j_b

you may have heard of peter croft's stuart range traverse in a day from icicle creek (mid-80's). i believe he climbed stuart (north ridge), sherpa, argonaut, colchuck, dragontail, and prussik.

even though i can't relate too well to the beating of each other to a pulp, this is by far the most revolting thing i have read in this thread. For every two homicides in the U.S. there are three suicides. Every hour and forty-five minutes another young person commits suicide. Suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death among college students and the third-leading cause of death among youth overall (ages 15-24). Teen/youth suicide rates have tripled since 1970.

nice dodge but no, whatever end kerry is using his service is not relevant. either you believe that serving your country with valor is remarkable or you don't, but you can't have it both ways. squid, what makes you think our wagner fan is a new poster?

so let me see if i get this right: pat tilman who passed on a million dollar contract to join the rangers and died in afghanistan in uncertain circumstances, is a hero that everyone should emulate whereas john kerry who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who could have avoided going to vietnam (if not serving altogether) like most of his peers, who was wounded several times while he showed valor in combat is "nothing special" huh-huh ... at least, you could be consistant.

The GOP's not-so-impartial hit man Desperate to denigrate John Kerry's war record, Republicans have trotted out a "nonpartisan" Navy Vietnam vet -- who was a protege of Nixon dirty trickster Charles Colson and whose law firm is closely tied to the Bush White House. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Joe Conason April 23, 2004 | Houston attorney John E. O'Neill, the Navy veteran who has emerged recently as a harsh and ubiquitous critic of John Kerry's military service, tells reporters that he has never really been interested in politics and isn't motivated by partisan interests. In the media, O'Neill is often described simply as a Vietnam vet still enraged by the antiwar speeches Kerry delivered more than 30 years ago. That was when O'Neill first came to public attention as a clean-cut, pro-war protégé of the Nixon White House's highest-ranking dirty trickster (aside from the late president himself), Charles Colson. http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/04/23/o_neill/index.html (get the day pass to read the rest of the article)

http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum. The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=514700

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040229/NEWS09/102290004

because in the long term land grabbing pretty much always fails when the demographics are way against the invader. moreover, having the stronger army certainly does not provide any moral or international legitimacy. there are numerous other reasons as well.

centerfold on the diamond is a nice 3-pitch climb (4 if broken up). it has a few bolts, especially if you do the first pitch variation.

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040420154719.soi8dhtt.html

what's next? jja promissing a bj to anyone who votes for bush? come on dude, it was a joke

allright, i may have been mistaken. insofar, it appears there may be only one study that was updated at a later date. still, it is not clear why the data set shown on saez's site is considerably shorter than the one found at nber.org (http://papers.nber.org/papers/W8467) and as noted earlier the nber data include incomes for all earners (versus only the upper 10% on saez's site). this raises the question of why one would include data that is not going to be used in the paper. in brief, we can't rule out that there may be different writeups of the work. however, at worse, it is a misattribution of one aspect of the analysis on krugman's part. a possibility which i mentioned in an earlier post. the lowering of the income of the lower 90% by 7% is not picked out of thin air but has solid backing (as shown by foraker's mail when saez says that the income lowered by 7% if one uses the offical cpi). Moreover, as noted earlier the real income of the lower quintile was lowered by 12% according to the cbpp analysis. in short, i'd say it is typical of PP to focus on one procedurial aspect of the story in an attempt to deny what the data shows. i am really done this time.

the study was done prior to the later paper that krugman mentioned. the study you referenced was subsquently updated but not with respect to determining income trends for all quintiles. how does it help you to assess was is to be found in the later paper? in fact you'll find the data for the later paper here: http://www.nber.org/data-appendix/w8467/w8467-app.pdf you'll note that the data for the later paper differentiates for the 0-90% and the 99-100% fractions (notably in table A6) whereas the data for the previous paper as found on saez's site does not. so there .... here is the proof of your sloppiness. if you are talking about the mail that foraker received, the author does no such thing. he does not say that Krugman was wrong, in fact on the contrary he acknowledges that using the official cpi series shows an income decrease of 7%, which is exactly the number quoted by krugman. i claimed that you were not very observant because the krugman piece was based on a later paper which used a longer data series. whether they updated the study found to on saez's site with data that do not pertain to assessing trends for all quintiles is irrelevant to what is to be found in the later study. i am done here.

