Peter_Puget

Well you seem to be agreeing that the Wild Sky does look like a gerrymandered district! I still make the claim - I don't think I have made an argument - that wilderness areas are spreading like a cancer. As far as honestly in presenting facts regarding the Wild Sky check out how Patty Murray explains the situation: link Why didn't she compare to the land owned by the federal government? By the way you argued that Wild areas were not spreading. They clearly are - and not just in Washington. Does this mean you agree they are cancers? Just contained and not spreading?

You are so full of BS. Apart from including the National Park Lands within the wilderness system (1988), the last time Congess added any wilderness in Washington was in 1984. That's at least 16 years since we had any new designation and 20 years since the last substantive additions. An interesting exercise would be to see if you would check any of your facts before making baseless ideological assertions. My guess is we would see facts manipulated to look like gerrymandered congressional districts. And just last year a friend of mine confided to me how much he regrets working for the Boulder Wilderness when he was a young lad. Clearly your link shows the increasing range of "Wild Lands" For grins look at the shape of Mt Rainier National Park. Now check out this link showing the proposed "Wild Sky." The Wild Sky most certainly looks like a gerrymandered district. Why the personal attack? In what ways were my claims baseless..your link clearly agreed with what I was saying.

To the extent that underfundng encourages the establishment of Wilderness Areas, underfunding is an excellent long term strategy to limit use of public resources. The fact that Wilderness Areas are very resistant to privatization is but one factor supporting this position. The drive to privatize is not dependent in any way on the urge to preserve. It is a natural outcome of our budgeting process. One only has to look at WA State Parks to see how use fees have been used to underfund the parks. My personal feeling is that as we move towards a use fee model we loose the underlying rational for state ownership/management of lands in the first place.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...10/ixworld.html

Winter - $60-100 million doesn't seem like very much to me. I think a good argument can be made against every assertion youmake here. The most obvious rejoinder is the cancer like spread of Wilderness Areas in Washington. I doubt very much that these areas will be privatized any time soon. An intersting excercise would be to take outline maps showing Wilderness Areas (and proposed wilderness areas) and see if a person could place the shapes in a line in order of earliest designation to latest. The participant wouldbe told that the shapes represent Congresssional Districts. The first thing I thought of when I saw the Wild Sky map was a gerrymandered district.

Chriznitch You seem to be suggesting that from the Forest Service perspective Wilderness areas are a good tool to deal with budget contraints. I would agree that that might be the case. I have argued something similar in the past. This is perhaps another reason why budgets for land managers seem to get the short shrift. The powerful conservation lobby directly benefits!

Ähnliche => Matt – I don’t think anyone is saying that there is a imminent threat. In fact many suggest that perhaps the Wild Sky is overkill. Their position seems to be one of a simply atavistic reaction: wilderness is always good. The one consistent refrain is that the FS can’t be trusted.

I oppose the Wild Sky because too much of our National Forests are being converted to Wilderness Areas. At some level it is simply a manifestation of a lack of confidence in the Forest Service. If the FS is not capable of long term mangement of our public land, why doesn’t our legislators tackle the real job of fixing it? Last week I was driving through the Central Valley in Ca and was stuck by how much it has changed. Swampland turned into farmland turned into houses. The transition from farmland to housing is a complex process where a seller must meet up with a developer then the developer a lender and finally a buyer. All along the way cost/benefit ratios are calculated expected future desires considered. In many ways the Wilderness process mirrors the development process. What is missing is a market that implicitly considers a wide range of desires and valuations and actors that assume the risks of their actions. Instead we are left with “carpetbagging” politicians pandering to special interest groups and relying on the continued disinterest of the polity.

PLAYGIRL EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OUTS HERSELF -- AS REPUBLICAN Mon Mar 07 2005 19:42:14 ET When it comes to sex and politics, Democrats are the more liberal, right? Not so fast. Playgirl editor-in-chief Michele Zipp explores “down and dirty” politics and examines sexuality on both sides of the aisle. In the process she comes to a realization about herself and reveals for the first time she’s now a Republican. “Siding with the GOP when you live in the bluest state around is almost like wearing a Boston Red Sox jersey at a New York Yankees’ home game,” says Zipp in the April issue of PLAYGIRL. ”I cannot tell you how many times a person assumed I voted for John Kerry in 2004. Most of the time, I don’t have the heart to tell them, or the energy to discuss my reasons for going red this election year. But this is Playgirl magazine so it’s about time I was the one who bared what’s underneath.” How could a member of the media who produces adult entertainment for women possibly side with conservatives from the red states? Zipp spells it out. “Those on the right are presumed to be all about power and greed – two really sexy traits in the bedroom. They want it, they want it now, and they’ll do anything to get it. And I’m not talking about some pansy-assed victory, I’m talking about full on jackpot, satisfaction for all.” “The Democrats of the Sixties were all about making love and not war while a war-loving Republican is a man who would fight, bleed, sacrifice, and die for his country. Could you imagine what that very same man would do for his wife in the bedroom?” asks Zipp.

