Yosemite National Park's future....

Having visited and even camped at Yosemite a number of times over the years, I have an opinion somewhere in between the government and the plaintifs in the suit reported below.

First we should understand that Yosemite Valley, the shear-walled canyon everyone sees in the photographs with the waterfalls and ‘half-dome', are actually a very small part of Yosemite NP. There are popular areas outside of the valley such as a large conference area where they hold a popular jazz festival every year north of the valley. The popular Badger Pass ski resort lies just south of the canyon. Further south there are several large campgrounds spotted all the way down to the southern entrance at Wawona. Behind the valley in the high country is a wonderful camping area called Tuolumne Meadows located off one of the few highways over the Sierra to relatively remote eastern California and Nevada. Between these features are large areas of wilderness and lakes - it truly is a beautiful park and should be preserved to the extent possible.

Yosemite isn't the only park in the Sierra mountains. The northern most park, Lassen NP with its volcano and cinder cone and lava flows is actually in the Cascade range of mountains, not the Sierra. The reason they are considered different is because the Cascades are of volcanic origin and the Sierra are tectonic plate uplifting as the Pacific plate runs into the Continental plate. That is why there is a short steep climb of perhaps fifteen or twenty miles to the top ridge of the Sierra from the East while the West slope from the foothills is over sixty miles!

South of Yosemite are two more parks, Kings Canyon on the Kings river and Sequoia famous for its grove of Redwoods. Kings Canyon is a wider canyon but otherwise similar to Yosemite. It is much less developed with most accommodations outside of the canyon itself. It is well known in California, but doesn't have the miseries of the international crowd that Yosemite has. Actually there are many groves of Redwoods in the Sierra including all three NP's.

There are large groups of California ‘environmentalists' I consider to be young backpackers, who advocate removing all man-made artifacts from the entire Sierra including roads and access so that they can have the entire five hundred mile long wilderness all to themselves. The other side of the coin are the business people who want to clear-cut, pave and industrialize the mountains just as they have everywhere else.

I find it difficult to side with either extreme. However, regarding Yosemite Valley, I do agree with the extremists that virtually all evidence of urbanization should be removed from the valley including the $1,000 per night hotel and all of the little touristy shopping malls, grocery stores and even the campgrounds. I would allow a few probably high volume restaurants and snackbars to accomodate day visitors but eliminate all overnight accommodations including the workforce which has its own city within the canyon.

Presently access to the dead end valley other than by tour bus is by car - and in the summertime, it is bumper to bumper! I advocate limiting auto access to at best the winter season and requiring automotive traffic to park outside the valley where there are millions of acres of parkland for parking lots and hotels, off any of its three access roads (north, west and south) to say nothing of neighboring communities who would love to care for visitors.

Everyone on Earth should have the opportunity to experience Yosemite Valley which is so unique. So the park should provide that access by greatly expanding and improving the park's free mini-bus services, and other facilities designed primarily for pedestrian and bicycle traffic rather than the congestion, glut and smell of gas and diesel engines!

In other words, get the unnecessary machines and buildings out of the canyon and provide access for many more people - not fewer! Actually, I wish they'd even bring back the free roaming black bears which were ubiquitous when I first visited the place many years ago - the customers would love 'em!

Yellostone NP used to have free roaming black bears also. Today, all you see are bison - it just ain't the same.

So, as you can see when you read the following article, that I don't agree with either extreme - and I'm not certain that Yosemite Valley's problems relate to other parks such as Yellowstone which is open and vast or most certainly the Grand Canyon near where I now live.

Yosemite suit could affect park access
By GARANCE BURKE, Associated Press Writer

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, Calif. - The plunging waterfalls and soaring crags chiseled by the Merced River draw millions of visitors each year, but the crowds are precisely what threatens the waterway and the park.

Efforts to safeguard the Merced have spawned a court battle over the future of development in Yosemite National Park's most popular stretch. The case may come down to the challenge facing all of America's parks: Should they remain open to everyone, or should access be limited in the interest of protecting them?

In November, a federal judge barred crews from finishing $60 million in construction projects in Yosemite Valley, siding with a small group of environmentalists who sued the federal government, saying further commercial development would bring greater numbers of visitors, thus threatening the Merced's fragile ecosystem.

"The park's plans for commercialization could damage Yosemite for future generations," said Bridget Kerr, a member of Friends of Yosemite Valley, one of two local environmental groups that filed the suit.

The government is appealing, fearing the ruling could force the National Park Service to limit the number of people allowed into Yosemite each day, a precedent it doesn't want to see echoed in other parks.

