mattp

Maybe someone with hard numbers will show me wrong but I was there the summer before last and it did not seem any more crowded than when I first went there 30 years ago. I don't think it is really unreasonably crowded there.

I guess that makes you one of us AssClowns, right Mr. Serenity? You were one of the early posters here, if I recall correctly. But while I hold high hopes for Obama and the Democrats AND a change in American politics, I agree with you: a whole new crop of AssClowns is moving into the White House and into Congress and (I think this is what you hinted), we may see little in the way of big changes.

Tvash: You've asked me not to send private messages so you refuse that avenue of discussion yet come on the public thread to call me a douche and say I'm lying. Please feel free to say what it is if you honestly feel I've made something up. Or simply drop it. Your call.

Fairweather, as I concluded on the last page: it may in some respects be pointless for me to complain that you or Tvash or anybody else are being obnoxious and we could continue to debate who is the asshole around here but that is really rather stupid. I felt your slap at Mr. K was unjustified, and my point about your bragging about how you’ve got out so much was poorly stated, perhaps, but I found some similarities in it to some statements made by your brother Tvash last year. Then, I complained about his being obnoxious and part of his reply included a "mention" that he climbs more than I do and posts a lot of trip reports. I found the similarity in your "mention" of your last year's record ironic in light of your comment about he and I and Kurt. Anyway, T'vash doesn’t think he made those statements and I think you too are saying here that you didn't intend to use your climbing record to suggest you were better than the other guy or "right" in some other argument. I’d really like to see you explain the need to carry weapons in a National Park rather than leave the discussion after concluding that I am being “disingenuous.” I'd also genuinely like to read more trip reports and welcome discussion of climbs that you describe as "slogs." You may not believe me, but I appreciate both.

Woah. Down boy. I believe my "characterization" was accurate as far as it goes. I said you indicating something along those lines and I believe you clearly did. But whatever. As far as who is being a prick or whether I should use my moderator powers to ban somebody? I believe it is fair game to offer my opinion as to what takes place around here. I'm sorry you don't like it. Because the rules of engagement as we have maintained them permit being obnoxious in spray, I have not set to ban anybody or asked that any moderator delete any spray posts simply because something said was obnoxious. And passive aggressive? The reason you are pissed at me, and have carried a grudge for six months, is precisely because I came out and directly criticized you. I have not said anything else defaming or ciriticizing you, or undermined your aruguments in some other context or anything else other than simply stating I disagree. Carry on. Arguing about "you're the asshole; no you are" is stupid. I count myself as being stupid for commenting on this at all.

Don't worry, Fairweather. We are not all some monolithic block, the cc.com liberals. In fact, I once complained about Tvash's carrying on in an insulting fashion - similar to how I complained about your insult that is out of place here - and his response was somewhat like yours here in suggesting that because he went climbing more than most posters around here (and he had the added claim that he posted a lot of trip reports) he was somehow to be perceived as more justified or more tolerable when he cut loose in spray. Here, you suggest that because you climb or hike or ride every weekend you are justified in sneering at Mr. K's skiing? I realize you and some others don't like it when I dog on the bait and bash style that passes for argument around here. Some don't like it when you and some others take every opportunity to sneer and smear. You in fact grow indignant when somebody speculates about your lifestyle or values or home life - right? Don't for a minute think that the fact that you get out every weekend justifies putting down somebody else because they don't get out as much as you. If we're measuring dick size around here, I'm sure you realize that there are a lot of posters with more impressive climbing resume's than yours or who may drive bigger pick ups.

I bet, other than what you read in the Muir on Saturday thread, you know little about Feck's habits. The twelve month's of skiing quest is as worthy as any around here -- and maybe more so than the tutu ascent of Mailbox Peak.

The Dead have put on some of the worst, if not top of the list and just plain THE WORST, shows I have ever seen. I saw them in Eugene once, when they barely did more than tune their instruments and their lead singer, Donna, never even turned around to face the fans. But they also put on some of the best shows I've ever seen. I saw George Clinton and Nirvana hit the sweet spot, and Beastie Boys and Neil Young, Commander Cody and Art Ensemble of Chicago. But The Dead really could rock - once in a while. I don't think the Dead were really "overrated" so much as they were just plain inconsistent. By comparison, and from the same era, I saw the Rolling Stones at least three times and they never put on a great show. Big stage and fireworks, but not a real "gel." Some of their albums were great, though.

Well put, muja. Before his first year is out I will probably join Prole in complaining that Obama isn't liberal enough but right out of the box I think it is a good idea to retain Gates and bring on some recognized "experts" for his economic team.

Jay: Do you actually insist that we need not regulate fisheries because the market will take care of the resource management issues involved? Do you think we need not plan or regulate our use of water, because if we use up the Oglalla aquifer the Canadians will just sell us their water or if the aquifer starts getting depleted that market forces will lead to its restoration? Isn't this what you suggested a week ago? If we've come around to agreeing that regulation is inherently difficult but never-the-less necessary, how do you see it actually being employed in the management of fisheries or water resources?