Quit hijacking this thread! By the way the answer to your question is here. Fariweather - By making decision like this (Arrow and the missl defense) Canada will only at best mantain its relative poverty to the US (consistantly about 3/4 per capita income) and its inovators will move here while our psychotic liberals will move there. My guess is in 20 years it will be closer to 2/3 of the US. Will - Whats the proper growth rate for M3? Who knows. Hell what are the difficulties in measuring the money supply - there are plenty. I believe that monetary growth rate for virtually all measures of M are lower than in the 70s. I would also note that I can remember high growth rates being reported and interest rates raising! My faith is in the markets - they indicate lower inflation. Of course a war with Iran could change things so would a nuclear bomb going off in New York. The easiest thing in the world is to yell bad markets in a time of plenty. After all you just have to keep up the negative predictions and eventually you will be a winner. The ironic thing is the longer you have been proclaiming the end is near the more prescient you can claim you are. The business cycle is after all a cycle.

Greenspan

Employment Since May 2003 — which was the debut period for Bush’s tax cuts on personal income, dividends, and capital gains — the economy has generated 3 million new jobs. The unemployment rate has dropped to 5.4 percent from 6.3 percent. Weekly unemployment claims have fallen to 300,700 — the lowest since late 2000. Sidebar: Note the interesting attached graph. ( source) Did Clinton's change to the minimum wage cause the abrupt in crease in the graph? Business January factory orders for non-defense capital goods (excluding volatile aircraft) are 17 percent above year-ago levels, while shipments are running 14 percent ahead of last year. In other words, there is a capital-spending boom going on. January chip sales rose 17.5 percent against the year-ago level, according to the Semiconductor Industry Association. Meanwhile, the transportation sector is white hot. Rail freight car loadings are 12.6 percent above a year ago and freight tonnage shipped by trucks is 20.6 percent above the year-ago mark. The Dow Jones transportation index has reached another all time high. Output-per-hour by nonfarm companies has increased 2.8 percent over the past year, in line with the 10-year trend average. Because of all the technologically related efficiencies now in place throughout American business, unit labor costs are only 1.3 percent. And because labor costs are low, profit margins remain positive. Net operating earnings for S&P 500 companies increased 22 percent in 2004. Inflation Lower tax rates, deregulation, trade liberalization, capital investment, and the technology-induced productivity surge are all counter-inflationary measures. The global spread of capitalism and growth, especially among emerging economies in China, India, and Eastern Europe, is what’s really impacting the commodity world. (ie increased demand) These economies require basic materials and industrial goods. So their commodity demands, which are commercial in nature, have led to raw-material price increases. Unlike the 1970s, central banks are not producing the excess money today that would raise future inflation. This is why worldwide bond yields are historically low. Global credit markets are not demanding high inflation premiums. The worldwide commodity boom is a growth signal, not an inflation signal. Growth is never inflationary. The current commodity boom is completely unlike the one 25 years ago when hard goods and real assets were used as inflation hedges.

Are you using the USHBA bolts? What glue will you use?

Why do you think the bolts on TP need replacing? I don't think any of the bolts on the second pitch of City Park (between Sloe Children and Godzilla) need replacing. ChucK - 10% has several pitches, do you mean the top of the route or the top of a lower pitch?

This thread was started because of a discussion in which Alpinek asked whether the internet was a viable vehicle for discussing ethics. Due to the manner in which he asked the question his answer seemed to be no. The Erie anchor posting already had me thinking about the incredible inefficiency of arguing after the fact. Dru’s comment about bolting MM’s 50’ hook section got me thinking about the Black Dike route and the Gripped postings. I thought why not see if anyone would comment on fairly abstract discussion. For the most part people treated it like a joke. Pope entered into the debate with a brilliant essay so irrefutable that I was compelled to delete it in a vain attempt to save face. Effete insults were traded, Mattp added his list of questions, and MCCash posted his two cents, CBS attempted a real response. For the most part typical internet BS. Question answered: I am moving this to spray….spray on!

right again Dru!

Oh Just some idle thoughts. Dru's answer is the commonly held viewpoint but really is the free climbing any different between 1 & 2? I don't think so. The distinction is so arbitrary. 3 should speak for itself. Something I have pondered. Awhile ago MM posted several anti-bolt messages on griiped.com and yet didn't he bolt the Black Dike Route? What would he think if, as per Dru, someone bolted his 50' hook section? Just wondering. Just as a bolted free route may not be warranted a hard aid route claiming the terrain of a great free route may not be warranted. Again, the rules seem so arbitrary and often self serving.