"I don't think we've ever had a ruling with these kind of implications," said Kerri Cahill, a Denver-based planner for the park service. "It's going to have a direct influence on the public who care about these places."

The case has Yosemite's most loyal advocates sharply divided over how to balance preservation with access to public lands. Even environmentalists can't agree on how to minimize the human footprint — some believe cars should be kept out entirely; others say visitors should have to make reservations in advance.

Global Warming report.....

Wal heck, it gets warmer than a lil ole five or six degrees down here in Arizona! An besides, I won't even be alive in 2100 so what's the worry?

"The world has warmed about 5C (9F) since the last Ice Age. Temperatures have risen 0.6C (1.1 F) since 1900 and the 10 warmest years since records began in the 1850s have been since 1994."

The last ice age which covered most of Europe and North America with glaciers was less than ten degrees on average colder than now. With the planet covered with ice and snow, the seas were low enough for the Asiatic people (Indians) to cross over to the Americas even as it was warming up.

The fact that the ten warmest years out of the last 150 years occurred since 1994 indicates that the warming is exponential similar to a graph of the stockmarket during that same period of time.

Another nine or ten degrees would most likely eliminate the polar ice cap which means the oceans would rise enough to swamp most islands and seacoasts. Indonesia with its millions of people, for example, would probably be under water along with London, New York, Los Angeles and the San Joaquin and Sacramento valley - and forget the Netherlands and Venice!

By 2100 the world population expected to top out at nine billion people would be squeezed onto much less land, much of which would be desert.

But then, perhaps it won't be that bad. We'll certainly have used up the Earth's supply of oil long before then and a nuclear war or two over dwindling food supplies will certainly cut back on the population. The opulent standard of living we here in the US enjoy will be severely reduced.

Our grandchildren, the ‘old timers' then will remember the good old days....


U.N. climate panel to project wrenching change
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent Tue Jan 23

OSLO (Reuters) - A U.N. climate panel will project wrenching disruptions to nature by 2100 in a report next week blaming human use of fossil fuels more clearly than ever for global warming, scientific sources said.

A draft report based on work by 2,500 scientists and due for release on February 2 in Paris, draws on research showing greenhouse gases at their highest levels for 650,000 years, fuelling a warming likely to bring more droughts, floods and rising seas.

The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may have some good news, however, by toning down chances of the biggest temperature and sea level rises projected in the IPCC's previous 2001 study, the sources said.

But it will also revise up its lowest projections.

"The main good news is that we have a clearer idea of what we are up against," one source said. The report will set the tone for work in extending the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, the main international plan for curbing global warming, beyond 2012.

The IPCC will say it is at least 90 percent sure that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are to blame for a warming over the past 50 years.

The draft conclusion that the link is "very likely" would mark a strengthening from "likely" in the 2001 report -- a probability of 66-90 percent.

"Quite often much of the debate is 'what level of certainty do we have around some of these phrases?'," said Robert Watson, World Bank chief scientist who chaired the previous 2001 report.

Scientists and representatives of governments will meet in Paris from January 29 to review the draft and approve a text. Watson declined to predict any of the 2007 conclusions.

TEMPERATURES UP
But the sources said the new report is likely to foresee a rise in temperatures of 2 to 4.5 Celsius (3.6-8.1 Fahrenheit) this century, with about 3 Celsius (5.4F) most likely.

The 2001 report said temperatures could rise by 1.4 to 5.8C (2.5-10.4F) by 2100 -- but did not say which end of the range was most likely. The IPCC would also narrow the 2001 forecast range of sea level rise of 9-88 cms (3.5-34.7 inches) by 2100.

Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," said the IPCC would discredit "the rhetoric of catastrophe" that he accused some governments of adopting.

"Yes, climate change is a problem but it's not this over-arching, civilization-destroying thing that the rhetoric of today is telling us," he said.

Even so, the European Union says any temperature rise above 2C (3.6F) will cause "dangerous" change, for instance with more heatwaves like in Europe in 2003 that killed 35,000 people.

"Even the minimum predicted shifts in climate for the 21st century are likely to be significant and disruptive," the U.N. Climate Secretariat says of the 2001 projection of a minimum 1.4C rise. It says the top of the range would be "catastrophic."

Temperatures have risen 0.6C (1.1 F) since 1900 and the 10 warmest years since records began in the 1850s have been since 1994. The world has warmed about 5C (9F) since the last Ice Age.

Benjamin Santer, a climate scientist at the U.S. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said research in the last decade had expanded from studying surface temperatures to everything from ocean heat content to glacial retreat.

