursday, a day after The Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an article about the proposed changes. A handful of states already omit the word "evolution" from their teaching guidelines, and Ms. Cox called it "a buzz word that causes a lot of negative reaction." She added that people often associate it with "that monkeys-to-man sort of thing." Still, Ms. Cox, who was elected to the post in 2002, said the concept would be taught, as well as "emerging models of change" that challenge Darwin's theories. "Galileo was not considered reputable when he came out with his theory," she said. Much of the state's 800-page curriculum was adopted verbatim from the "Standards for Excellence in Education," an academic framework produced by the Council for Basic Education, a nonprofit group. But when it came to science, the Georgia Education Department omitted large chunks of material, including references to Earth's age and the concept that all organisms on Earth are related through common ancestry. "Evolution" was replaced with "changes over time," and in another phrase that referred to the "long history of the Earth," the authors removed the word "long." Many proponents of creationism say Earth is at most several thousand years old, based on a literal reading of the Bible. Sarah L. Pallas, an associate professor of biology at Georgia State University, said, "The point of these benchmarks is to prepare the American work force to be scientifically competitive." She said, "By removing the benchmarks that deal with evolutionary life, we don't have a chance of catching up to the rest of the world." The guidelines, which were adopted by a panel of 25 educators, will be officially adopted in 90 days, and Ms. Cox said the public could still influence the final document. "If the teachers and parents across the state say this isn't what we want," she said, "then we'll change it." In the past, Ms. Cox, has not masked her feelings on the matter of creationism versus evolution. During her run for office, Ms. Cox congratulated parents who wanted Christian notions of Earth and human creation to be taught in schools. "I'd leave the state out of it and would make sure teachers were well prepared to deal with competing theories," she said at a public debate. Educators say the current curriculum is weak in biology, leading to a high failure rate in the sciences among high school students across the state. Even those who do well in high school science are not necessarily proficient in the fundamentals of biology, astronomy and geology, say some educators. David Jackson, an associate professor at the University of Georgia who trains middle school science teachers, said about half the students entering his class each year had little knowledge of evolutionary theory. "In many cases, they've never been exposed to the basic facts about fossils and the universe," he said. "I think there's already formal and informal discouragements to teaching evolution in public school." The statewide dispute here follows a similar battle two years ago in Cobb County, a fast-growing suburb north of Atlanta. In that case, the Cobb County school board approved a policy to allow schools to teach "disputed views" on the origins of man, referring to creationism, although the decision was later softened by the schools superintendent, who instructed teachers to follow the state curriculum. Eric Meikle of the National Center for Science Education said several other states currently omit the word "evolution" from their science standards. In Alabama, the state board of education voted in 2001 to place disclaimers on biology textbooks to describe evolution as a controversial theory. "This kind of thing is happening all the time, in all parts of the country," Mr. Meikle said. Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, the author of a 1999 report by the National Academy of Sciences titled "Science and Creationism," vehemently opposes including the discussion of alternative ideas of species evolution. "Creation is not science, so it should not be taught in science class," said Dr. Ayala, a professor of genetics at the University of California at Irvine. "We don't teach astrology instead of astronomy or witchcraft practices instead of medicine." But Keith Delaplane, a professor of entomology at the University of Georgia, says the wholesale rejection of alternative theories of evolution is unscientific. "My opinion is that the very nature of science is openness to alternative explanations, even if those explanations go against the current majority," said Professor Delaplane, a proponent of intelligent-design theory, which questions the primacy of evolution's role in natural selection. "They deserve at least a fair hearing in the classroom, and right now they're being laughed out of the arena."

Wow!!! This thread went in so many unanticipated directions. It was an interesting read to see what people picked up on. Thanks for the entertainment. I thought the article was interesting because it was saying that committed but unmarried heterosexual couples are not on the radar screen in this "marriage protection" debate. And because at the end I thought the point about the fact that marriage status shouldn't really contribute to whether or not one is entitled to benefits or tax breaks from the gov't or private sector. It was an equal rights stance. And Bug - last I checked this country was founded on the basis of freedom from prosectution for being affiliated with a particular religion. I don't recall anything about being a Christian country. Contrary to what some politicians today want, we have a secular government and always have. This is why the founders were so clear in spelling out the separation of church and state.

I've always wondered why they didn't splint Joe's leg with the sleeping pad earlier. And I think that Joe lowering further into the crevasse to see if there was a way out or to hasten his burial was brilliant. And how could he have aided out with only one screw and one good leg to stand on? And on overhanging ice?