You could tell me exactly how I've misrepresented you, Jay, and in clear language state what your real position is on how liberals criticizing the war on terror are a misguided bunch and are perhaps harming the war effort. If you say that you in fact were not supporting their argument, I will then apologize sincerely for suggesting you have agreed with Fairweather and KK that those who publicly decry America's use of torture are among the misguided. Then we would know what we are talking about and the conversation could continue. For starters: 1. Have you, in this thread, suggested that you think those who publicly criticize our war on terror have done us a disservice? How exactly do you see it? 2. Does your disdain for "liberals" extend to a disdain for their criticism of the Bush administration's torture policy and pronouncements? How so?

Back about page 4 or 5, Jay, you were arguing that we don't need to regulate water usage or fisheries because the markets will take care of it. Several of us call B.S. and several pages and four days later you've finally come around to this? That statement is ridiculous on its face. Nobody on cc.com has ever suggested that it is unnecessary to have laws, or that you argued that idea. And your follow up? I'm pretty sure all of us will agree that regulations can have unintended consequences and that the problem of such bi-product should not be taken to mean there can and should never be any regulation. Maybe what you are trying to say is you didn't mean what you said on page four but I can't tell. A little less ergo and a bit more clarity would help us to figure out just what we're talking about.

Nope. That is JayB's tactic. I try to make an effort to understand what the other guy said, and when I restate what it is that I think they posted I am often actively inviting them to "correct" my interpretation because sometimes it is hard to understand what some folks around here mean from reading their posts. If in fact I have misunderstood you, please correct my misinterpretation. Do you think we who criticize the Bushies' authorization of torture are "soft on terror" or not?

this one for starters. I've got to admit, though, that I haven't taken careful note of your specific nuance with regard to torture and what you would or would not exactly approve of. It is often tedious to wade through your posts and figure out exactly where you stand on specific issues, but you are consistently derisive of those who criticize the war effort, and this thread is a perfect example. Liberals who disapprove of the war are soft on terror and naive. Now get back over to the other thread and tell me whether you actually believe your arguments or is it for you simply a game of "gotcha."

Fairweather: this guy probably thinks that the bad guy from Mombay should not be tortured. He served 14 years in the Air Force and served as an interrogator in Iraq. He has concluded that not only does torture rarely succeed in gaining good intelligence, but that our use of torture has in fact caused legions of foreign fighters to flock to Iraq with the sole goal of killing Americans - in other words, he says, it has led to increased American casualties. You and KK and JayB may think that anyone who criticizes American use of torture is misguided and encourages terrorism. Us libtards on cc.com don't see it that way, and neither does Matthew Alexander. I rather suspect there are a lot of other members of the U.S. military that don't agree with you either.

Honest question for JayB: do you really believe your arguments?

I'm with you, Fairweather. We need people getting out and enjoying our wildlands if long term preservation efforts are going to be politically sustainable.

I'm not sure I get your Leroy video there, Bill, but back to the show at hand: yes, Rudy's initial post was about the attack in Mombay. As far as I can tell, nobody here much commented on that. Fairweather and KK posted that the liberals are responsible for the attack but they weren't really talking about that incident so much as just poking their friends here in the eyes. JayB then came up with one of his straw-man arguments, suggesting that anybody who has been critical of the war on terror must believe that all terrorists are acting in tandem and their actions are taken only in response to U.S. policy, and then things took a turn downward from there. I don't see anyone seriously suggesting the U.S. is responsible for what happened in Mombay, and now we're back to the more general discussion of how folks should view and talk about all of this and I got the impression you were suggesting that those who speak critically of U.S. policy are somehow misguided or hurting our efforts but, in going back to re-read your post I think it was really the harsh rhetorical language like "Americans are the real terrorists" that you were referring to. The "Islam is cancer" type firebranding falls into the same category, no? It is fun to say provocative things on the Internet and, yes, there may even be a tiny element of truth to both statements but one gets the impression that the writers revel in these statements of blind hatred.

