mattp

The movie starts out in a suburban home in anywhere U.S.A., with a guy sitting on the sofa, TV on, watching a news talk show on channel nine where T'Vash is criticizing Blackwater "a hail of bullets..." and mattp sits next to him clutching a stack of papers, the top one with an obvious title: The EVils of the Military Industrial Complex. Sexy cocoa is trying to interrupt with a statement about chickenhawks, but Jayb is moderator and skillfully puts him down. JosephH, 13baby, and Archy are in the audience, clapping whenever Tvash hammers home a good point. Virenda 7 and Seahwaks are there too, but you can't tell what they think. OffWhite looks furtively back and forth, and slides a briefcase under his chair. He nods to Jim, sitting nearby with a Koran in his hand. They get up to leave, but the camera lingers on the briefcase. Tvash continues: "the professionalism they claim is far from clear..." Without even putting his beer down, KK says: There is nobody in the room. He is talking to the TV. In the next scene, we see Serenity all buffed out, wearing wrap around sunglasses, sitting nervously in his Jeep Cherokee with a gunner standing up in the Sunroof, scanning the wall of whitewashed houses along side a trash-filled square. All is quiet, but there is a caravan approaching. Menacing, atonal music fills the background ... Back to Lynnwood: Dt3pin and Fairweather walk up to the door of KK's house.... Back to Baghdad: ...

More B.S. from KK. First of all: I have not heard anybody in any seriousness say "there is no terrorist threat." Not here, not in the liberal New York Times, at PBS, or anywhere else. Second: our involvement in Iraq DOES has made us less safe and this opinion is not just that of "the left," but it has been voiced by many military and terrorism experts, as well as some heavy hitters on the right as well. Lastly: "let it be you who bears the brunt because you asked for it?" You are clueless, aren't you.

That is exactly the kind of "politically correct KK-style support the troops" B.S. that, in the National debate, has prevented rational consideration of anything to do with this war. I don't remember anybody here or anywhere else stating that they want us to LOSE. What is disgusting, despicable, and anti-American is your vile spew directed at those you disagree with, and the statement that you'd be happy to see them twisting in the wind or, as you put it, "fucked over by the terrorists" simply because of their political opinions.

Good point there, Jay: American foreign policy is of direct interest to all of us and we have a right and responsibility to talk about it whether we intend to serve or not. However, the chicken-hawks invite this criticism because they so frequently proclaim that those who disagree with this war are “cowardly.” In the face of shrill proclamations of superiority in their patriotism from Fairweather or KK or anybody else, Joseph does in my opinon have a right to ask: "what have YOU done for your country?" As I noted elsewhere in the past few days, those who support this war have argued for six years that we who criticize it are out of line for even saying so. That stance particularly makes the challenges like that from Joseph totally appropriate.

Damn. That really DOES suck. Sorry to hear that, Blake.

Happy birthday. Special bonus round at one of the local brew pubs after you guys finish your burgers?

Like I said in the other thread: We have: (1) defense contractors running the appropriations process, (2) oil company stooges setting our foreign policy, and (3) a variety of corporate vendors actually running most of our war for us. Booga booga for sure.

I know very little about China's invasion, but I cannot imagine that Tibet had the resources to resist China without some serious foreign intervention. Might it be immaterial that those pansy weak pacifists didn't fight? Immaterial in terms of the immediate result but, if Cocoa's information is correct, maybe not immaterial in terms of other values including not only spiritual karma or whateve but also in terms of the "Free Tibet" support? A few years back, I attended a very interesting lecture by a guy Orville Schell where he offered a somewhat grim perspective about how Tibet is just plain outta luck, and I also went on a trip with and talked with the U.S. consul or something like that to Nepal where he said much the same thing and I've concluded that the "Free Tibet" bumper stickers you see around Seattle are indeed rather naive at best but you guys who are here sneering at Tibettans for being looser pacifists surely miss the mark.

