The girl and I have frequented Mohawk Trail State Forest on several occasions in the past but we'd always stayed in one of the nice log cabins until this past weekend when we took the trailer. Reservations were made on-line using only the info available on the Reserve America WWW site and the campsite map on the Park's main page.

Mohawk Trail does offer 7 log cabins for those who prefer more comforts.  They are clean and well maintained and they all have a couple of 120v electrical outlets.  They also, depending on size, include a number of bunk beds which generally have a double bed on the bottom with a twin on top and additional twin beds in the living area in the larger cabins. Each has a wood stove for heat if things get a wee bit chilly. They no longer (as of July 2007) allow pets in the cabins and, since we take the puppy, the trailer a necessity. There is a sink in each but no running water so you'll need to bring a water carrier of some sort, sheets/blankets or sleeping bags and your own cooler to keep your food in.

First off, let me say that none of the campsites offer water, electric or sewer hookups. You can either use the public restrooms or fill your fresh water tank and depend on your holding tanks and then rely on battery power and/or a generator.  There is a dump station at the park entrance/exit that campers can use free of charge (non-campers are charged $15). There is also a potable water connection there so if you want you can fill your fresh water tank on your way in and save yourself the trouble of hauling water in a jerry can from the nearest spigot.

So, if you are looking for some added info before reserving a site at Mohawk trail read on...

1.  There are a total of 56 campsites within the park. The maximum RV/Trailer size that can be handled by any site is 25'. If your RV is over 25' in length you need to look elsewhere. Savoy Mountain State Forest is close by and can handle up to 40' RVs.

2.  Campsites #13, 26 and 27 are used internally by park staff and therefore, not available to the public.

3.  Campsites #14, 15, 16 and 17 are not reservable on-line, there are used for "drop-in" campers who show up and the entrance looking for a campsite.

4.  Campsites #2, 17, 45 and 48 can only be used by tents or pop-up campers.

5. If your RV is in excess of 15' long you can exclude sites #2, 3, 4, 8 and 48. These sites are limited to campers that are less than 15'.

6.  If your RV is in excess of 20' in length you can also exclude sites #6, 19, 25, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 42, 45 and 48.

7. The remaining sites can fit up to a 25' trailer HOWEVER, some may present some problems getting in and out of them. For example, there is a HUGE oak tree directly opposite the entrance to site #30.  I was able to jockey my 25' trailer into the site with several tries but site placement wasn't ideal and I did scrape a tree getting out of it.  IMO, many of the sites listed as being accessible by a 25' RV simply aren't because of the locations of trees or the angles needed to back into the sites.  If I were going again with my 25' trailer I'd limit myself to the following campsites: #9, 10, 11, 12, 28, 29, 32, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44 and 55.

We did stay in site 32. The site was easy enough to get in and out of but they aren't kidding when they say the max size is 25'.  The rear bumper was hanging over a cliff and the trailer tongue was less than 2' off of the narrow road. There was no excess room to play around with here.

Of these sites my personal choice when it comes to connivance are sites 28 and 32 with 28 being the better choice of those two. This is simply because there are water spigots right at the street and 40' of hose will allow you to fill your fresh water tank without having to lug water around. I should mention that all of the spigots within the Park have treaded connectors so you can connect your hose directly while filling your water tank (you can't remain connected since these are common use spigots)  Other parks, like DAR State Forest, don't have threaded spigots. (Booo!  Hisss!)

A few general items that others might find important: The official park map shows water available near the restrooms in the 40's/50's area but there is no spigot there. It appears that there was one once but it wasn't there for Memorial Day weekend 2008. There is just a small hole in the restroom building wall where it used to be. Maybe they'll have that fixed/replaced shortly. Also, there are 3 restroom buildings throughout the park. Only one, up near the cabins, has showers and there is only one shower in the ladies room and one in the men’s room. Both of the restrooms in the campsite areas have dishwashing stations with large commercial kitchen sinks and hot/cold water.

The park offers only a soda machine and a pay phone at the front entrance. If you need ice, propane or other camp necessities you'll need to venture into town. There is a Wal-Mart in North Adams (about 10 miles away) that has their standard sporting goods/camping gear section if you need it but ice and propane are available in Charlemont (4 miles from the park).

We are headed to Nickerson State Park down on Cape Cod next month so maybe I'll write up a similar review for that one too.

Follow the URL and go get yourself a free T-Shirt.  Even if you don't like it you can use it as a rag to wash your car or you can give it to Chris at the next Xmas gathering. (Did I just type that?  Bad me!)

http://onemillionfreetshirts.com/getyourfreeshirt.html

But the gig is that they'll send you a T-Shirt with some company's advertising on it.  Yeah, whatever. But the company that pays for the advertising will be donating money to a charity (you can pick from a few and if you just can't decide do me a favor and choose the American Cancer Soc. )

The company will never know whether you wore the shirt or not - the donation gets made anyway.  You do have to give up an e-mail addy to do this though so use a throwaway account.  THey send an email for verification so you can't just throw a fake one in there.

IT'S FREE!  You know ya wanna do it...

Yesterday's Boston Globe carried an interesting Op-ed piece concerning a recent proposal to raise cigarette taxes by $1/pack here in MA.

Now, I'll preface my commenst here by admitting it.  Yes, I smoke.  But the tax won't affect me anyway because MA sucks and, as a military retiree, I buy my cigs on the local military base so the state doesn't collect a single penny of taxes on the transaction.  They can suck it.  

