mothboy88

I agree. I think he would prefer to cancel all ability to send money (if that was possible) but it probably wouldn't paly well politically, especially for Jeb. I don't know if there is a way to stop families from sending money back. I guess they would have to be convinced to be more loyal to the ideaology of sanctions than to their families. And I think that goes against human nature. Geography also plays a part. We would have much less of a problem re: families sending money if we tried to cutoff Macedonia instead of Cuba. I don't propose a good way to stop supporting Cuba. There are always going to be loopholes. When resources are tight, the bastards who we are trying to get rid of are going to be the last to feel the effect. Too bad the Bay of Pigs was such a disaster.

Let's answer one question at a time. You can't just dodge the ones you don't like. He specifically said if we don't support dictators or terrorists, they won't stay in power. Castro is still in power as far as I know. What happened to his logic? I would argue that we have been supporting Castro by allowing Cuban imigrants to send money back to their families ($100 million per article below.) Often the same people who were lobbying for sanctions against the country were at the same time sending money home (I guess its OK to engender economic hardship to force change... unless its your family). It looks as though Bush is trying to crack down on this by limiting the amounts of money to be transferred. I am not very impressed with the effectiveness of sanctions, but it seems as though we should either cut them off or we should open up markets to them. I think the half-ass approach is contributing to the stagnation. Sending money back to Cuba Link Bush's attempt to restrict sending money back Link Here

But does that mean if the Iraqi's were actually guilty, this treatment would be OK? Its still systemic. I figure the guards and administrators are just as responsible as prison rapists if they knowingly allow it to occurr. I lsitened to some conservative radio sation yesterday. They were discussing an editorial that I unfortunatly can't reference. Supposedly a journalist published an article yesterday trying to argue that the release of the photos has caused a decrease in attacks against the US. Says the only thing they respect in the Middle East is brute force and the power to humiliate blah blah blah. I find the notion that this scandal will help out troops in the long run to be crazy, but a lot of people agreed with the theory.

I think you raise a very salient point PP. We are demanding higher standards for care of foriegn prisoners than we have for our own citizens domestically. But I would argue that we are better off as a society if we demand more humane treatment of prisoners both domestically and with POWs (or whatever you want to refer to them as). Maybe we need the Red Cross to visit San Qunetin .

If a lot of you are so offended by Martlett and think he is just an attention whore, don't post on a thread titled "martlet." If you do you are just feeding your nemesis. If a post is written in a dead thread, does it make a sound? (I just wrote 3 sentences starting with if ) Deep down, I bet a lot of the posters horrified by people like Martlet are glad he's there because they love the thrill of the parley.

Another point you might bring up in a letter to support road reconstruction... I work at as a occupational therapist at a trauma hosiptal and am in contact with a lot of people with disabilities every day. There are a lot of people out there who use wheelchairs and have other mobility impairments. Many of them love the outdoors with just as much passion as we do. While most people on this site probably abhor the thought of car camping, a drive in campsite provides the mobility impaired with wonderful opportunitites to get into the woods. Right now, theere are two great campgrounds that are cut off to cars unless the road is completed. Plus the road provides some views of some great rapids. There are not many places where you can see rapids like "the maze" on the Dose from a car. Not rebuilding the road denies this access to people who can't use a trail. I'll try to articulate this more eloquently in my letter...

Word

Reccomended reading if you want insight to how otherwise decent people end up doing terrible things in a time of war - "Flyboys" by James Bradley. This book told the story of US POWs on the Pacific and how they were executed (and canabilized) after capture during WWII. The interesting thing about the book was how even handed the author was in discussing how war crimes occurred on both sides and describing how the power structure of the military can force people to commit "war crimes".

I'm in for writing a response to reopen also. Thanks for the heads up. If any of you know any paddlers pass this info on to them. There is some great paddling on that river and the road obviously makes life much easier for boaters.

I asked a parks person at REI today about the forest pass. She siad it wasn't going away. She said there were some areas that will no longer require a pass as of October, but the overall program will remain. So is she right or uninformed? Wouldn't be the first time the right hand didn't know what the left was doing. My pass expires this month and I am not excited about purchasing one if the program is about to dissolve...

Jay - this site http://www.washingtonkayakclub.org/ has a lost a found forum as well a buyer/seller forum much like CC.com's. But it doesn't look like they get as much traffic. Worth a shot I guess. I am keeping an eye out for paddles.

I am one of the last people to defend Bush, but I can see some reasons why he might not attend a funeral. If it were a family member of mine, the last thing I would want at his or her funeral would be a secret service and media circus all because a guy who doesn't really know my loved one wants to show up to score some public relation points. I would be totally OK with someone printing photos of the coffin being respectfully transported. But to have W show up to the funeral? I would consider that a massive invasion of privacy. I would much rather prefer getting condolences in another setting from the President. Who knows if that is his reasoning or not? I suppose since he is every US soldier's ultimate commanding officer it would be appropriate for him to show. But if I were the President, I would definately feel like I was intruding on one of the most intimate of human rituals unless I was invited by the family.