Nice post, billcoe. To be sure, foreign relations and military strategy are two complex areas and it is, as you note, nearly impossible to predict whether if we encourage one friend or foe to take some action at one point it may bite us later. In fact, you could argue that our entire foreign policy since the beginning is as much as anything else a history of unintended consequences. And I agree with you: that doesn't necessarily argue that we should retreat within our own borders and let the rest of the world do what they are going to do. When considering various responses to something like a war breaking out in the middle east or a terrorist movement that appears to be spreading there will always be a lot of difficult choices that must be made based on incomplete and in many cases inaccurate information. But are you suggesting that means we shouldn't second-guess our government? Where Bug writes that the US is a terrorist nation some of you folks here really bristle but in viewing our actions in response to 911 I don't think he's far off. Maybe "rogue state" would be closer to the mark but however you label it, clearly we did the wrong thing. We should not have invaded a nation that did not attack us in the first place, against the wishes of our allies and without UN backing, based on lies. And then we bungled the invasion and the occupation so that Iraq is worse off now than it was before we went in. Iraq now poses a greater threat to us and to its neighbors than it did in 2001. Clearly, too, we did the wrong thing by having Dick Cheney announce that we were taking the gloves off now and then allowing our military and our intelligence services to torture prisoners and say to the world: we do not respect the Geneva Convention. I know many folks around here will cringe when I mention, too, that I think we've done the wrong thing by insisting that our soldiers can never be held accountable in courts of international law. It may be inconvenient or worse --many fear that such accountability will hamstring the heroic members of our armed forces -- but I think it is just plain wrong to undermine the concept of international law and human rights in that fashion. In the last seven years, the U.S. has said to the world: we believe might makes right and we're going to do what we're going to do without bothering to work with the rest of the world. I won't go as far as Bug and say we're the terrorists, but we are certainly a rogue state. I understand that many people in this country feel that our backs are against the wall and we have no choice but to fight the enemy wherever we find them. But the war on terror is not like eliminating the Nazi's in WWII. That was much more of a black and white situation and we pretty much had "right" on our side. But here, in this war (the war on terror), we've left the moral high ground behind and it is not at all clear that we couldn't have made just as much progress in Iraq and Afghanistan without doing so. You are right to say that it is all very complicated and as we sit here at the computer we have no way to really know how it would have turned out had we not invaded Iraq or had we not tortured the bad guys we captured there or had we not held those enemy noncombatants at Guantanimo but can you really say it is wrong to criticize our government for it's conduct of this war? Do you dismiss it all as simply a mistake, starting with our overthrowing the government in next-door Iran in the 1950's? Is that an excuse?

I went to see my favorite Seattle rocker, TAD, at the Mural Amphitheatre and somebody threw a roadkill racoon on stage during the first song. Tad said: "Hey man, that's not cool. That is a real racoon." The show was over. Not even one full song. Maybe we're different here in Seattle. But disappointed as I was, I thought well of TAD.

True that, but I have picked up partners around here quite a bit and have yet to meet anybody on cc.com who misrepresented their qualifications and wasn't up to the climb that we undertook. The only time that I have ever found somebody to have misrepresented their skills was one of the two times in my life that I signed up for a trip with a "guide." CC.com has a mix of climbers and for sure you might find someone in the partners forum who doesn't pan out, but keep your eyes open and maybe consider for your first climb with a new partner doing a climb where you feel comfortable and I think you'll probably do OK.

I’m having a difficult time wading through your post, Jay, but I think it comes down to this: 1. no population except an isolated one or one ruled by authoritarians has ever completely used up a resource or caused ecosystem collapse 2. long range planning is inherently difficult so we should not allow our government to even try it 3. business people will look out for the public good because it is in their self interest. OH: and 4. lawyers. What was the point again? I call B.S. on the first three but might concede on the fourth. As to your premise that each individual business owner or corporate board is probably best equipped to plan and run their individual operation, I think I agree. Although you profess some great rhetorical victory here I don't think that in any way suggests that we should not maintain government agencies or laws that seek to address resource management issues, long range planning, or whatever else you think would constitute evil "government intervention." I agree with you, though, that we should not be using taxpayer money to irrigate the central California valley and we should not subsidize ethanol production from corn.

It beats me. I'm guessing you and I are not supposed to know what they are up to However, we're talking about the companies that fought requirements for seat belts. I think J_B is probably not far off: the auto makers spend a hell of a lot more resources figuring out how they can control the market, talk people into buying cars they don't need, and manipulating politics in their favor than they do figuring out how to provide transportation for America that is not based on an unsustainable level of oil consumption, doesn't destroy our atmosphere, and isn't dangerous and a waste of money.

Reading this, I am left wondering: what was Jay's point? Yes, if we do absolutely nothing to plan for the inevitable we'll be forced to stop running all our cars on oil when the price of oil skyrockets or when water in the central California valley reaches the "price correction" we'll stop growing cotton there, but is he REALLY suggesting that we SHOULD leave it up to the big three automakers and the agribus farmers in California to conduct all long range planning? Ford and farmers cannot afford to plan for the future. They have to make money this quarter or next or maybe the one after that or they'll go out of business. Without government intervention, by Jay's own thesis, we will and should continue unsustainable industrial practices until those industries are forced to change those practices, a force that in many cases will come with the collapse or near total destruction of a non-renewable resource and which even Jay must acknowledge could possibly trigger financial and political crises as well. Meanwhile, we are paying Ford and the farmers to hasten the day.

Hey tomtom: good to see you. I was hoping you'd come back to defend your assertion that Obama ran just as sleazy a smear campaign against McCain as McCain ran against him! Let's see it. Meanwhile, I'd have to say that I doubt Obama has a place in his office for Monica, but maybe that is just me. You could be right.