JayB

I could be wrong here - but don't naturopaths attribute most disease processes to the accumulation of various toxins in the organs? That may indeed be the case - but I if my brief discussion of the matter with a fourth-year student at Bastyr is any indication of the methodology employed in devising and evaluating the efficacy of naturopathic treatments, they have some serious work to do. The specific conversation came about when the said student was in a group of like-minded, organicky folks espousing the merits of the "Liver Cleanse" and bemoaning the shortcomings of the dreaded allopaths in this and every other regard. I had the bad manners to ask what specific toxins she thought had accumulated in the liver of the average person in need of a cleansing, what methodology they used to determing toxic thresholds, how the quantified them in the tissue pre-and post-cleanse, if they had ever conducted controlled studies on cleased-vs-placebo'd livers - etc - and I got quite a bit of hostility but not a whole lot else. At the end of the day, if someone is using a scientific, rational methodology to treat disease and promote wellness, and they have solid empirical support for what they are doing - then it's not terribly important to me what their title is, but if those things are lacking then I have serious problems with what they're doing. I'd have the same issues with someone who advocated the use of "Catholic Psychiatry" e.g. exorcism, in the place of "conventional" psychiatry for someone who was clearly suffering from severe mental problems.

Hey Mike, I don't know if this was directed at me or Selkirk, but I was certainly not trying to be offensive. It was (and is) my understanding that at least SOME chiropractors have a "Doctorate" degree and are therefore "doctors". Are you saying that one can practice chiropracty without a doctorate degree? And are you also saying that as a chiropractor you have to practice under the license of a medical doctor similar to the role of a physician's assistant or nurse practicioner? I was under the impression that chiropractors operated under their own license. Were you being sarcastic? Yes, naturopaths are "doctors" - as is anyone with a "doctorate" degree, though generally people only call MDs, NDs, and DOs, "doctor". I recently starting seeing an ND as my primary care provider and would recommend it to anyone over a general practice MD. The amount of time, quality of care, and commitment to working with me to improve my health that I get from the ND far surpasses anything I've ever seen from an MD; especially an MD at an HMO. I can't imagine a case in which I'd rather see a general practice MD than an ND. NDs can prescribe all of the same drugs that a GP MD can by the way (I don't think a lot of people know that). Pax - do you know where ND's stand on vaccination?

I suppose there's something to be said for the placebo effect, and since most of the aches and pains that pre-occupy and worry us are transient and will go away of their own accord. Most studies seem to show that simply seeing someone that you believe posesses the expertise necessary to properly diagnose andn treat you will result in an improved sense of well-being that can translate into real increases in physiological health, and this goes for everything from witch doctors to neurosurgeons. I agree with those that said that there are good and bad practitioners in every field, but I would have to disagree with anyone who suggested that this fact elminates very real distinctions between the philosophy and methodology that underly the various "medicines" out there. Put more bluntly - if the form or medicine that your doctor/healer/whatever bases your care and his diagnoses upon inherently untestable philosophical precepts - he is a quack. He may be a nice guy, care deeply about your well-being, and genuinely believe in what he's saying - but at the end of the day all that matters is whether or not the treatments he's using to address a specific disease or condition show a real effect in peer-reviewed, double-blind studies. End of story. I personally think that people who rely upon vague, common-sensical nostrums like those that serve as the basis of homeopathy "Like cures Like!" are guilty of something bordering on criminal negligence at best. They may believe in what they are doing, but the test of whether or not something is ethical has less to do with whether or not someone sincerely believes in something, but whether or not a reasonable person is justified in holding such beliefs. If you go to a mechanic because you are concerned about the brakes on your car failing on a family road trip that will involve negotiating steep mountain roads, and he sees that the discs and rotors are shot, there's a leak in the lines, and the fluid is low - but he sincerely believes that the best way to fix them is to apply a coat of nail polish to the calipers - is this guy to be praised for his "alternative" approach to auto repair, or condemned as someone who - no matter how good is intentions or sincere his beliefs - is endangering those who have placed their trust in him?

I recommend going the homeopathic route. Extract the active ingredient from the poison oak/ivy, and prepare a solution in the appropriate diluent - then, maximum effect - prepare a 1/10^100 dillution of the original. According to homeopathy, like-cures-like, and the potency of this effect increases with increasing dillution, so you should be better in no time if you follow this plan.

These perceptions can actually benefit the US if they encourage Korea, Japan, etc to assume a greater responsibility for their own defense. The puzzling thing about the line-of-thought presented in the article is that the commentators seem to invision the US engaging the Chinese in a land-war - which doesn't seem like a likely scenario.

