mattp

No messages?

Bring Kitty! Katz rule, and there's lottsa miceys at ropeup.

Yes, the road is in fine shape this year. Get it while you can, 'cause the November rains may change all that!

Yup. Bush rules! ... or, at least, Bushes Rule!

Darrington, Saturday or Sunday (9/8 or 9/9)?

Prety weak there, Fairweather. You compare The Path to 911 to Loose Change and Farenheit 9-11? Apparently you forget that you yourself only believed that Mr. Bush the great told lies to take us into Iraq when you saw it with your own eyes on a mainstream media TV documentary! Now, you apparently think Michael Moore and a 911 conspiarcy theory have the same stature as that which finally confinced you of the obvious?

I would have to add, too, that you can drop a bolt kit, break a drill bit, botch a placement, .... Don't count on your drill rig as 100% insurance.

The press coverage of our politics is just amazing to me. Look at the last week's coverage: they focussed on Gonzalez for one day, and the story blew over so we could look at what was important: a gay senator from Idaho resigns. We got several stories about progress in Anbar, a breakthrough in Korea, and pictures of chimpy all over the TV. If the so-called liberal media would cover Patreaus in a fair and balanced way, any dog and pony show would be seen for what it is. No chance.

The drill you want is the Petzl Rock Pecker but there is something to some of the comments above about whether you should feel you actually need one. I've been cragging and climbing walls and mountains all over the place for 35 years and the only time I've ever carried a drill is when I actively set out to develop a new line. Unless you are doing that, or are in the habit of rapping down unknown steep walls - something that is pretty much always avoidable - you don't need the drill.

Apart from whether you think there is a real case of hypocrisy here, aren't cries hypocrisy like this mostly goal-oriented smear tactic politics? Yes, I'm more than critical of the fact that John Edwards lives in a McMansion and I'm as wide eyed as the next guy that some Senator from Idaho who talks about family values might be gay but really: don't we elect politicians for how they'll vote rather than how they live? For the most part, shouldn't we? Sure, sleaze is sleaze and I think we should ask our leaders to have some measure of personal integrity but their sexual habits or how they made their money shouldn't matter much except to the extent that we think these background factors may cause them to compromise the public interest.

Anybody else notice how the name Gonzalez has not appeared in the papers the last two days? Apparently the liberal media ran the story for one day and has moved on to more important stuff like Senator Craig.

Hey now. Don't be making fun of that poor guy. There are thousands of little school kids traumatized by this thing already.

KK's right. Let's just reelect the head dufous - for life - and be done with it. The man lives his values.

Maybe you read a different article. I don’t see anything indicating that this action was taken out of fear of lawsuits. I think somebody is worried about protecting the children, allright, but probably it is those right wing Christians. Look at the location: COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.

You're not going to blame the nasty liberals? On this issue, I'd agree you might actually have a bit of a point if you were to rant about politically correctness. Really, though, it is those right wing Christians and all their family values.

I share your disdain for the politically correct hyper-protective and overbearing yet spoiling parenting styles and educational methods we have come to accept as standard.

The case for impeachment is not about punishing Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors, but about curbing the expansion of presidential power that threatens to upset the balance of powers. The Democrats are afraid the pundits would skewer them for being "divisive," and I don't think anybody is going to get serious about impeachment but shouldn't the true conservatives and real liberals both be worried about a future president making political appointments the way that Bush has, lying to Congress, and saying that she doesn't have to respond to Congressional subpoenas? If Bush isn't impeached, why should the next President or the one after that feel at all compelled to obey the law or respect Congress unless that Congress is overwhelmingly occupied by the other party?

Score one for Fairweather. He takes the argument I predicted, but steps it back one generation to claim I've missed his point. Clearly, anything the Republicans do wrong is the fault of aggressive politics at the hands of Democrats. Oh, and in case you're really asking a question, Fairweather, I've posted hundreds of times that I would like to see Bush impeached and that Cheney should go to jail. The pathetic leaders of the Democratic party may look for lower hanging fruit, though.

So: as I expected. You think any criticism of Gonzalez was simply a partisan whitch hunt? Yes, I know, he didn't do anything wrong, right? (Before you reply, consider that heavy hitters from both sides of the aisle were calling for Gonzalez' resignation. He lied to Congress, or else he is a moron, and he tried to take advantage of a sick man in the hospital. That sick man was, by the way, Ashcroft. Even HE thought the domestic spying program that Gonzalez was fighting for was undefensible.)

Jay, what again is your point? Nobody is saying that you should ignore someone's discomfort with any topic, politics or whatever else. I said that I'm happy to avoid political discussion when somebody isn't interested. In fact, I was on a climb recently where there were two of us "lefties" and a "righty," and when righty was a full ropelength away, out of earshot, I told my lefty friend to stop the political diatribe as I could see the other guy getting uncomfortable. Human decency and civility do indeed dictate we are not always 100% honest or whatever, but there certainly are a wide range of tolerances for disagreement or debate.

I'd say there was a time when we had political debates here that I found quite a bit more compelling. Maybe in part I'm remembering a past that didn't quite exist but it seems to me there was a time I looked forward to exchanging political arguments with people who held views I would never encounter in my daily life and who could express those views, at least some times, without getting argumentative and snide. Some of the heavy hitters are gone, but to some degree it seems to me many around here have adopted the attitude you espouse, KK. More often than thinking about a post and crafting a thoughtful response, we see "we've been there and done that before so why bother again and, by the way, f#ck you." You are right, it gets old to face the same argument for the 500th time, but my question is this: why not simply ignore the threads you find to be "old hat" instead of turning them into some flame war? This happens in the political threads, bolting threads, whatever.

What's your point, Jay? I too grew up in a family where "debate" was far more common than most households, and we often had "arguments" at the dinner table. Yes, there were the bounds of decency and the bonds of family, but we could get quite heated at times. We are all to a certain extent a product of our upbringing. My guess is that, on average, those on this site who routinely get angry and start flame wars when someone disagrees with them grew up in families where there was less tolerance for "discussion." I suppose they could have developed intolerant and belligerent communication styles in their adult lives as well.

Yes, we can get pretty damn smug when we have a certain viewpoint and everyone we knows agrees with us, but on the other hand I'd say those who are the most shrill in their expression of their opinions are often those who feel embattled because they hold the minority view. I think the issue is partly related to what Ashwu is talking about, noting how polarized we are. Yes, it is not just a black-or-white / democrat-or-republican world but any active reading about or watching news shows about politics for the last fifteen years reveals a high degree of cynicism and polarity even where the players may be well intentioned and the issues may be multifaceted. It is the Republicans' fault, of course.

KK, it has been you and your friend Fairweather who call people assclowns and - what was it? - dick wad or something? I think intolerance, condescension, and even belligerent proclamations that "you wouldn't dare say that to my face" are AT LEAST as common coming from the right as the left around here. If you ever share a rope with me I'm certainly likely to say "you gotta be nuts to believe THAT," but I'll listen to whatever you might have to say.