Anyonw who has read Simpson's books knows he was able to climb because he made it a priority not because he had money. He was on the "dole" most of the time.

Interesting thoughts Forrest. It's hard to know if he could have been that creative given that he was dehydrated, probably hypothermic, and likely scared and frustrated after trying to hang on to the stance for so long.

Agree with Rod on this. Harnesses are such a weird thing to fit anyways. Some women have small wastes and developed leg muscles from carrying a heavy pack, some are just tiny all around, some need more rise in the waist and some don't. You really need her to try on several harnesses. Make sure she hangs in it from whatever the shop has set up to check that the waist fits tight enough and also that the distance between the leg loops and waist are good. Arc'Teryx makes a really comfy woman's harness.

All of those things would be very sucky.

Well, maybe you should get a better tax accountant. Obviously you aren't taking advantage of all the benefits.

Car's was sold before the move.

We've had some interesting discussions about marriage in the past. Thought this might stir the pot a bit. From the NY Times January 25, 2004 Single and Paying for It By SHARI MOTRO mid all the heated discussion on both sides of the gay marriage debate, a broader point has somehow gotten lost: why should formally committed couples, straight or gay, enjoy special privileges in the first place? Married couples can receive thousands of dollars in benefits and discounts unavailable to single Americans, including extra tax breaks, bankruptcy protections and better insurance rates. Why, for example, should a married poet whose wife pays the bills get tax breaks that are unavailable to a single poet who struggles to write between telemarketing jobs? Why should all workers be required to make the same Social Security contributions if retirees with non-wage-earning spouses get more back from the system? If we force single mothers off welfare on the theory that they should pay their own way, why don't we require married stay-at-home moms to pay market prices for health insurance? Though most people would agree that these distinctions are arbitrary and unfair, as a society we tend not to notice that breaks for people who are married translate into penalties for those of us who are not. Take Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell, two of the plaintiffs in the famous Massachusetts gay marriage case. Because they could not marry, Mr. Chalmers was unable to add Mr. Linnell to the health insurance policy offered by his employer. They had to purchase a separate policy for Mr. Linnell at considerable expense. In effect, this meant that Mr. Chalmers was paid less than his married co-workers for the same labor, as was every other unmarried employee. The Massachusetts court found in November that excluding same-sex couples like Mr. Chalmers and Mr. Linnell from the benefits of marriage violated their civil rights. The court's decision, though, ignored the rest of Massachusetts' unmarried workers. Singles' rights advocates face an uphill battle because their demands for equality are easily mistaken for anti-marriage assaults. Furthermore, because most Americans, myself included, believe that marriage provides a valuable social framework, many are quick to dismiss challenges to marriage-based benefits as a threat to the institution. Though well intentioned, this impulse makes no sense in the face of current realities. Many marriage-based benefits, for instance, are seen as proxies for helping families with children. Yet marriage is no longer a good indicator of parenthood. As of 2000, one in three children were born to unmarried parents. Distributing benefits intended to support child rearing on the basis of marital status gives a windfall to childless married couples while leaving empty handed single parents and their children — who as a group already face harsher realities. Benefits are also defended as vehicles for promoting marriage. Their effectiveness in achieving this goal is dubious at best, counterproductive at worst. Common sense says that couples who are otherwise unprepared to take on the obligations of marriage and who do so for financial reasons only are prime candidates for divorce. Finally, marriage benefits may be seen as a way to reward citizens who take on the weighty obligations of wedlock. But if 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, 50 percent of marriage-based "rewards" are nothing but an expensive mistake. The marriage dole also subsidizes a growing number of unions governed by prenuptial agreements. Such pacts are usually intended to protect the assets of moneyed spouses, effectively undoing the very protections that, in part, make marriage worth defending in the first place. Research consistently shows that unmarried Americans are on average poorer, sicker and sadder than their married counterparts. Yet they are denied perks given to married couples who, in many cases, neither need nor deserve them. Though gay couples certainly lose out as well, singles of any preference pay a triple price for not finding love: they don't enjoy the solace and support of a life partner; they don't profit from the economies of scale that come from pooling resources with a mate; and they effectively subsidize spousal benefits that they themselves can't take advantage of. Advocates for gay marriage have exposed a huge blind spot: married-only benefits also discriminate against America's 86 million unmarried adults. Contrary to popular belief, marriage penalties are far outweighed by marriage bonuses. The concerns of single Americans are urgent and deserve attention. Next time you're filling out a form that asks you to check the box next to "married," "single," "divorced" or "widowed," ask yourself this: Why should it matter?