mattp

Fairweather asserts that Earle tried six times to get a grand jury to indict DeLay. He HAS been active for a couple of years, and I think he has a DeLay crony or two, but I only recall there being one "no indictment" result. Were there three more that nobody but Fairweather seems to be talking about? Fairweather also purports to have some legal expertise in the "ex post facto" application of the law. He is right, that has been stated as a defense for DeLay, but as far as I know, that defense has not yet been successful. I think it remains to be seen whether conspiracy applied to election financing prior to the new law where it may have been "added" or simply "clarified."

I think Foraker may be right that Earle started out focusing on Jack Abramoff and TRIMPAC. Does that make this a witch hunt? As I noted already, I seem to remember reading that Earle similarly hounded the Democrats when they were in power.

Bullshit, PP. I did not dispute your assertion that Earl had allowed a movie maker to follow him around - if that is what you are referring to. I would say, however, that once again you are probably attacking the prosecutor because you can't defend the prosecuted. (AND, after calling "bullshit" on my post about how GW and his boys lied, I'll note that you still haven't refuted my given examples ... but that is another thread.)

Yup, both sides do it -- redistricting AND launching "ethics" investigations of opposing political personalities. Undoubtedly there was some "politically motivated" support for this DeLay prosecution, but RIGHT NOW lets not simply say "both sides do it" and ignore what is going on: the very same people who, just a few years ago were hamering on their bibles about how Clinton lied or were all stirred up about "travelgate" are now saying that the current investigations of DeLay, Bush's cabinet, and the lobbyist Abramoff are all politically motivated and they are attacking the investigations and investigators. If it was a high ranking democrat who was under indictment, I somehow doubt Fairweather would be arguing here that "it is just a political ploy and I bet poor Mr. Kennedy is not going to be prosecuted..."

Yes, scandals sell newspapers. But are they really over-hyping these stories? The president, vice-president, and their highest advisors all lie about why we need to start a war that has thus far turned out poorly, and then they engaged in a coordinated campaign to cover their lies, and they are not really even denying it. Maybe they will, but so far I havn't seen where they clearly stated that they actually BELIEVED that Saddam had the centrifuge or was trying to purchase Uranium, nor have I seen them say they didn't have a plan to discredit Wilson or that Libby says he didn't ask Miller to describe him as an ex senate staffer or whatever it was instead of a high ranking official in the White House. And Cheney has not said, since the VP Debate, that he never tried to link Saddam to 911. Nope, they don't seem to really deny any of this stuff -- they just work to spin it. "Wah wah wah, these "attacks" are politically motivated... "

Fairweather, let's not forget that it is this guy's JOB to go after politicians as the D.A. in the county where Austin is. If I understand correctly, he prosecuted more democrats, just a few years ago when they were in power, than he has now targetted republicans. Also, if I remember correctly, you were not complaining about dirty politics when the shoe was on the other foot. Have we not seen you talk approvingly about things like the Whitewater investigations (hint: I don't think a single person was ever even indicted), and - lets see - that Monica thing? Am I wrong or were you kinda warm to the idea that Clinton lied, so he had to "face the music?"

You are describing a fourteen mile approach, with more elevation gain but not all THAT much more elevation gain than the previous ten mile approach. Go for it.

I think Bill Coe makes a good point, and it is something we struggle with all over the place. We sorely need to become more organized and find ways to address access, environmental or ethics issues in a manner that encourages climbers to participate and which increases our standing and credibility with the land managers but there is a tendency for most climbers not to get involved and some seem only to know how to complain or take pot shots when they don’t like what they see going on. Are those who complain “bad people?” No. It is part of human nature that we often don’t really think about a situation until we notice something we don’t like. Also, those “malcontents” probably have some good points. Just because they haven’t shown up for any work parties doesn’t mean they haven’t thought about the issues or that they have no right to comment. Joseph has made several posts about wanting feedback and indicating a willingness to work with climbers holding different views. I hope more climbers will get involved. One thing to remember is that those who step forward to try to organize things have only gotten involved at that level because they have strong feelings about some issue and it is only natural that others may disagree with some of their views. Remember, too, that these folks are never elected but they are volunteers: if you want smooth-talking politicians who will never offend anybody in this role, you better start forming formal organizations and collecting a lot of money so you can pay them. Whether you think any of this is good or bad or a mixture of the two, the best thing you can do is to show up (at the crag or here on the Internet or whereverelse that climbers are getting together) and get involved. If at some point you feel that your voice is not being heard, STICK WITH IT.