OK, this will probably be putting too fine a point on a thread drift, but regarding leg amputation and prosthetic use... The higher the amputation, the more likely a person is to use a wheelchair. A lot of people with hip disarticulations use wheelchairs. A lot of times people may use a lower extremity prosthetic for certain situations but also use a wheelchair for going long distances. There are a lot of higher amputees that can ambulate but its not very efficient and use of a wheelchair can help them get places faster without using all their energy. People don't get fitted for their final prosthetic for months until their stump has full healed and the swelling has gone down so the socket will fit. During that time they will use a wheelchair and some temporary prosthetics once they are allowed to start bearing some wieght on the stump. Some guys with high ampuations chose not to use a prosthetic at all but walk around with lofstrand crutches (the kind with the forearm cuff like Dr. Weaver uses on ER). Some one with an amputation at BD's level would probably be getting around with an above knee prosthetic and a cane pretty well after many months. But surgeons will often have to revise a traumatic amptation higher so they can create a stump with enough soft tissue to pad it well. So anyway, thats just some amputation 411 I have gleaned after working a few years in rehab.

This line of reasoning is so hypocritical when its spouted from Bush administration. So if a photo is shown of a fallen soldier's body being repectfully transported to its resting place, its a lefty conspiracy to make political profits off a serviceman's death. But if someone from the right wants to use pictures of a flag draped firefighter's coffin in a freakin campaign commercial, we're told it is is not disrespectful and actually needed to remind the public of the serious issues our country. So if I apply your reasoning to Bush's use of the firefighter image, I come up with this statement (my editing in italics)... I am not cynical or simplistic enough to believe the above statement nor the one it was modeled after could be applied to any but a handful of extremists on the left or right. Is it right to show pictures of fallen service men and women being respectfully returned home? There are strong arguments on both sides of the issue and the answer will always be gray. But anyone who suggests that conservatives alone retain moral high ground should really consider the hypocrisy our current President brings to the debate.

When I clicked on this subject I was expecting you to say there was going to be a mountie expedition at the mall.

From an article in The Stranger: More impact from FCC deregulation of radio media in the 90s. I am afraid that before too long it will be hard to hear any music on the radio or at a show that hasn't been deemed palatable by some 13 year old in a test market booth at the Northgate mall. link to article here

I hace seen data presented at a Harborview trauma class stating that, when a trauma victim's heart stops in the first hour after the injury there is virtually no chance of saving the victim. Still, I would probably try to sustain CPR if professionals were coming just so the family and friends knew everything possible was done to save their loved one. This can be incredibly important for family members to know. The keychain CPR mask can be bought at the UW medical bookstore and maybe at the main bookstore. Its got a one way valve on it and costs something like $10. Also, I was taught that if you ever suspect HIV exposure to seek immediate medical care. Apparently a course of the drug AZT can sometimes eradicate the HIV virus from your body before the viral load get to be too high. The sooner you take it the better chance it has of working. Though I would guess my chances of getting hepatitis from CPR would be much higher than HIV.

You know why hamsters can't drive? They can't get out of Gere.

This post had so many things wrong in so few sentences. I can't tell if it was intentional or not.

So people are citing all the important things unions have done in the past (40 hour work week, less chance of being disarticulated on the job, etc.) The question that comes to my mind is... Once a union is esablished, can it's members ever concieve of a situation where they feel their goals have been achieved and they no longer feel the union is needed? Dissolution of organized labor would be conditional upon what?

Though you and I may have never actually witnessed people getting rich on union wages it apparently happens. This CNN link describes the 2002 average annual salary of a west coast longshoreman as $106,833 and the average annual pay of marine clerks as $128,421. And this was prior to going on strike. I would say someone making 128K a year would qualify as rich. Obviously this is an exceptional case but it does show unions are capable of inflating wages beyond reasonable limits. Which ultimatly hurts the average American who makes far less.

I work in health care for the state. Most of the proffessions in my workgroup (including mine) are non-union. A few are. The only people I have ever seen fired were those in the unions. The union contracts in our case are very concrete in how poor job performance is dealt with. The union rep was present for the meetings with the supervisor once job perfomance became an issue and had no problem with the process since the rules were followed. Conversely, I have seen cases of egregiously poor performance of non-union workers where the process to fire them is so vague that it seemed almost impossible to get rid of a bad seed from a government job. Just a wierd irony I have observed in my little state sector universe.

Regarding fuel cell technology that has been repeatedly mentioned - I have heard before that a concern regarding fuel cells is that they raise security concerns because they can easily be converted into powerful explosives. I am pretty ignorant regarding the chemistry of fuel cells. Anyone know if that is true? Clarification - The question refers to the possibility of fuel cell explosives. Many people can already vouch for my ignorance of advanced chemistry.

I got USAA home insurance back in 2000. The reason I picked them is because they did not ask if your house was bolted to the foundation for earthquake insurance. Mine isn't and all the other companies I got quotes from were double the price because of my foundation. Anyway, that is one thing I can say in favor of USAA.

What's the difference between a porcupine and a BMW? A porcupine has pricks on the outside...