JayB

-The Euro financial crisis will continue to worsen and the Euro will end the year lower than it started. http://www.gordontlong.com/articles/art-2011-12-cc.pdf -In 2012 there will be widespread recognition that the magnitude and intractability of the sovereign debt crisis are both significantly worse than the financial crisis brought on by the collapse of our housing bubble. -The Euro area will end the year in outright recession. -The Eurocluster will keep a lid on record-low treasury yields through 2012. -The Euro recession will put downward pressure on margins in the tradeable goods sectors, which will in turn put a damper on profits in the service sector. -Shale oil/gas production in the US will continue to be a significant positive for the US economy. -Rising median prices on declining sales volume in 2011 will turn into outright price declines in Canada and Australia. -The collapse in real estate values that's already underway in China will put pressure on bulk commodity prices. -Chinese economic growth will slow in 2012. -The US housing market (as measured by Case-Shiller) will bottom in 2012, but negative global economic headwinds, demographic pressures, shadow inventory, foreclosures, tighter credit, etc will keep nominal price increases to the inflation rate or less through 2013. -Oil/gas prices will be lower on average in 2012 than they were in 2011. -Romney will narrowly defeat Obama. -Republicans will retain their majority in the House and obtain a narrow majority in the Senate. Worth what you paid for them.

That's it - thanks for the help!

Hey: Not too long ago someone posted a link to a website that would highlight terrain with a particular slope on Google terrain maps. It was basically like the service posted at the link below, but free. Anyone remember seeing the link and/or what they were calling themselves? Many thanks. http://slopeanglemaps.com/info.html

Both are estrogen mimetics that bind to the estrogen receptor and cause it to dissociate from chaperone proteins and form homodimers that bind to promoter regions adjacent to estrogen sensitive genes and drive transcription of the said genes. Ergo they're both "endocrine disruptors." Exposure to anything that turns on the machinery driven by hormones can have adverse health effects when the exposure is too high for too long. As of now there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that exposure to estrogen mimetics like genistein from soy or much lower levels of BPA as a consequence of using certain kinds of plastic containers to store food or water is anything to worry about, and people would be better off worrying about eating a balanced diet, getting enough exercise and rest, reducing stress, and...getting vaccinated. When and if there's definitive data that clearly demonstrates otherwise I'll change my mind. http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/BisphenolA_FactSheet.html

No. My claim is that I doubt you know whether someone not vaccinated in the midst of an overwhelmingly vaccinated population (such as the children of the people you are talking about) incurs greater risk from infectious disease than from exposure to pesticides (spare me the "trace amounts" spin as I have exposed it for what it was and you apparently declined to discuss it) spare me the posturing as well and answer the points I made, for a change. Yes - thankfully the risks of kids in the US being killed or permanently injured/disabled as a consequence of contracting one of the diseases that we have vaccines to protect against is very small. Of course, this is because thankfully most of the population isn't composed of paranoid retards who refuse to vaccinate their children. Having said that, as small as the risks are, both the probability of being killed or injured as a consequence of failing to vaccinate and killing or injuring someone else by serving as a vector are many orders of magnitude greater than either happening as a result of the three "risks" I mentioned, which range from zero to infinitesimal. My larger point is the irony inherent in people that fancy themselves to be pro-science and spend a great deal of time lamenting the many faults of creationists putting on their own set of ideological blinders when their own pet causes are undermined by science.

There is no way that you can come up with these comments based on a synthesis of the scientific evidence. 1) a significant number of modern studies show correlation between average levels of some pesticides (like organochlorines) in populations (esp. children and mothers) with specific disorders (like adhd or developmental problems for example). Causality has often not yet been shown but, 2) dozens of pesticides widely used over decades have eventually been banned when manufacturers and regulators couldn't deny the evidence anymore 3) it's not reasonable to claim 0 risk to humans from GMO consumption since the proper studies haven't been done (no, the live experiment of feeding GMOs to populations isn't controlled). The couple of studies that have been done are controversial, esp. since those finding 0 risk have terrible methodology, are conducted and cherry-picked by an industry that has zero credibility (read up on Monsanto's history). Moreover, many refuse GMOs for other reasons than health like environmental cost so what motivate these people as a group is mostly your opinion. 4) infectious risk is time and space dependent and you'll need more than your frivolous assertions to make the case there is a greater risk right now from infectious disease (in an overwhelmingly vaccinated population) in the NW islands than that incurred through pesticides (good luck) 5) despite all the bile spewed by your lap dogs, it appears that you are definitely meaning to minimize the risk of pesticides and deride people concerned for their health and that of their children, as it seemed obvious to me from the beginning. Well, first, there are studies showing that on average pesticide use has increased with the increase in GMO use and its remarkable that you ignore them to spew the industry line. Second, your example shows the need for strong regulations because despite what your claim otherwise average folk have no way to control on their own what goes into their food. Just so we're clear - your claim is that eating GMO's, eating fruits and vegetables that may have trace amounts of agricultural pesticides, and exposure to BPA from plastic containers is literally as great or greater threat to children's health than all of the diseases that we vaccinate children against? If so - I find that fascinating. Ditto for all of the energy expended making that case in the above post, if that was your intention. BTW - how confident are you that you are refuting the caricature I offered up earlier, rather than lending it more credence?