The question was about a "mountaineering bag" but, yes, mountaineering can include big walls. Where you are hauling and where you may get stuck in a wet location for an extended stay, synthetic is probably a very good idea. One of the few times I've completely soaked a down bag was on a wall.

There are lots of different flavors in a "mountaineering" trip. For example, I believe that we discussed the possibility that you might be better off NOT having a "waterproof-breathable" shell on your down bag for summer use with a tent because there will be little temperature gradient accross the membrane. I think a gortex or similar shell is more standard on a more winter-weight bag like if you are going to Alaska or something, and I wonder what the benefit might be to have such a shell on your down bag used in combination with a bivvy sack. Similarly with the down vs synthetic question there are lots of variables: if you are planning overnights and few longer trips, you should generally be able to keep your bag dry enough for one night and if not, you can suffer through a night while some people like the synthetic bags for more expedition-oriented climbing. Also, how "careful" do you want to have to be with your down? I've been camping in tarps and snow caves in the Pacific Northwest for thirty years, with down and without a bivvy sack, and I am able to generally stay dry enough. While others think one or the other or both is essential in such a setting, I have completely soaked my bag once or twice but only once or twice.

See p.m.

It is a cool feature, but there is not a lot there and it probably isn't really worth the trip except as a lark. It is also on private property or at least the access is accross private property and although I once got permission from the owner for a visit, that was a few years ago and I think they may have liability concerns or something. I've also been told they are worried about fires, but that would probably not be a concern this week. You'll can find the same type of climbing at Peshastin.

Nice shot!

Rage and tequila IS a dangerous combination. When Dirty Leaf found us, we were ripping a tree down. I'm not going to do what they f'in tell me to do... I'm not...

That's a fair point, Stefan. Iraq was supposed to show it. My guess is that Saddam thought there was power in maintaining some uncertainty there -- and the experience of the Koreans certainly shows that one may be in a better barganing position with the U.S. if there is at least some uncertainty or, better yet, if you can prove you actually have the weapons. But it has been quite clear that starting on september 12, 2001, GWB was resolved to use that event as an excuse to invade Iraq and I don't know about you, but I think the burden was on HIM to justify invasion. He did so by "fixing the intelligence around the policy."

Peter, You've made three or four posts claiming I haven't answered your challenge - whatever it was - and saying I am full of B.S. or maybe lying where I state "something approaching half" after you Googled an article that said 25% got no benefit (and by the way I would guess this implied that more got less than the full benefit of the tax credit). Meanwhile you take another line of argument how I couldn't possibly have intended to show I didn't know the actual number when I wrote "something approaching," and that one goes on for a couple of posts, too. Then you still say I haven't answered you correction even though I actually acknowledged it in my first following post and there is nothing more to say about that. In about a half dozen posts, you have not directly answered or tried to refute ANY of the examples of how I suggested Bush had lied. Instead, you come back and say I am behaving as I accuse Bush of doing -- in other words are you calling me a liar once again? -- Lets try and get the thread back on track: Is Bush's proclamation that "democracy is on the march" an accurate one? Are things in fact going as well in Iraq as he and his spokesmen keep telling us? They will greet us with flowers, I mean, there is no insurgency, I mean the insurgency is on its last legs, I mean more Iraqi units are able to fight without our troops... Are any of those examples I cited about how he has deliberately misled us fundamentally incorrect? I'm sure you can find holes in at least one of them if you try.

