cj001f

WTF is your point? The US has known the Saudi regime is a bunch of corrupt, psychopathic nuts for decades. Who extort their population for the betterment of themselves, covertly (and not so covertly) fund terrorists and fundamentalists. Who brutalize their own populations, and foreigners (hell, just try to get a visa!) We haven't done squat. They are also the swing oil producer - coincedence?

Like as a VicePresident?

The Megamids practically unchanged in 20+ years. La plus ca change, la plus'que c'est le meme chose.

Well we were a UN oversite body. From today's WashingtonPost: Investigate, Don't Incapacitate By Tom Lantos Saturday, May 8, 2004; Page A19 Since the end of January, when an Iraqi newspaper alleged that a senior U.N. official had taken bribes from Saddam Hussein, the United Nations has been the target of unsubstantiated allegations involving potential mismanagement, unethical behavior and collusion with Hussein's despicable regime. The notion that a high-level U.N. official could have been on Baghdad's payroll is sickening, if true, and it must be investigated. That being said, it has been just as sickening to see that longtime haters of the United Nations are using the bribery charge and other unproven allegations to discredit the world body when the case against it is far from clear. This campaign of slander threatens great harm to U.S. interests because it is aimed at undermining the United Nations' ability to help us in Iraq. Based on my preliminary review of the oil-for-food program, it appears that the United Nations took action to prevent some of the abuses of which it is being accused, and that much responsibility for the problems that beset the program lies with the members of the Security Council, including our own government. We know that U.N. officials raised concerns about possible Iraqi fraud in oil-for-food contracts as far back as early 2001, when Secretary General Kofi Annan issued a report warning that Hussein had begun to implement a system of surcharges on sales of oil under the program. Annan's reports led to reforms in the program. We also know that some U.N. officials tried to halt Hussein's scheme to extract kickbacks from companies seeking to sell goods under the program. Although the Security Council did not give the U.N. Secretariat oversight authority, U.N. officers worked to hold up overpriced contracts by demanding that missions that submitted them on behalf of their companies explain any overcharges. In many cases, the missions were unable or unwilling to defend the contracts, and they were never approved. In cases where the missions did attempt to justify the overpricing, the United Nations forwarded them to the Security Council's Sanctions Committee with red flags about the cost. Nevertheless, the State Department never exercised the power it had as a Sanctions Committee member to block any of the overpriced contracts flagged by the United Nations, nor did it otherwise try to halt Hussein's kickback scheme. Other members of the Security Council, including France, Russia and China, also failed to act. We have learned that the State Department approved dozens of ridiculously overpriced contracts, including three multimillion-dollar deals submitted by Syria that were inflated by a whopping 44 percent. In February 2002, the State Department even approved the sale of a fleet of 300 Mercedes-Benz luxury cars for use by the Iraqi government. We have learned that the State Department approved dozens of ridiculously overpriced contracts, including three multimillion-dollar deals submitted by Syria that were inflated by a whopping 44 percent. In February 2002, the State Department even approved the sale of a fleet of 300 Mercedes-Benz luxury cars for use by the Iraqi government. I fully understand that our highest priority as a Sanctions Committee member was to make sure that Iraq could not get its hands on illicit and dual-use items, and the United States blocked thousands of contracts based on these concerns. But another important priority should have been to prevent overpriced contracts that invited kickbacks. The United Nations clearly has to answer to the allegation that a U.N. official accepted bribes from Hussein, and the panel of inquiry headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul A. Volcker will thoroughly investigate this charge. I would expect that such an inquiry would look at whether the United Nations had put in place sufficient mechanisms to deter corrupt behavior by its employees. If the panel also discovers evidence of shoddy management or other problems in the program, the United Nations must make appropriate reforms. In Congress, as we move forward with a responsible inquiry, we should also focus attention on our own government and other Security Council members, and find out why they didn't use the authority they had to block Hussein's padded contracts. U.N. bashers would love to hold the United Nations culpable for Hussein's abuse of the oil-for-food program, because it would make an effective case for excluding the United Nations from Iraq's transition. But fairness and U.S. national interest require us to avoid being distracted by reckless distortions and to focus on facts. Rep. Lantos, of California, is the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee.

No, it's the 8 signatures that Chessler's charging a $305 premium for. The cheapest edition on Abebooks is $45

Or anything you full well intend to return

You like your soaps with a veneer of respectability, eh?

Someone's obviously never looked at the finances of state university's...

You got a $70 stove by buying $700 or so worth of gear (assuming you don't have the Credit Card, which is a good way to build the dividend $) If you'd shopped at a store that gave you 10% off every purchase, you'd have saved the same amount - And wouldn't have given REI the float!

Like this?

I don't know if the MLT4 works with Diamir's, but Life-Link's got them on special. http://www.life-link.com/specials.htm

USA Photomaps rocks!