How would you describe the politics of the non-vaccinating folks in Vashon and Ashland, kemosabe? I have no idea but you ought to know plenty about it considering that you brought up this particular topic a half dozen times (yet you never bring up for example how corporate "food" is ruining people's health, which surely is a much more significant issue/crisis than a few people refusing vaccination). So lets see how you know who these people are as group and whether their political orientation rather than say religion is relevant to this issue. But, none of this addresses your disingenuously conflating the refusal of vaccination with avoiding pesticides and other things mentioned previously. The point is that the type of Mom worrying about the kinds of things I cited is worrying about stuff that has risks that range from zero (consuming transgenic crops) to infinitesimal (consuming trace amounts of agricultural pesticides), instead of infectious diseases that are many orders of magnitude likely to actually harm her children *and* put the health of the very young, the very old, and the immunocompromised at risk. E.g. lots of worry about stuff that's not actually a threat to her kid's health, while obsessively campaigning against things that can actually protect her kids and others from very real threats that do very real harm. Even funnier is running into hip, with-it, "pro-science" parents that are vocally lamenting the scientific illiteracy of the American public who are fretting over the slightest exposure to traces of a weak estrogen mimetic like BPA while their kids are sucking down gallons of soy-based formula that contains vastly higher concentrations of genistein, an even more potent estrogen analog. Ditto for fretting over pesticide use while campaigning against the introduction of disease and pest resistant crops that can dramatically reduce pesticide use.

How would you describe the politics of the non-vaccinating folks in Vashon and Ashland, kemosabe?

"Washington has highest vaccine opt-out rate in country" Washington has the highest rate in the country of students exempted from school-required vaccines, a federal report released Thursday has found. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 6.2 percent of Washington kindergartners had a parent waiver for at least one required vaccine last year. That rate has more than doubled in the last 10 years. The average national exemption rate was about 2 percent, state officials said. Mississippi and Tennessee had the lowest exemption rates of less than 1 percent, the study found. Vaccines are a major concern for health officials, who are trying to meet vaccination goals while containing the country's largest measles outbreak in 15 years. Washington is among the states involved, with two recent measles cases in Clark County and one in Kitsap County." Love the image of a transcendentally progressive yoga Mom obsessing over the potential effects of trace amounts bisphenol-A, herbicides, GMOs on her tykes while leaving them unvaccinated. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Washington-has-highest-opt-out-vaccine-rate-in-1406769.php

Thanks, JayB, for that explanation. I couldn't remember if it was NYC or elsewhere, I just remember that it was the upper East Coast. I recall your mention back then that you were applying yourself more to WW boating while on that end of the continent. Although it's a tad bit late, welcome back. Thanks - great to be back. Now that I'm thinking of the climbing on the EC, it's interesting to think about the fact that the Tatoosh range is an asterisk out here, but would pretty much be the premier alpine range back there. Are you in Yakima or TriVegas these days?

Beautiful day in the mountains. Made me scroll back through memory lane a bit and realize that the last alpinish winter climb I'd been on that involved more than carrying gear back and forth to the base of mountain was Damnation Gulley on Mt. Washington back in December of 05 or thereabouts. -Sobo, I served a short term sentence on the EC (Boston) from 05-08 and didn't relocate to the PNW full time until May of '09. Only decent rock climbing was ~4 hours away and there was lots of really good WW kayaking much closer so I went with the flow when I was back there and spent most of my rec-time in a boat.

Give them the gift that will keep on giving! "This book takes children aged 4 - 10 years on a journey of discovering about the ineffectiveness of vaccinations, while teaching them to embrace childhood disease, heal if they get a disease, and build their immune systems naturally." Brings "Viral Marketing" a whole new meaning...badumbump! http://naturematters.info/

R.I.P. [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un1OXy_Bw3o&feature=related

Don't worry, Rudy. N.O.W. is all over this one just as soon as they finish their colloquim on the symbolic violence of Augusta National's clubhouse....

-Google books has the "Rock Climbing New Mexico" book available for preview online. -Lots of craggy one pitch stuff in the greater Los Alamos area. -Seemed like lifetimes worth of longer trad routes in the mountains just outside of Los Alamos. -Would be worth asking the same question on Mountain Project since NM is in range for lots of folks on that board: http://www.mountainproject.com/v/new-mexico/105708964 -Also might be worth sending a PM to SkyKilo since he was stationed in the Los Alamos area while working on his Flux Capacitor.

