mattp

The loony left. That's no jive, KK. Bush and his buddies lie as a matter of course whether it is the effect/intent of tax breaks, the war, the need to make it easier for oil and gas development, whatever and somebody in the press occasionally points some of it out in a little blurb here and there but never have their feet been held to the fire. I bet if you took a poll, you would find that a very large number of Americans have forgotten about the Downing Street memo, and many don't remember or never heard that the big justifications for the war like the uranium purchase or the centrifuge were known to be false at the time the President cited them. I bet half of Americans still think Iraq was responsible for 9/11 because nobody at FOX news bothers to point out with any real clarity that this was wrong. Take taxes: how many people realize that Bush's child care credit is unavailable to something approaching half of the families with children because they don't pay enough in taxes to benefit? How many people realize that the supporters of eliminating the "death tax" could not cite a single example of where a family farm had to be paid to pay the tax -- not one? It goes on and on. Or the favors and subsidy for the oil companies. Don't let me get started... You can say "well, the Dem's lie too" but that doesn't really help solve the problem: our politics are based in large degree on distortions and lies and the public has no idea what is really going on or what might be at stake. This means that we really have no idea who we are voting for and what they actually stand for. PP was right when he said the abortion debate has been a very successful smokescreen, but the lies behind so much of our politics are a far worse threat. As long as these guys have no fear that they will ever be held accountable or even asked tough questions in a press conference, we will see no better.

The solution, KK, starts with the American public waking up and seeing that they've been taken for a ride by a bunch of crooks. Then they (we) might resolve to pay attention and we might also ask the Press to do its job and report honestly and actually hold our leaders accountable whey they lie to us. Only if we do this will democracy have a chance in this country.

I've observed the opposite phenomenon on lower elevation routes. When you look up at a rock route in western Washington, you often see all the bushes that grow underneath every overhang and the rock looks like pure black death. Get up a pitch or two and look down, and it often looks like clean rock. In Darrington, we call this the "Darrington effect." Every tiny ripple in the rock has lichen and filth on the downhill side, but not on the top surface where it gets straffed by avalanches during the winter. Fortunately for the climber, we tend to grab and stand on the uphill surfaces.

Where'd everybody go?

If you have somebody who can lead moderate trad, Midway on Castle Rock is one of my favorite crag climbs around. topo that shows the route correctly

This has been an amusing thread. It is really about a very simple idea: before the war, the irrational left in this country, and the French, were saying that there was no clear and imminent danger from Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, that an Iraq invasion was not part of any War on Terrorism, and that it might even make things worse. Now it looks as if these "cowards" were right, but JayB and KK are sticking with Bush's obviously B.S. rhetoric: we were threatened and we responded and we're taking the fight to them before they bring it to us. That and the silly idea that we have made the world a better place by bringing democracy to Iraq. Good luck, boys - the more you beat that drum the sillier you look.

Say what? Because they decide it is worthwhile to vote, given the situation as they find it, means they think some U.S. - led coup or invasion of their country was a good thing -- or that they can't possibly think our foreign policy smacks of ambition, militaristic expansionism, or a lack of conscience? I'm not going so far as to say we are no better than the terrorists, but c'mon, Jay - surely there are one or two Iraqi's who right now today are saying they wish we hadn't invaded and are highly suspicious of our motives in doing so. I bet there are a couple of voters in some other country where we have replaced their government who might also remain skeptical. I think that you are right on all of those fronts, Matt, but on the whole I don't think that their aspirations for their respective countries represent anything that either we or the vast majority of their countrymen would recognize as being in their best interests, or represent a viewpoint or set of perogatives that we should necessarily orient our policy goals around. I think it's telling that Sunni extremists are now engaged in a violent campaign to prevent their fellow fellow Sunnis from registering and voting. With regards to the first point, it seems clear that if the population saw no distinction between what the democratic process that was made possible by the invasion and forcible removal of Hussein had to offer them, or the multitude of other outcomes that could be brought about by either abstaining from or sabotaging the process - they would most likely not have voted in such large numbers, or would have perhaps pencilled in Saddam as a write in candidate. As far as I know the "Bring Back Saddam!" movement failed to muster much enthusiasm outside of the folks intent on detonating both themselves and folks on their way to the polling stations - so it seems to me that they must have discerned a difference between the their totalitarian past and the possibility of a democratic future. What the F___ are you saying here, JayB -- that we should feel no compulshion to respect what the actual VOTERS might think? As far as your argument about the lack of "bring back Saddam" votes -- I even LESS understand what you are talking about. Is THAT a reality -- for anybody????

Say what? Because they decide it is worthwhile to vote, given the situation as they find it, means they think some U.S. - led coup or invasion of their country was a good thing -- or that they can't possibly think our foreign policy smacks of ambition, militaristic expansionism, or a lack of conscience? I'm not going so far as to say we are no better than the terrorists, but c'mon, Jay - surely there are one or two Iraqi's who right now today are saying they wish we hadn't invaded and are highly suspicious of our motives in doing so. I bet there are a couple of voters in some other country where we have replaced their government who might also remain skeptical.

