mattp

You are asking me to design the enforcement program in order to suggest an issue that should be addressed? Can you design an effective or fair or justifiable war on drugs? I think not. Do you or do you not believe that censorship for decency or for "state secrets" is justifiable and constitutional? (And does outing a secret agent count?) What do you think of the "equal time" rule, that goes back to maybe the 1920's? Border screening? What is your question?

A see saw goes up and down at the same time.

Why are you dragging me into this separate discussion in what you intend as a derogatory fashion? Just to be rude or is this your idea of being playful? And by the way: you haven't answered my last post -- the third time I have offered more or less the same reply to your taunt. And double by the way: what is logical about this idea that spying on US citizens when they are making foreign phone calls is more constitutional then when they are phoning somebody next door? Or that surveillance is not the kind of thing intended to be addressed by the 4th amendment? Now the President and his cabinet get to decide what is Constitutional? He said it, you believe it? Careful: the next President may be a Democrat.

I believe the last two or three times you brought this up I answered you to say that I'm not sure what the best mechanism would be for effective accountability but I would imagine it would involve both some kind of governmental regulation and civil responsibility. I bet you have no problem with laws that ban indecent material in prime time television or newspapers so why are you so uncomfortable with the idea that out and out lying sold as "news" in these same sources might also be restricted? Oh yes, and these laws against indecency are enforced by that horrendous institution you call the government. Am I correct to observe, then, that you DO agree in there being some limits on freedom of the press? We are just talking about where to draw the lines, and not whether there should be any lines at all -- right?

I think that if you fall very much you are going to take an inverted fall once in a while. Sooner or later you'll screw up and get your leg caught in the rope, bounce off a ledge where your feet catch briefly, or flip off a lieback or something. Helmets are good.

Prophet, I was indeed stimulated to raise this question by your thread and I thought it better for a separate topic as you might still get some good information trickling in on that one. In my view it is counterproductive to prevent the flow of information about how to do it right, and I'm glad that someone can now search on the internet for "how to develop a sport climb" and they will get some information. Whether they are a punk kid or not, I don't think a general difficulty getting information will dissuade somebody who wants to go out and put up routes. If anything, the opposite may be more likely to be true. Given access to information, they'll learn more about how to do it the right way and consider the amount of work and time and money involved. Also, a lack of information will more likely serve as a deterrent to the MORE thoughtful bolter rather than the less thoughtful one. The danger in discussing these matters on cc.com has more to do with the personal attack, misinformation, and public spectacle that we all so frequently see here.

I went to the Sherwood Forest in about the same time period, Off, and my selective memory is similar to yours. Back when the Clear Creek Campground just outside Darrington used to be free, it was similar. In my selective memory Led Zeppelin played on perpetual rewind, there were piles of empty beer cans and dirty baby diapers strewn about.

I had my bacon saved by a John Stannard baby angle on Strictly from Nowhere in the Gunks. I fell 15 feet or a little more.

Fairweather, don't you believe in restrictions on freedom of the press too? Wouldn't you call for some "restriction" if the press was publishing the names of our secret agents for example, or broadcasting our military plans in advance, or urging that the president be assassinated? Graphic sex or promotion of drug use on the front page of the Seattle Times? The only difference you and I have is where we draw the lines. Apart from whether the road to 911 contained any substantial mis-information, and apart from that particular episode altogether, are you arguing that it is always OK for news media to lie or that there should be no consequences even if it is not OK?

Yes.

Fairweather, you keep hounding on this point about censorship but it is nonsense. Commentators from the right are all about restricting free speech you see as giving comfort to our enemies in a time of war or that may impact troop morale, and it is important to protect our darling children from talk about sex or drugs, but it is unconstitutional to suggest that news media be held to any standard for telling the truth? By the way: I enjoyed that Savage clip. Good stuff!

Canyondweller, I skimmed Porters link and it looks to me as if it doesn't directly refute what you said. It says that Prescott did business with the Nazi's but generally before the war and the stories spread in current attacks on the Bush Family are, at a minimum, outrageously exaggerated.

Where do you get this stuff?

Question: has this mythical "punk kid with a drill" we hear about so much actually proven to be a real threat? There was a climber who came on here asking what kind of drill to buy and saying he was going to use it for descending from climbs and several worried about it but how often has this actually happened? Aren't the vast majority of those placing bolts, if not nearly all of them, climbers with several years' rock climbing experience and a minimum of 30 years old?

Quite right, Scott, you did acknowledge that there are situations where one should not follow orders. I had to ask the same question several different ways, but you finally did cede that point. How about Lynde England? Had she refused to abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib, I'm sure you would argue that she should have been subject to court martial. However, assuming that you believe the activities that she engaged in were illegal (you do agree with that, don't you?), would she have been "justified" in refusing to participate? In any sense of the word? Would she have been entitled to some kind of Nuremberg principled defense in your mind?

What is my position on what? I have said that he must be accountable under the law. I criticized his position and agreed with you that he was justifying his actions by saying the mission was wrong, not necessarily that he himself had been ordered to commit or partake in any specific atrocities. I have been trying to get you to admit that there may be some circumstance where refusing to follow orders or perhaps desertion would be justified. After two pages you admit that refusing to follow the orders of a drunk commanding officer would be justified. What other scenario might you imagine?

OK, so you agree with my points above (1) Iraq did not attack us and posed no signficant (military) threat, and (2) Bush and buddies authorized or approved torture. The ends justify the means. These are not war crimes if the good guys do it.

Are you guys really that bad at reading comprehension? I have written, at least four times now, that we don't and can't allow him to choose his consequences. The plain fact is that he did, however.

I have indeed argued that the rock was being unreasonable. It never seemed to help, though. You are right.

I agree with you about "this yahoo's" motivations, Scott, but I don't think there is any question that BushCo waged a war on a nation that did not attack us and posed no significant threat and had prisoners tortured in violation of the Geneva Conventions. You may justify this because you think the ends justify the means, but if you need more "proof" to conclude they did these things I would say it is you who is dense.

That's funny, coming from the one who denied that there is significant racial tension in Michigan and argued that the "honesty" demonstrated in a state where the Klu Klux Klan is active is good for race relations. Are you with Scott in arguing that there can never be any justification for any soldier to refuse to obey orders? How about if their commander is drunk?

Thick headed? I'm not sure what you call it but you apparently are unable to grasp where I have written, at least thee times now, that obviously we cannot allow soldiers to pick and choose which orders to follow, that he has to be accountable under the law, etc.

Yeah, I'm so far left I actually believe that a president who breaks the law, lies, and undermines not only prestige, but our power and preparedness as a nation should be held accountable for it. Impeachment is for chumps who get blow jobs, not for war criminals.

Hell no. Only old retired surfers who armchair critique the current generation of visionary prophets would be against jet skis. That was mastery, and the world is a better place because of THAT GUY.

No kidding, that is one cool video. Kim only DREAMS he could pull that off.