"Unions sue to block liquor initiative from taking effect Two unions have filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court attempting to stop implementation of Initiative 1183 Two unions have filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court attempting to stop implementation of Initiative 1183, which kicks the state out of the liquor business by June. The unions represent nearly 1,000 workers expected to lose their jobs because of I-1183, which 59 percent of Washington voters approved in November. The lawsuit says the measure violates a rule that requires an initiative to address just one issue. The legal tactic is common and sometimes successful. Besides putting liquor in grocery stores, I-1183 also changes wine-distribution laws, changes the ability of the Liquor Control Board to regulate alcohol advertising and creates new franchise protections for liquor distributors, the lawsuit says. "While it is not illegal for a private company to pay for an initiative and spend almost unlimited money to get it passed, it is illegal for them to abuse the system by loading the initiative with too many changes to the law. The reason for the single-rule clause in the constitution is to prohibit this very thing," the unions said in a release."

-Measuring poverty without including the value of all of the transfers folks get to alleviate it makes about as much sense as measuring incomes without factoring in all of the paychecks. Given that poor households consume 2X more goods and services than they could pay for with their W2-income, that's a pretty big, and strange, omission from the data and the poverty calculations. To me it's quite puzzling that we've continued to measure poverty as though none of the programs we have to help poor people exist. The time series can tell you useful information about what's happening with take-home pay in low income households, but it's less clear that it tells you about how likely children in households below the poverty threshold are to be in homes where the combined value of taxable-income + transfers isn't enough for a responsible adult to provide them with food, clothing, and shelter.

-FWIW the data series in the US computes the incomes that the poverty calculations are based on sans all non-cash transfer payments like Medicaid, housing vouchers, and food stamps - e.g. most of the programs that the country uses to transfer resources to the people in the lowest household income quintiles. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/09/measuring-poverty -The way various countries determine what constitutes a live birth differ significantly (too small, too premature, dies too soon after being born = doesn't count in lots of countries). Consequently the stats don't tell you very much useful information about how many babies in a given country that died would have lived had they been given highest level of medical care available on the planet actually died and vice versa. Is the average level of medical care available to expectant mothers and pre/post natal infants better in Iran than the US? Maybe - but it's tough to tell from the data. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11862950

What sort of cuts? I don't know anything about ski area operations, so to an outsider it seems like it'd be tough to cut too much on the operations side without it starting a negative feedback loop.

I'll add my thanks to the roster. Amazing work! Also can't help but chime in with a note of admiration for the cameraman. Lugging 60lbs camera and tripod plus film up to the summit of Rainier in the winter during his first ever outing in the mountains is truly remarkable.

Who's my guy if I want to make an exchange with someone takes a rhetorical position that's wildly inconsistent with his oft stated ideological commitments to civil liberties, and has to choose between admitting as much or A) pretending to be unaware how the precedents established concerning the scope of the Commerce Clause have systematically undermined them and/or B)insisting that the SCOTUS actually heard a case and issued a ruling on a narrowly technical matter concerning wheat production that had zero larger significance?* *Which is why it hasn't been cited in any other SCOTUS decisions that pertain to matters other than wheat cultivation?

-The law the guy was breaking didn't have it's genesis in WWII - it was the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The case didn't arise because of WWII any more than Gonzales vs Raich arose because of the Iraq War. -Even if it had, it's puzzling to see a civil libertarian and legal scholar ignore the question of whether or not the constitution actually grants Federal government has the legal authority to forbid people from growing food on their own property for their own use under any circumstances, let alone either not understanding or appreciating the role of precedent.

I find it fascinating that a self-described champion of individual liberty could applaud this decision: Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it. The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government." Guess what the folks writing the majority decision cited as precedent in Gonzales vs Raich in 2005? Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes. For bonus points, guess which justice wrote the following in his dissent to that decision: "If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."" Here's to hoping that the ruling on the ACA demolishes the retarded precedent set by this and other grotesque abuses of the Commerce Clause to justify whatever the folks in the government happen to want to mandate or criminalize.

1. 2. Still have to generate the power to send across the more efficient grid. The majority of the costs associated with decreasing CO2 emissions are on the production and consumption side, not transmission. 3. Good. That excludes all but minor and incremental changes in the way that the world generates its energy. 4. It's a boundary condition, not a proposal. There's a difference.

-China and India aren't going to step on their own economic air-hose. -The rich world is fundamentally insolvent and can't generate enough output to satisfy all of its debt obligations even without making energy dramatically more expensive, so the odds of adding a few dozen trillion dollars worth of economic friction for the sake of a policy that won't have any effect on the trajectory of CO2 concentrations (see above) isn't going to happen. -Much better to spend the money on stuff that has a higher (like many orders of magnitude) bang-for-the-buck ratio when it comes to preserving habitat and alleviating human suffering than playing the atmospheric equivalent of Don Quixote. -Run the numbers. What's the CO2 trajectory look like if US and European emissions go to zero? What are the current baseline assumptions for trend reductions in C02 concentration? The answer for anything but extremely modest and incremental reductions is "so big that there's no way anyone can or would ever pay them." The figure below is just for the US - average that out across the globe and the "nope" just gets more emphatic. Time to start crusading for something more tractable, like the immediate cessation of all tectonic shifts in the Earths crustal plates.