You crack me up, Foraker. The discussion started off with Cocoa's objecting to the recruitment add. If I recall correctly, he suggested that these adds are dishonest and that cc.com is at least in some measure supporting the war by running these adds. Nobody is saying we shouldn't allow potential enlistees to make their own decision.

Sorry I got out of line there, Foraker. I have, as you put it in your first post here, no right to worry about what somebody else's kids might do. Bringing up the fact that Eisenhower warned us what was happening with our military fifty years ago (and that the present situation would probably be his worst nightmare) and mentioning that we tried a bunch of Nazi war criminals fifty years ago and said they can't just use the excuse that they were following somebody else's orders is really stretching things and doesn't belong in "your" conversation. I'll go back to my cage now.

Cocoa, these are big ideas that the troops are not necessarily fighting for us, and that the individual soldier has some measure of responsibility to decide whether they should be obeying orders and participate in this efort. I think you are right on both counts, but these are not widely accepted ideas even even after the Nuremburg trials where these questions were "answered," and these points are rarely acknowledged by those who may be calling for a U.S. withdrawal. I'd be surprised if you get away with our warmongering brothers here simply calling you a pacifist. To me, all of this raises a real question about the "rules of the game" when it comes to political debate, though. Many people deride the notion of "political correctness" -- and I share some of the disdain held for such notions that we should subscribe to a narrow political program and even a specific manner of speaking about certain things -- but isn't the notion that we must all "support the troops" used as the same kind of straightjacket on political discussion? That political straightjacket prevented Congress from discussing the merits of Rumsfeld's war plan five years ago and it causes the more strident pro-military posters here on cc.com to hit you over the head with a club today. The idea that we shouldn't criticize the troops is simply another form of "political correctness."

I have never had these kinds of problems with WordPerfect. In my opinion it has been a superior product ever since the beginning.

A sane world would take a more active role in reading about, criticizing, and attempting to control or reduce the influence of the military industrial complex than have we - and this includes you and I both. Eisenhower warned us about this almost 50 years ago and yet we still have defense contractors running the appropriations process, oil company stooges setting our foreign policy, and a variety of corporate vendors actually running most of our war for us. Afghanistan had a more clear link to defense of the homeland (though we could have taken out Bin Laden and destroyed the terrorist training camps a lot more effectively with less of a long term headache had we not invaded), but can you really say that this Iraq disaster had ANYTHING to do with defense of the homeland? Are these troops defending our freedom? Really? As to the recruiters, some of you seem to indicate that support of our troops or support of the actual soldiers serving us dictates that we invite recruiters into our daily lives on cc.com - or something like that. If we complain that they are preying on the young and impressionable, you say that we must be pussy cowards yet most of you guys are just as unlikely to find yourselves fighting it out in Iraq as I am. Our friend Shortstow here is right: recruiters like anybody else come in all shapes and sizes and you will find some more honest than others, but the fact is that the U.S. military has been taken over for private profit - at a variety of levels from the very top (POTUS) to bottom (the truck driver delivering supplies) - and many of these folks most certainly DO NOT have yours or my interest at heart. Why would recruiters be in some special class of people we should not question? Sure, these adds are not going to change the course of history. And yes, I hope the revenue helps the site owners not only pay bills but to embark on projects that will help cc.com grow and to contribute to the world of climbing (I know you rah rah guys hate the notion that there is a climbing community but that is what Jon suggested they want to do). But hey: these adds offer lots to talk about. Serenity even said Mr. Cocoa is obviously earnest in his opinions. Kumbaya all around.