I think that thus far the technical commentary in this thread has failed to address the advantages of selecting a belayer with the appropriate mass when determing whether a "hard" or "soft" catch will be most desirable for certain lines. Get yourself an anorexic jockey for a belayer, and outfit him with the largest backpack that his frame can reasonably accomodate. In those events when a shorter fall and a harder catch are desirable, simply fill the said backpack with dirt, sand, stones, jugs of water, etc until you have achieved the optimal mass. In those events where a softer catch is desired, plying your belayer with diuretics and/or equiping pieces with pulleys can be advantageous.

STEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ!!!! Just imagine where they can take this when the come out with heavier, more supportive boots, bindings with locking heels, full-release capabilities and DIN settings, and wider skis that feature burlier construction, faster bases, and metal edges.....

Just trying to get you to respond so the folks in the black helicopters that enforce the secret dissent-silencing provisions of the patriot act could get a lock on your IP and silence you once and for all. Your incisive critiques have cut too close to the bone this time. Don't try the back door, they're already there...

I am going to light a car on-fire to protest this.

Aggro snowshoers definitely need to update the steez if they're going to stay on the cutting edge, not to mention mixing up the tricks...

Sick....

This guy should have totally gone for the grab and the switch landing...

I really don't think that pulling a 360 on cross country gear is very difficult at all - I was doing them when I was in 7th grade, back in the mid-80's with the low-top boots and all the rest of it. With a set-up that light it takes like 1 foot of air and some hard rotation. My criticism wasn't a reaction to someone doing something new. People should certainly feel free to do whatever they want on skis - no matter retarded and pointless - but if every sub-discipline decides that the way to promote their sport is to "take it into the park" the end result is homogenization rather than innovation, and you inevitably end up with something lame, contrived, and marketing driven IMO.

Most reports that I've read suggest that hybrids really don't offer that much of an advantage over conventional vehicles when driven on the highway, when most or all of the power is coming from the combustion engine. Compare the hybrid premium to the increase in fuel economy over the projected battery-life versus a regular car in the same class and see if you actually save any money before taking the plunge. Not in the market - but I've heard that there are tax-incentives for hybrid owners as well, so that might tilt the balance sheet in favor of the hybrid.....

Bonzo and SmokeyMcPot...

Wow. Impressive. Nice looking line - Congrats and sorry for the thread drift.

TRENDS Old tricks, new dogs Nordic jibbing puts a radical twist in the traditionally mellow cross-country vibe. By Stephen Regenold, Special to The Times STANDING tall on skinny skis, his gloved hands gripping a short tow rope, Andy Newell careens wildly down an icy road, towed behind a swerving SUV. At the last moment, when it looks as if the SUV is going to crash, the driver peels left, Newell releases his grip and rockets off a ramp to sail high over a parked car. This oddball scene from the underground film "American Skier" accompanies video clips of Newell skiing in a half-pipe, sliding a rail and back flipping off a large jump. The tricks are nothing new, but Newell's choice of equipment — unsupportive low-top boots, free-heel bindings and skinny cross-country skis — is a head-turner. Instead of using a snowboard or alpine skis, Newell and an increasing number of young skiers now use cross-country skis to jump, rail-slide and show off in specially designed terrain parks. "I've hit trees, I've ripped muscles in my back, I've coughed up blood," says Newell, a U.S. Ski Team athlete. "But I've also aired as big as any of the downhill skiers or snowboarders in the park..." Link Makes about as much sense to me as a 50k nordic race using alpine gear. Is this just another manifestation of the marketing that gave us the Xtreme snowshoers pulling grabs off of cornice drops and glefully bounding through knee-deep powder at a full sprint - or something much sadder? I like cross country skiing because its so different than alpine skiing, and personally think that there's something kind of pathetic at play when those attempting to promote every single outdoor activity, no matter how staid, feel as though they have to dress it up and pitch it like something in a Mountain Dew add to make it appealing. Next we're going to see lawn bowling, horsehoes, and croquet go down the same path....

Seriously?

In WA - if we are restricting ourselves to what's in the city limits and the hinterlands - then Spanaway, Parkland, and Tillicum have got to be right up there.

Pretty much anyplace East of Pikes Peak, with the exception of the greater White Mountain region in the Northeast. Any place with toll-roads is a strong contender as well.

Do you think the present policy is consistent with your beliefs about what constitutes a fair and just tax code? I am not personally concerned about people's philosophical notions of what constitutes fairness, and focus instead on what I think will lead to optimal economic growth, gains in real-income, and maximum government revenue with minimum market distortions - so I'm not really attacking it from that angle, just pointing out that people who are in favor of progressive taxation have also criticized the mortgage deduction.