Did I say I saw no significance? Spin it, Peter... spin it!

Sounds like some mud-smearing B.S. counteroffense to me. I have no idea if Earle is a slimball or not, or whether any of what you list is true, or what the significance of it may be. But HELLO: DeLay is being indicted on some serious charges here and you'd have me debate whether Earle is an ethical guy? Last I checked, the Republicans controlled both houses, the White House, and quite a few State legislatures and governorships -- including Texas if I am not mistaken. There are plenty of strongly partisan Republican prosecutors around. If, as you say, the Democrats violate campaign rules just as much as the Republicans, lets see the indictments. I'm all for equal justice under the law. Did you get this stuff from Drudge?

Yup, RocNoggin is right. One may do well on some trips and not others. The Orizaba climb would not be a good "predictor" nor would it offer any training advantage or acclimitization benefit. In my own case, I acclimated well the first time and ran right up to 21,000' feeling pretty good. The second time I was sick from the get-go, and never acclimated at all. If you place a priority on getting high, you may wish to spend extra $ on a trip that will include fancier accomodations in Kathmandu and which minimizes or avoids eating local food and staying in the cheap teahouses - at least on your way TO the peak. Lung infections and some variety of food poisoning or other water-borne trauma are a big time threat. You will miss lots of the cultural experience if you chose this route, but you may increase your chances of feeling good at high altitude. I should add that the trekking experience alone, apart from the climbing opportunities, is among the best of any travel/vacation I have ever done. I'd say it ranks right up there with the south of France as a place where you could go on your honeymoon and have a great experience that the two of you can share as a couple -- as long as you aren't looking for everything to "work" and you and she are truly excited about being there.

The bet was that we'd be getting our our calculators and talking about fall factors within three posts.

The cost definitely depends on what level of services you want, and what sort of itinerary you select - including what category your peak is in and thus what the peak fee adds up to. If you are travelling "backpacker style" and looking to pinch pennies, I bet you could easily do it for less than $50.00 a day including food, lodging, a peak fee and a short term "guide" if needed for the peak permit.

Have you been fooled by that I-330 smokescreen, too?

OK then, if you get one of those whiny emails that says Feel free to post it publicly and tell us all how you told them so.

Yup, its all politics and I'd almost LIKE to see the Senate vote to confirm a candidate who says they hope to overturn Roe v. Wade. Maybe something like that could help wake some folks up to the nature of what is being imposed on us by these liars. "I want a strict constructionsist who will preserve unlimited power for the President to wage war without the approval of Congress, who will fight for your right to shoot your neighbor, force you to live out the last few weeks or months of your life in absolute misery while you die from cancer, and allow churches to be substituted for government agencies."

Somehow, with the urgency in how you keep saying "clean out your inbox," it almost sounds like there may be more to it than simply that if we fail to clean out our inbox, we will lose those important messages. Really, it is simply this: copy your messages or you will lose them -- correct?

Chris, I don't disagree with that or with Fairweather's statement that you refer to except that I think it is silly to assert that it is only the liberals who have applied a litmus test - as the last few days' news demonstrates. It seems to me that Roe v. Wade and the abortion debate in general are emblematic as much as anything else and BOTH sides are using it where they believe they can use a lightning rod issue to their advantage.

Aha. I stand corrected. And you're right, of course, that there would be some "histrionoics" from the left if he selected someone who announced that they were going onto the Court with the hope to overturn Roe v. Wade. What about his "lie," then? An example of his complete disdain for the American public or simply a "misstatement" or something else?

OK, Fairweather, you'll admit you were only assuming what I thought of her. What about these "historionics from the left?" Where have we seen that today or yesterday?

Mis-worded blunder? It sounded to me more like a poorly conceived lie. You're right, he didn't "control" the press conference well.

Fairweather, I didn't say I was for or against her. You ASSUME I am against her just because he is for her, I suppose, but if that is the case wouldn't you be just as narrow minded and prone to putting words in somebody's mouth (mine) as you so consistently seem to decry in others on this board? I really don't know if she's good or bad (though I would guess the latter) -- but there is another thread on that topic and I started a new one. My point in this thread has been about how completely stupid it is for him to have said he has never, in over ten years, discussed abortion with her.

Fairweather, I don't know if you are watching the same "liberal biased" news reports I am, but so far it appears that the hard right is much more concerned about her nomination than anyone from the left. (What do you think about that statement he made today, though, when Bush said he had never discussed her views on abortion with her despite the fact that he said he'd been working with her closely for over ten years and intimately knew her judicial philosophy?)

I'm with you there, TomTom. The democrats SUCK! Its not just a candidate they need - but a platform and some integrity.

Tom, I do not assert that dems are honest and repubs are not. If there was vote fraud that changed the outcome, it could only have changed it one way. Try another brand of herring. Jay, are you continuing to say that where I offered an off-hand comment that there remains room for skepticism I am veering off into paranoid delusion? What is so scary about the idea that there might remain some lingering questions?