Funny how our good friend Cocoa Puff posts a thoughtful essay and you rednecks run to jump on him. Mother Jones? Really. Dumbshit? C’mon. I’m not sure these adds are the worst thing to hit this site since [name your train wreck] but certainly the appearance of recruiting adds is a departure from Feathered Friends and Pro Mountain Sports. THOSE were about climbing culture; no matter how you slice it I don’t think the Special Forces are. Sure, we need a military to protect us. But calls to wrap ourselves in the cloak of patriotism and slap down some criticism of a war machine that causes us to invade a weak country who didn’t attack us first – with the predicted result being a disaster - and then to have the gall to say it is all about “freedom?” And yes: military recruiters have been shown OVER AND OVER to be dishonest. It didn’t start just with this war, but due to certain realities (deployment is more certain than ever while post combat care for the wounded and the GI bill seem to be less secure), they are certainly more forced to manipulate the uninformed. I’ll never forget talking to a recent recruit in Darrington a month before we invaded Afghanistan, and how he told me he had just joined the Special Forces and they were going to “station” him in Afghanistan in a couple of weeks. He didn’t have a clue what they had in mind for him and nobody in the Special Forces bothered to tell him. Like I said: I’m not sure these adds are the shame of the century, but they certainly indicate a different view of this site than prior adds had. What if it was adds for cars and whiskey and cigaretts? WOuld you be making the same patriotic arguments? There is room for these discussions.

Yes, Beck was tarred and feathered by the cc.com mafia. In my opinion Beckfest was pretty cool however (except the raffle went on WAY too long) and I don't recall any of the "organized activities" causing Feck or anybody else to feel they had to restrain theirself. I think the "issues," such as they were, were mostly related to the way in which the whole thing was discussed (or not discussed).

For entertainment, Porter has arranged at least one slide show for Saturday night. In the past, we've had organized crag clean ups, I and others have taken beginners for an introduction to "real" climbing, and I thing twice we had some clinics presented by local guides or climbing shops. We've also had night climbing as a planned component, and we've had the Forest Service people come give us an update on climbing in the area from their perspective. I thought it was pretty cool the year that Beck put an announcement in the Seattle Times that a local gym was going to be running top ropes at Bruce's Boulder and some complete strangers who had never climbed before came over and camped with us. I know some may be uncomfortable with anything that smacks of a "commercial" event, but in my opinion these kinds of things add interest and draw people who you'd otherwise not be able to meet. Any ideas?

Lets see. (1) The Bush team has expressed consistent support for a repressive regime (Saudi's) even when it was not on our side, and (2) doing so has been contrary - if not detrimental - to our national interests. Isn't that what you asked about?

The synthetic fill shell bag over a down core bag has worked well for me for 25 years. The moisture ends up in the outer synthetic. I don't use a bivvy bag, preferring to sleep out or to bring a tent, but this system works well in either setting.

Am I wrong?

I think that a longer shaft nearly always creates less of a problem related to "spike issues" if by that you mean poking yourself in the abdomen or face. I have practiced arrest with a variety of tool lengths, and my 50 mm lightweight axe is by far the scariest of the bunch (I haven't tried it with ice tools). Nobody seems to carry the longer tools anymore, but a 90 cm axe, an 80, or a 70 cm axe is just fine. 60 cm is marginal. 50 cm is NOT OK.

The term is obvious: traitor. A good example is the Bush administration. That regime is the house of Saud.

The argument threads mostly address a narrow set of issues related to whether we like that style of route or whether one climber has a right or duty to police what another climber does. These are good issues and we will almost certainly continue to discuss them. Meanwhile, for a broader look at some of the other lessons learned apart from these hot button arguments, the WCC Infinite Bliss page is probably a better link.

WTF? I have stated two or three times now that subsequent statements from the NYT indicated that in fact they DID give MoveOn the price break. geeeez.

I'm not sure there is one. The best we can do is to try to consult a variety of sources. I like the format of those liberal beacons, NPR and NYT, but I certainly don't assume that everything they say is either accurate or true. Sometimes, I read about breaking news here on cc.com first!

Fairweather never misses the chance to call me a liar but so far I've shown his accusations false every time. On the other hand, Fairweather is the proven liar around here. When I made that post, there had been several news reports in the prior week stating what I reported. KK had either not read them or somehow had the inside knowledge that the NYT would subsequently change their story. KK is nearly always spewing some kind of venom and vinegar, yet Fairweather complains that I would post something snippy about KK? I offered one quip and Fairweather keeps complaining about it for four days. Rather than discuss the media bias question that he started the thread with, Fairweather wants to make this a personal bait and bash yet again.