That's what I'd thought from all the reviews, until I checked them out in the store. They aren't much lighter than a Laser Lou's Review confirmed that, Weight: I compared shell weight of same size Scarpa Laser with the F1. The Laser shell is about 1 ounce heavier than the F1. With thermo liner, the Laser is several more ounces heavier due to it's higher and thicker liner. The quick Skin/Ski changeover looks slick, but I've heard reports of durability problems.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51480-2004Apr28?language=printer Hatchery Salmon To Count as Wildlife By Blaine Harden Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, April 29, 2004; Page A01 SEATTLE, April 28 -- The Bush administration has decided to count hatchery-bred fish, which are pumped into West Coast rivers by the hundreds of millions yearly, when it decides whether stream-bred wild salmon are entitled to protection under the Endangered Species Act. This represents a major change in the federal government's approach to protecting Pacific salmon -- a $700 million-a-year effort that it has described as the most expensive and complicated of all attempts to enforce the Endangered Species Act. The decision, contained in a draft document and confirmed Wednesday by federal officials, means that the health of spawning wild salmon will no longer be the sole gauge of whether a salmon species is judged by the federal government to be on the brink of extinction. Four of five salmon found in major West Coast rivers, including the Columbia, are already bred in hatcheries, and some will now be counted as the federal government tries to determine what salmon species are endangered. "We need to look at both wild and hatchery fish before deciding whether to list a species for protection," said Bob Lohn, Northwest regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service. Lohn added that the new policy will probably help guide decisions this summer by the Bush administration about whether to remove 15 species of salmon from protection as endangered or threatened. From Washington state to Southern California, the decision to count hatchery-bred fish in assessing the health of wild salmon runs could have profound economic consequences. In the past 15 years, the federal government's effort to protect stream-bred wild salmon has forced costly changes in how forests are cut, housing developments are built, farms are cultivated and rivers are operated for hydroelectricity production. Farm, timber and power interests have complained for years about these costs and have sued to remove protections for some fish. They are enthusiastic advocates of counting hatchery fish when assessing the survival chances of wild salmon. Unlike their wild cousins, hatchery fish can be bred without ecosystem-wide modifications to highways, farms and dams. "Upon hearing this news, I am cautiously optimistic that the government may be complying with the law and ending its slippery salmon science," said Russell C. Brooks, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, an industry-funded group that has challenged federal salmon-protection efforts in court. Word of the new policy was greeted by outrage from several environmental groups. "Rather than address the problems of habitat degraded by logging, dams and urban sprawl, this policy will purposefully mask the precarious condition of wild salmon behind fish raised by humans in concrete pools," said Jan Hasselman, counsel for the National Wildlife Federation. "This is the same sort of mechanistic, blind reliance on technology that got us into this problem in the first place," said Chris Wood, vice president for conservation at Trout Unlimited. "We built dams that block the fish, and we are trucking many of these fish around the dams. Now the administration thinks we can just produce a bazillion of these hatchery fish and get out from underneath the yoke of the Endangered Species Act." Six of the world's leading experts on salmon ecology complained last month in the journal Science that fish produced in hatcheries cannot be counted on to save wild salmon. The scientists had been asked by the federal government to comment on its salmon-recovery program but said they were later told that some of their conclusions about hatchery fish were inappropriate for official government reports. "The current political and legal wrangling is a sideshow to the real issues. We know biologically that hatchery supplements are no substitute for wild fish," Robert Paine, one of the scientists and an ecologist at the University of Washington, said when the Science article was published in late March. Federal officials said Wednesday that the new policy on hatchery salmon -- to be published in June in the Federal Register and then be opened to public comment -- was in response to a 2001 federal court ruling in Oregon. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan found that the federal government made a mistake by counting only wild fish -- and not genetically similar hatchery fish -- when it listed coastal coho salmon for protection. To the dismay of many environmental groups, the federal government chose not to appeal that ruling, though it seemed counter to the reasoning behind the spending of more than $2 billion in the past 15 years to protect stream-bred wild salmon. "There was an inescapable reasoning to Judge Hogan's ruling," said Lohn, chief of federal salmon recovery in the Northwest. "We thought his reasoning was accurate." He said the Bush administration will continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on habitat improvement for salmon. "We have major problems to overcome, both with habitat and with improving the way hatcheries are operated," Lohn said. "Run right, hatcheries can be of considerable value to rebuilding wild fish runs."

For heavy boxes, nothing beats USPS Media Mail $ wise. Dirt cheap to ship stuff that way. Just make sure you tell them it's "Printed Matter"

What they've mostly screwed up is translating the massive amounts of intelligence data into distilled reports (and having politicians not redistill)

1) Why do I want to drag beig heavy crap into the mountains (unless I'm a Mountie?) 2) Barometric Altimeters Measure Air Pressure. I have an Avocet Vertech that I like. It's not nearly as fancy as the Suunto's, but for $115 you can get one with a ski strap, that's nice for winter.

You like the D70?

There are many fields of study that seek to describe behavior based on external analysis - economics being one of the more respected. They do this quite well.

Spray on Boyo! You'd be surprise how accurate the psychological models that the military/intelligence community has come up with - and how useful they find them.

You miss college don't you?

Do you think a Supreme Court just is available that cheap? Nonsense your honor! We know you've already been bought...

Being a picayune - 512MB SD for $109 @ buy.com. Trouble I have with any of the removable memory players is on the trips where I want alot of memory for the camera - I also want it for the player. And player + big memory card ~= price of Hard Drive player (10GB iPod for $249 as an example)

??? Trails with no use will revert to nature.

???? SD's work with a number of camera's. And Palm's. And for 256MB and below CF ~= SD's in price.