aw come on, PP, stop the obfuscation, it's tiresome. a) the updated figure is for the average real income (i.e. it does not differentiate into quintiles) b) the text was not updated. I haven't read the paper you referenced yet but the later paper is based on an expanded data set and, moreover, nothing indicates that it does not include different analysis of the data. i, sometimes, wonder if you are just being a simpleton or you are being duplicitous but i invariably conclude the later. You are such a goofball! Have you no shame?!?!?! For starters did I ever make any claims about quintiles? when i said that the paper you referenced was earlier than the paper Krugman referenced, you claimed that the site included updated figures as if they contained information relevant to discriminating income trends between different fractions of the population. it obviously didn't so i don't really understand your motive except for the usual spin. how can you use a 2000 (or whatever) paper to deduce what is to be found in the later paper? do you even know whether they changed methods? dude, you are so sloppy that i am not surprised that your thinking is so twisted. considering that the cbpp finds a 12% decrease in real income for the lower quintile i am not sure how your proceed to arrive at such conclusion just by inspection. appears to you. why don't you support it factually then? why don't you describe the arguments about the cpi?

aw come on, PP, stop the obfuscation, it's tiresome. a) the updated figure is for the average real income (i.e. it does not differentiate into quintiles) b) the text was not updated. I haven't read the paper you referenced yet but the later paper is based on an expanded data set and, moreover, nothing indicates that it does not include different analysis of the data. i, sometimes, wonder if you are just being a simpleton or you are being duplicitous but i invariably conclude the later.

ouch! it hurts coming from you

so nobody else likes little piggies?

very simple, Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez have done a number of studies on income distribution in recent years. the study mentioned in Krugman's piece covers the period 1973-2000 (published in 2002 but not available for free, also note that the list of publications on saez's site stops at 2001) whereas the link you located is a study covering the 1973-1998 period. I assume that the content of the later study mentioned in Krugman's piece is somewhat different. so you see, basic math skills is not all that is needed, a minimum sense of observation and cross-referencing comes in handy as well. thanks for the link, i'll read it in due time. you should spring the few bucks to purchase the later study and we could clear it all up. now i am going to help you out (a poisonous gift of course), it may be that krugman mistakenly used the 7% figure for the 90%ile instead of for the lower quintiles. here is what johnston says: "Those in the top 1 percent saw their average income, adjusted for inflation to 1999 dollars and after income taxes were paid, more than double from $234,700 in 1977 to $515,600 in 1999. Meanwhile, the 55 million Americans in the poorest fifth of the population lived in households whose average income fell from $10,000 in 1977 to $8,800 in 1999 [based on a cbpp analysis of cbo data]", which as you'll note (helped in this by basic math skills) amounts to a 12% loss in real income for the lower quintile over that period.

live cam of wild boars somewhere in germany. if there is nothing going on live, check out the video highlights. the little ones are pretty cute http://www.wildtiere-live.de/

it is only "conventional wisdom" because conservatives have been able to frame the issue in these terms without being called on the glaring contradictions. common sense tells us that an educated healthy worker is more productive over his lifespan than if he is unhealthy and poorly educated. this is just one in a whole list of issues that have been framed in such unrealistic terms that it prevents any meaningful debate. my favorites on the "conventional wisdom" list are the "tax relief" and "free market" bits. none of which are supported by real data of course.

there is always the jerry springer show ...

whether sandbagging purposefully (by opposition to unconsciously because of one's large ego) or while giving honest beta, it seems one should try to assess the competence of the party involved. or at least state some kind of disclaimer as to the overall experience/knowledge necessary for climbing in general. in this litigious society, shouldn't one consider the potential legal consequences for giving wrong or incomplete beta to the unexperienced?

did your mom ever tell you that you shouldn't run around with scissors in hand? anyway, be careful.

more mind-fuckery than anything else imo. for a variety of reasons, it's not like anyone will take the offer. so why would they offer peace? as for bl himself he is probably long dead.