More on the same topic http://www.slate.com/id/2116731/ "There's a cancer at the heart of our increasingly complex tax code. A special deduction that disproportionately benefits the wealthy and distorts economic activity has grown rapidly in size and could cost taxpayers nearly $100 billion annually by 2009. Eliminating it would allow us to reduce levies on income and rationalize the system. According to Martin Sullivan, a contributing editor of Tax Notes, its existence "means the economy has less business capital, lower productivity, lower real wages, and a lower standard of living." Who wouldn't want to excise such a tumor from the mighty American economy? President Bush, Congress, oh, and you, too And we probably should. The Internal Revenue Code routinely favors one kind of spending over another. For decades, legislators have been using tax deductions to provide incentives or effective subsidies for people and companies to purchase health care, to donate to charity, to invest in energy efficiency, or to save for retirement. The home mortgage deduction is among the single largest such incentives. Introduced along with the income tax in 1913, it wasn't widely used until the 1950s. In the last few decades, with the massive expansion of the home-finance and mortgage-backed-securities markets, housing debt has risen smartly. And so too has the home-mortgage deduction, from about $20 billion in 1981 to $38.8 billion in 2002 to nearly $70 billion in 2003, according to estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation. Today, individuals can deduct interest on up to $1 million in mortgage indebtedness, plus interest on another $100,000 in home equity loans. This year, the deduction will sap an estimated $72.6 billion from the Treasury. And the Joint Committee projects (scroll down to the 33rd page) that the deduction will total $434.2 billion over the next five years. As Cleveland State University College of Law professor Deborah Geier notes in a recent working paper, the home-mortgage deduction is the third-largest single "tax expenditure" behind the deductions companies take for contributions to pension plans and for health-care premiums. Clearly, we've gotten some bang for all these bucks. The United States has an enviably high rate of home ownership and a highly developed infrastructure—secondary markets in mortgage-backed securities, online mortgage companies, etc.—that supports the construction and purchase of homes. But the once-modest deduction has evolved into a very large and highly inefficient rent subsidy. The deduction plainly causes distortions. People are willing to pay more for houses and buy bigger houses than they otherwise would because they can deduct the interest from their taxes. "When Americans invest the bulk of their life savings in housing, that's a redistribution of capital from the productive business sector," said Sullivan. What's more, the expansion of the deduction seems occasionally to have more to do with stimulating the financial-services industry than with allowing Americans to turn their homes into assets. Consider the growth of interest-only mortgages. With the deduction, the government is effectively subsidizing your monthly payment. But you're not building any equity, you're just paying rent. It's hard to say how an interest-only loan encourages home "ownership." Then there are home-equity loans. The proceeds from home-equity loans can be used to pay for an addition or repairs, but also for a television or for a trip to Jamaica. And the taxpayer foots a portion of the bill. What does this have to do with encouraging homeownership? What's more, it's remarkably unprogressive. One of the biggest obstacles to homeownership is the inability to come up with a down payment. The deduction doesn't help you there. Taxpayers who don't itemize deductions—generally people in the lower income brackets—don't receive any benefit from the home-mortgage deduction. And the more you borrow, and the higher your tax bracket, the more valuable the deduction becomes. So, what would happen if the home-mortgage deduction were slowly phased out? For the sectors of the housing market where homeowners tend not to itemize deductions, the impact would probably be minimal. At the higher end, housing prices might be expected to adjust, but not to crash. Consider a home buyer in the 25 percent tax bracket with an 8 percent mortgage. Thanks to the interest deduction, he effectively pays 6 percent on the mortgage. Losing the deduction would have the same effect on his personal finances and mentality as a rise in mortgage rates from 6 percent to 8 percent would. A bummer? Certainly. But such moves have happened frequently without causing crises. And if the elimination of the deduction were accompanied by a reduction in rates elsewhere, it would be a wash for many homeowners. The real harm would come to the home-building industry. And that's the real reason we shouldn't bet the house on eliminating or reducing the mortgage deduction. The home-building, home-selling, and home-buying industries, which claim to speak for homeowners, would bitterly oppose such a move. And so it's no surprise that earlier this year, when President Bush penned instructions to the advisory panel on tax reform, he told them to "recognize[e] the importance of homeownership."

I think I've responded to that one before, so just search for my response if you feel the need. With respect to the mortgage interest deduction, you are actually mistaken with respect to who it benefits. Even your cohorts on the Left disagree with you - "End the Mortgage-Interest Deduction! Why the left should embrace the Bush tax commission's most radical proposal. By Jason Furman Posted Thursday, Nov. 10, 2005, at 12:13 PM ET" http://www.slate.com/id/2130017/ I care less about the progressive side of the argument and more about the market distortion and subsidy side, but here's a case where the two seem to intersect. There's really no way to defend this one on an economic or social-policy basis.

Nothing compares to Chilling on the deck outside the Longhorn at the base of Blackcomb with Extremo while sporting the one-piece and the Elvis shades... Rip.It.Up.