"The system is telling us an internally consistent story -- you can't explain the observed changes ... in the climate system over the second half of the 20th century by invoking natural causes," he said. He said he did not know the IPCC view.

An alternative strategy...

OK, if Bush really wants an alternative strategy -- here is one:

From what I've heard and read, the ‘insurgency' will not stop until we leave, but that the Iraqi's will stop as soon as we, their invaders do actually leave and they no longer consider us as various polls have shown, ‘occupiers'.

The most complete alternative proposal was given in a talk to the National Press Club on CSPAN last night by George McGovern (who lost to Nixon during the Vietnam war), and Wm Polk (Middle east expert, author: "The Arab World Today" (Harvard 1991), and descended from Pres. James Polk, 1845-1849).

His book [Amazon, $9.00]: "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now" George McGovern, William R. Polk. In the book McGovern and Polk argue for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. ... McGovern advocating a position of a six-month withdrawal from Iraq.

However, he and Polk stressed that the sectarian (religious) violence will continue until it works itself out between the Shiite's and the Sunni's since it has been building up for years under Saddam Hussein. We can do nothing about that. It has to run its course and be settled by the Iraqi government - whatever that might become.

Seems to me that if we follow a planned withdrawal six months hence, that should give Bush the time he needs to find out whether his ‘new' plan will work. According to the Rice, Gates and Pace testimony I've heard, we should know quite soon - within a couple of months - whether Iraq is capable of holding up its end of the plan. If it works, we can take from there. If Maliki can't or won't do it, then we should leave and end our active participation in Iraq by mid summer.

Bush challenges Iraq strategy skeptics
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Saturday challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new
Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad.

"To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," Bush said.

In a pitch to lawmakers and the American people, Bush said the United States will keep the onus on the Iraqi government to take charge of security and reach a political reconciliation. He countered Democrats and his fellow Republicans who argue that Bush is sending 21,500 more U.S. troops into Iraq on the same mission.

"We have a new strategy with a new mission: Helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "Our plan puts Iraqis in the lead."

The president, who hosted an informal, mostly social gathering of Republican leaders at Camp David on Friday night and Saturday, asked for patience from lawmakers from both parties. They had grilled Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, last week when the officials testified before Congress in defense of the president's plan.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate intend to hold votes within a few weeks on Bush's revised Iraq policy. The nonbinding resolutions would be one way to show their opposition to any troop buildup and force Republicans to make a choice about whether they support the president's plan.

Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., said that he, along with most Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans, believe sending more troops compounds a bad situation. Walz, a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, said diplomatic and political solutions are needed, not more troops.

"Before moving forward with this escalation, we owe it to these troops, to their families, and to all Americans to ask the tough questions and demand honest answers about this policy," Walz said in the Democrats' Saturday radio address.

"Is there a clear strategy that the commanders on the ground believe will succeed?" Walz said. "What are the benchmarks for success, and how long does the president believe it will take to achieve them? Is this a policy that will contribute to the America's security in the larger war on terror, or distract from it?"

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has charged that what Democrats really want to do is cut off funding for the troops. Democrats deny that.

"Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully," Bush said. "But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. "

In his radio broadcast, Bush replayed the highlights of his Wednesday night address to the nation.

He said the 21,500 troops being sent to Baghdad and Anbar province, a base for al-Qaida, have a changed mission.

"This time there will be adequate Iraqi and U.S. forces to hold the areas that have been cleared," Bush said.

Bush said Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has pledged that political sectarian interference with security operations will not be tolerated. "This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter neighborhoods that are home to those fueling sectarian violence," he said.

The president also said the United States will hold the Iraqi government to its pledge to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November, pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis and spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction that will create new jobs.

"The Iraqi government knows that it must meet them, or lose the support of the Iraqi and the American people," Bush said.

Cost of Medicare drugs....

The very fact that Bush would veto the Medicare bill if it passes Congress is reason enough to pass it and let the people know what he thinks about them! Bush has yet to do anything for the American people since his allegiance is to big business and fundamentalist neocons.

NEWS BREAK!: The bill just passed the House on a vote of 255-170, with 24 Republicans joining the Democratic majority in support of it. 60% - not enough to over-ride veto, but certainly enough to make Bush wonder whether a veto is a wise political move!

Following is a Kaiser foundation URL which goes into the matter in greater depth regarding whether the bill would save the government money or not. http://tinyurl.com/yctoms

My own position is that we eventually will have a single payer medical system if for no other reason that big business simply can't support the nation's health care and remain competitive with foreign multinationals who don't. This coupled with the gross inefficiency of one third of our medical care is performed in emergency rooms rather than preventive treatment by general practitioners and nurses who are much less expensive.