Peter, what are you talking about? I acknowledged that you corrected my grevious error, and continued the discussion where I left off. I answered your question/assertion/whatever it was directly, and you have failed to answer my argument even tangentially except to say you are insulted to read my suggestion that Bush lied. Besides that, your prior post is so poorly written I may have misunderstood it altogether.

And I'd have no problem with an increased threshold for the inheritance tax. Keep at this year's $2,000,000. That is $4,000,000 for a married couple. As far as global warming is concerned, your more nuanced description of the dispute is quite a bit more accurate than that promoted by Mr. Bush over the past several years.

KK, you must have forgotten. The weapons inspectors DID refute the weapons assessments of the U.S. I think the French may have, too. Further, in the European press it WAS published that the Uranium purchase story was false, along with the aluminum tubes. And Bush and his boys HAD received this information from their own experts. It just hadn't much been discussed in American media. Maybe you've forgotten the Downing Street memo, too. And the fact that on September 12, 2001, Bush was asking for a link between Iraq and 911 even though his advisors told him there was none. Any maybe you've forgotten Cheney was then, and continued long afterward to consistently link Iraq and 911.

I guess the subtlety of your point evaded me when I read where you wrote: "Are you tellign a lie? .. If so it is sad that we will see no better..... " So, you and Mr. K continue to ignore my argument, and pretty much anybody else's here, but to seize on minutae and fire back with B.S. ... Can either of you REALLY say that Bush and Cheney hadn't both been told that (a) Iraq did not launch 911 (b) the evidence of the Uranium purchase was false © the aluminum tubes could not have been used for a centrifuge (d) we had something like 400,000 soldiers surrounding Saddam, and no real proof that he had anything to threaten us with(Please check my number for me so you can show how wrong I am) Are you going to argue that, when they keep saying we have to abolish the death tax to people don't have to sell the family farm, they don't know that their supporters could not come up with a single example of where that tax forced someone to sell the family farm? They haven't had this little "factoid" corrected ever? Are you going to argue that, when virtually every credible scientist in the world agreed about global warming, it was not a "lie" to suggest there is serious doubt? etc.

Gotta love this! Bush is lying, Matt is not. The press need to go after Bush for lying, but PP needs to give Matt a pass for his "honest mistake". Inconsistency and hypocrisy - the hallmarks of liberalism. What the f*&k are you talking about, KK? I didn't ask Peter for a pass. He corrected my error. I did not complain about his correction. I stated that I was not, as he had implied, lying.

I clearly stated that I didn't know the number, and I bet that is why you went looking for it -- 'cause I tipped you off that you might find I was wrong. Now -- care to address my point that it makes no difference whether it was 25% or "something approaching half" -- in terms of the significance of the fact that Bush uses that tax credit as an example of how he is giving tax breaks to the poor? By the way, in this thread YOU are doing what I would like the Press to do when our politicians lie to us or make mistakes of fact. Thanks for holding my feet to the fire here, so I can clarify your misconception that I was "lying."

Jay, I certainly tend toward favoring progressive tax rates but if you are talking about simple minor tweaks to the current system, I'm not real clear on how your elimination of the mortgage decuction would help anything. It would hit the middle class, that's for sure, but would it cause rich people to pay proportionately more in taxes? How significant in their tax burden is a mortgage interest deduction?

The Trigger Finger might be said to have been Washington's first sport climb.

Peter- the article I saw broke it down a little differentl, and discussed differences between rates for whites, blacks and hispanics. I don't think it reported the overall rate -- at least I didn't remember it. THus I wrote "something approaching 50%" to clearly indicate I didn't know what the actual number was. So, no, I wasn't lying. But your article tends to support my argument that Bush, when he cites that tax credit as an example of how his tax breaks favor rich and poor, certainly IS lying. He has a staff of people who fact-check stuff for him - or at least when it is to his perceived advantage to do so.