Kimmo

you cycling experts fail to amuse. contador was dominating, to say the least. stage 18, anyone? he'll come back next year on a weaker team and still kick arse (although i'm damn curious to see what armstrong can muster after a year of serious prep and the deep pockets of radio shack etal).

don't know about the red line, but climb=nice. looks like fun times indeed.

another interesting thing about parenting: i read once about how in a certain culture kids were seen as the return of the grandparents; you didn't tell the grandparents what to do. i don't think it meant the kids ran the household, but you certainly respected the kids' wishes, and didn't play the "i am the parent" card. pretty refreshing. not that many of you would understand, mind you.

i can't say i understand the comment about a "kid that age"; at what age does it become "appropriate" to "specialize in one thing."? 18? 16? 25? 37? having been following the tour lately, i'm reminded of armstrong's early devotion to his chosen sport. should his parents have told him to stop and not spend so much time doing what he seemingly loved to do? should they have curtailed his passions if they were prone to worry? would that have been fair to him? to be fair, i can't say i know the exact motivations of the kids in question here, but if their sike is pure, then piss off to all the nay sayers who would stand in the way of (any) kid's happiness.

yes that's exactly what i'm saying.... so tell me about these "serious" injuries? you're not talking about accidents here i assume, and over-use injuries give warning, and i think in my post i mentioned paying attention to these warnings. pretty simple. don't let your kids wear too tight shoes, don't let them climb if they are injured or in pain, etc etc. common sense stuff. don't restrict their freedom though and adventure and curtail their passions.

rudy greetings from acephale! 1 a.m. here while our little one spazzes out (in a good way; god she has energy!). i'm sure you've read about some of the elite youngsters, and how they were climbing at 4,6,8,10 years of age. they seem fine, even though they certainly pushed it way hard at tender ages. i don't think there are any guarantees how your kids'll respond to hard climbing, but to limit them because of a fear of what MIGHT happen seems perhaps a bit unfair? if they are really into it, and love it, and beg for it, then i say you gotta support them. barring injury and pain of course; then some intervention would be called for. anyways, those are some of my thoughts (and i sure do have more!). good luck with the wife, and have fun!

no jb, not you. it was good talking with you, and i'll check out that vid you posted.

does this happen often around here? pick up your chosen ideological hammer and hit each other on the head as hard as you can? and ignore points made when they are inconvenient? ah heck, it was fun! carry on....

let's assume i am both, but capable of rehabilitation. please tell me where i gave you the impression i was either.

No. Obama was predicting we'd be below 8% by summer's end. as you will surely note, he said "economists were predicting", not "obama was predicting" (disregarding whether or not obama actually said that).

i think he gets it.

i'll go with the "there are no dumb questions" tack on this, and answer that of course (as you know) you are wrong. your position reeks of the paranoia that some exhibited about bush's plan to declare martial law in order to remain in office (most people don't perhaps understand that bush stayed in office! except for some (very important) changes).

especially when the "crash" is based on an unsustainable economic bubble perhaps 10 years in the making (or much longer, depending on how you view it, and to what "floor" the current unwinding takes us to).

your lack of knowledge regarding the workings of the economy are telling, or your ideological blinders need a little windex. it's similar to when lib ideologues tried to pin the '01 recession exclusively on bush, as if the '90's bubble had nothing to do with it.

i have read about it in the economist and wsj, time, newsweek etc. even back in the '90's. i just don't think it's been some great conspiracy secret that you make it out to be. i'd wager that a majority of americans know about the general changes, if not the specific numbers. it seems to be mainstream knowledge that people are working harder for less, and the rich have gotten richer. i think the salient point with this is that people don't know what to do about it; do you? can you articulate the situation in a way that isn't simply the product of one ideology banging against another, with the resultant sparks constituting what passes for discourse? i just don't buy that: see above. as far as cheap credit goes, an amazing amount of it was used to fuel consumerism, not simply to "stay afloat". "dominant culture" portrayal of "economic reality"? what does that mean? "value of real-estate assets"? i assume you mean the ignorance of the RE bubble? the warnings were there, but EVERYONE ignored it: Gold Rush! i guess i don't smell the conspiracy.... again, refer above. easy credit fueled consumerism without a doubt. i think your scenario about the poor indebted american needing loans and credit cards to survive might apply to a small minority of people (not to be discounted), but is not the general reality.

actually it sounds like it got re-graded; more like 13b or c, according to a couple of repeaters. the subsequent bolting dropped the grade even more.

i'm not quite sure if anything has been "hidden from sight", as you say; i've read somewhat regularly about wealth distribution in main-stream zines (although you do say it has been hidden from people by "indebting" them, which i can't say i understand). also, "indebting people" (within our current economic structures) isn't done without the compliance, to a large degree, of the very people being indebted. what i don't like is when the argument is framed as if the poor helpless americans have no choices about their finances. having said that, i'm not particularly a fan of an unfettered capitalism. having a limited fungible commodity (money) so unequally harvested and collected and hoarded by so few does not set up the conditions most conducive for collective well-being.

that sounds dramatic, but is that the best comparison point? As of June 2009 the debt was 82.5 percent of GDP based on current GDP. This level of debt has not been seen since 1951, with the nominal value the largest in recorded history. link

it only gets better cuz it's so real world descriptive. i can't tell you how many hippie types i run across who try to keep GM foods out of the hands of the starving.

seems that way, unless you are under 18. this is what they told me downtown when i got a birth cert for the little one.

i don't think anyone is saying that; they are saying that legal means must be extinguished before attempting your solutions. what's the saying? young, something something and full of ...."? bad for thoughtful action , but excellent for military commanders.

i am happy to say that i walk away from this post with some solace: solace that this post is so lacking in sanity that no one can be swayed by it in any way.

your work is appreciated, aric.

umm, that was in 2005, and it said rationing was "proposed"; was rationing in fact implemented?

you might be mistaken about "catastrophic insurance" policies, or you have looked at policies which i am unfamiliar with. most of these policies i am familiar with have a high deductible, a certain percentage copay for hospital visits or other procedures, with a cap on maximum out-of-pocket costs for policy holder (always(?) under 10 grand). correct me if i'm wrong.