So, as I was saying, this op-ed was written by one Rep. Rachel Kaprielian (D-Watertown) and a Rev. Herman Hamilton who is president of the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization and pastor of Roxbury Presbyterian Church. 

"The benefits of a higher cigarette tax

Each year as the Legislature sets the state budget, members are confronted with making tough and balanced choices while remaining steadfast to sound public policy. Nowhere is that more evident than in the state's commitment to ensuring the success of its landmark healthcare reform law, an initiative that is providing insurance to the uninsured but carries with it a price tag of nearly $400 million in fiscal year 2009.

Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death and disease in Massachusetts. Twenty-five people die each day in the state from tobacco-related illnesses, and thousands of others suffer from related ailments - emphysema, heart disease, cancer - many unable to work or enjoy quality of life. Its wrath results in great personal, physical, societal, and fiscal cost. To combat this reality requires a multi-faceted and fiscally responsible approach: one that brings in needed revenue while adding immeasurable benefits toward prevention and cessation of smoking.

Currently, there is a legislative proposal that would add $1 to the levy on cigarettes. Its passage would add about $150 million to state coffers, which would enable the Legislature to continue healthcare reform, as well as reduce the incidence of smoking rates overall. Data shows that for every 10 percent increase in the cost of a pack of cigarettes, the overall smoking rates decrease 4 percent.

Perhaps more compelling, raising the price of smoking will discourage children, who are still the tobacco companies' main target, from picking up the habit in the first place. That will lower future healthcare costs and help break the cycle of addiction. A leading study shows that nearly every adult who smokes (almost 90 percent) took his or her first puff at or before age 18. If passed, this legislation would translate into 46,000 fewer future kid smokers coupled with 25,000 fewer adult smokers.

Every year, Massachusetts spends over $3.5 billion to treat sick smokers. These are critical dollars that could be spent on other health priorities, prevention programs, or other important needs in our state.

Critics of the increase say that it will push sales to states that tax less. They also say it is a regressive tax that will dwindle over time. Neither is true. Convenience stores in border towns noticed a slight dip in business after past increases, but, over time, found that buyers returned. This makes sense since cigarettes, like gum, candy, and soda, are typically purchases of convenience.

And other states, most notably Michigan and Alaska, have found that even with an increase in the cigarette tax, their revenues have steadily increased, not decreased.

But raising the tobacco tax saves money here too. The child with asthma whose parent stops smoking today will have fewer asthma-related complications from secondhand smoke tomorrow. An expectant mother encouraged to kick the habit by higher prices will give birth to a healthier baby. The teenager who doesn't start smoking becomes the adult with fewer chances of getting lung cancer, emphysema, or chronic heart disease.

And from a strict fiscal analysis, it would save the state over $1 billion in long-term healthcare costs.

So an increase in the tobacco levy simply makes sense. It deters children from smoking. It helps taxpayers, heathcare providers, hospitals, and insurance ratepayers. And it extends a helping hand to those hard-pressed families and individuals who are working but lack health insurance."

Now, I've highlighted a small portion of that article in blue for a reason.  You see...  well...  to be polite about it, it's a lie.  Apparently the authors are so busy coming up with ways to increase State tax revenue they haven't been reading the news. Maybe they should read this: "Obese people, smokers cost the health system less than healthy do, study finds" 

So, if they in fact, look at it from a "strict financial analysis", how can increasing the tax produce the exact opposite result?

Secondly, if the health of smokers is as important as they appear to want to imply then why is it that NOTHING is being done about the fact the the State already gets millions of dollars each year as a part of the 1999 tobacco settlement and less than 2% of the money they get annually is actually spent of health care for smokers or programs to help smokers quit?   That was what the original lawsuit was about, wasn't it?  The State claimed that smoking caused all these incredible costs and "Big Tobacco" should bear the burden right?  Well, big tobacco is shelling out millions and where the hell is it going? Why has the state budget for these programs been slashed by 90% since 2002?  Why does the state spend only 1.8% of the $711.5 million it takes in annually in tobacco taxes and settlement program monies on smoking prevention/cessation programs? And why, oh why, does the State's new mandated health care program NOT cover smoking cessation programs and supplies?

So once again, smokers will bear the cost of providing welfare for someone else's sins and they get the shaft.  The nanny state decides you aren't the favorite niece or nephew afterall.

My response to the op-ed piece that inspired this post will be published in tomorrow's Boston Globe. 

I admit it...  *hangs head in shame*  I always get caught up in the latest freak fads.   I did the cigar thing, the turkey fryer thing (Mmmmm!  Fried twinkies!), the home beer brewing thing, etc...  and now...  I'm roasting my own coffee beans at home.

I swiped a hot-air popcorn popper from the girl and promptly ordered 25 lbs of green coffee beans (Columbian Supremo!).  Those wonderful people at UPS delivered my huge bag-o-beans late this afternoon and I quickly roasted up enough to brew a few pots of coffee.  (Not today or tomorrow.  You need to let the beans sit for a few days after roasting for optimum taste.  Or so I'm told anyway...).

The whole process is easy enough to do and there are a few dozen web sites out there that give you step by step directions that you can't really go wrong. Now I just need to toy with things a bit in pursuit of perfection.  Meh, it'll keep me occupied for a few hours each week.

Why wasn't this advertised earlier?

"Weekend picks