Thus oversight of the laisse a faire pharmaceutical companies is a must for the health of the American economy.

For example: "The value of biological drugs indicated for autoimmune diseases, which affect up to 5% (1 in 20) of the total world population, was roughly $11 billion in 2005. Remicade, Enbrel, Humira and Avonex currently lead the autoimmune field." It is interesting to note that the entire population of the U.S. is 5% of the world's population, or 300,000,000.

I give myself one 50 ml shot per week of Enbrel for my psoriatic arthritis to prevent my immune system from destroying my joints. About nine months ago when I started the program, the price was $220 per syringe, ($11,440/year). Since then the price has gone up to $325 per weekly self-administered shot, ($16,900/year). http://tinyurl.com/y6dn27

If I had to pay for the drug myself it would consume my entire Social Security income. Fortunately my company, who self-insures, pays for it. Of course, most of the company's income comes from the U.S. Government or more accurately, the taxpayers. Just part of the cost of doing business.

Unfortunately, most patients, including my son, who has the same genetic problem I have but works for a different company. doesn't have that luxury and can't afford the drug. Instead he takes Methotrexate. http://tinyurl.com/y9lcjm which is vastly less expensive and also much less effective in preventing permanent joint damage. When he takes early retirement in a couple of years he'll be on his own since he will be too young for Medicare.

So, considering that other nations, notably Canada, are known to negotiate quite successfully with the drug companies (which are all multinationals) I fail to see how the CBO or any other political body can say we can't save money on drug costs.

Bush would veto Medicare bill: White House

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday threatened a veto of a bill that would overhaul the Medicare prescription drug law to require the government to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies.

"If this bill is presented to the president, he will veto," White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters.

The Medicare bill is a key priority of the new Democratic Congress. Snow spoke as the U.S. House of Representatives was expected to vote later in the day on the legislation.

Democrats contend that instructing the government to negotiate prices would save money both for the government and for older Americans covered by the Medicare program.

But the White House and many Republicans in Congress say it would limit the availability of drugs while achieving no cost savings. Snow cited a Congressional Budget Office study that said the negotiations would not save money.

Bush's new direction .....

Well, the President made his pitch and aside from confessing to having made some mistakes in Iraq is confident that 21,000 more American troops in the front lines will make a difference.

After watching CSPAN and CNN for three hours after listening to the President with interviews of congress people, military generals, soldiers who have served in Iraq, reporters in Iraq, and even political guru's, I'm not at all excited about our further involvement in Iraq nor am I expectant of any improvement in the outcome of the war.

I'm sure most of you also watched the event and its repercussions so I'm only going to mention a couple of my impressions.

According to most it seems that 50,000 troops two years ago might have made a difference, but now it would take 200,000 troops in Baghdad alone.

The President claimed that his proposal was one from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, but reporters on the ground pointed out that Maliki was put in power by the al-Sadr Shiite militia which is anti-American and one of the factions fighting for control of Iraq. Thus the prime question is whether he would give more than lip service to Bush's plan. Historically, Makiki has not kept any of his promises.

Senator Mitch McConnell from Kentucky maintained that the war in Iraq has kept al Caida from attacking the U.S. for the past four or five years. That has to be pure nonsense! It took a total of nineteen men with very few resources to bring about the 9-11 tragedy. Al Caida could certainly do something similar anytime it wants to.

Al Caida was not involved in Iraq at all before we invaded Iraq because Saddam was not at all friendly or sympathetic with bin Laden! Al Caida is now in Iraq opportunistically in its hatred for America and only because we are there.

The war in Iraq is a full fledged power struggle primarily between the Sunni's and the Shiite's where the majority Shiite's "want the Sunni's to admit defeat" after decades of Sunni domination. That, to me is nothing more than civil war – a war between religious factions.

The President's men say that to leave Iraq would lead to disaster - but would it? Nothing in this life is black and white and most certainly if we de-escalated our active involvement with Iraq but still provided advisors, logistical support, maintained a military presence in the region where we have other national interests, and made a greater effort to negotiate with Iraq's neighbors - especially Syria and Iran, the only result would be that we left the Iraqi people to their own self-determination. And that is what we should have done in the first place!

Actually, it was stated during the Vietnam war that to leave would doom the world to Communism - but it didn't happen! That war cost us 58,000 American lives.

Bottom line: The Bush escalation of the Iraq war will continue the conflict well into the next presidency. If that happens, the Republicans might as well not even run a candidate! And that would not be good for either party.