Scene #1: I lead my way up a very featured face pausing every so often and place a bolt hanging from a hook. I rate the route 5.X. Everyone calls the route free yea! Scene #2: I lead my way up a very featured face pausing every so often and rest from a hook hang from a hook. I rate the route 5.X. Everyone calls the route free yea? Scene #3: I am out of shape and a crappy free climber. I hook my way up a featured wall all on bomber hooks. Had I not had weekdays off guys for sure would have made the FA via the method in scene #1 the next weekend. They would have created the best free route in three states but since I got their first I say it stays and the route is never repeated. Am I the aid climbing equivalent of Exit 38?

Perhaps if people were to send him corrections the second edition would be better than the first. In any event it seems improbable that a second edition will not be published.

That's because you understand so little about them. People always fear what they do not understand.

Of course Alpinfox is joking when he wrote this but for those who might have no ceception of the relative size of some of the various economies of the world I attach this: Comparative GDP ,000,000 omitted source: cia.gov

The pointisnt a comparison of the two but rather as written at the begining..."Sometime it is instructive to watch just how much the Left, in its unguarded moments, shows its love for the poor and downtrodden of the Third World. " Cheers,

Well CBS try humming this forgotten nugget from the 60s: How can people be so heartless How can people be so cruel Easy to be hard, easy to be cold How can people have no feelings How can they ignore their friends Easy to be proud, easy to say no Especially people who care about strangers Who care about evil and social injustice Do you only care about bleeding crowd How about a needing friend, I need a friend… Ah those wonderful 60’s

A good read.... Sometime it is instructive to watch just how much the Left, in its unguarded moments, shows its love for the poor and downtrodden of the Third World. This snippet from the New York Times account of the conviction of radical lawyer Lynne Stewart illustrates it clearly. Stewart was an the attorney for terrorist Blind Sheik Abdel Rahman and passed messages to and from the mastermind to his associates. The prosecution also showed videotapes of Ms. Stewart saying "good for them" when her client was told in her presence that a militant group in the Philippines had taken hostages. Recordings showed that she seemed to enjoy trying to distract prison guards so they would not know when her translator was giving Mr. Abdel Rahman messages about his followers and their plans. The New Sisyphus, which quotes from Stewart's indictment provides more details on why Stewart said the kidnapping was "good for them": because it was good for her client. j. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY told Abdel Rahman and. STEWART about the kidnappings by the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group in the Philippines and Abu Sayyaf’s demand to free Abdel Rahman, to which STEWART replied, “Good for them.” STEWART then told Abdel Rahman that she believed he could be released from prison if the government in Egypt were changed. STEWART also told Abdel Rahman that events like the Abu Sayyaf kidnappings in the Philippines are important, although they “may be futile,” because it is “very, very crucial” that Abdel Rahman not be forgotten as a hero of the “Muiahadeen” (Jihad warriors). The Superseding Indictment against Lynne Stewart et al by the Department of Justice describes how Rahman tried to use his terrorist confederates to spring him loose, and how Stewart helped. The superseding indictment charges that, “[a]fter Abdel Rahman’s arrest, a coalition of terrorists, supporters, and followers, including leaders and associates of the Islamic Group, al Qaeda, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group in the Philippines, threatened and committed acts of terrorism directed at obtaining the release of Abdel Rahman from prison.”... Also during the May 2000 prison visit, the superseding indictment alleges that Yousry told Abdel Rahman and Stewart about kidnappings by the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group in the Philippines and “Abu Sayyaf’s demand to free Abdel Rahman, to which Stewart replied, ‘Good for them.’” A contemporaneous report by CNN notes that some of the hostages ("good for them") held at the time were Filipino children. The Abu Sayyaf is also reportedly seeking the release of three men -- including Ramzi Yousef, the alleged mastermind of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Omar Abdel-Rahman, accused of conspiring to blow up New York City landmarks -- from jails in the United States. ... In addition to the 10 Malaysians, the rebels are believed to be holding 10 international tourists -- from Germany, France, South Africa, Finland and Lebanon. The nationality of the 21st hostage was not known. The Abu Sayyaf has been linked to two kidnapping situations in the Philippines. The group has reportedly held 27 hostages -- including 17 children -- for nearly six weeks in Basilan province, where it is under attack by Philippine troops. Whether the children would be released in exchange for Mr. Rahman is unknown. But here is the transcript of the conversation between Rahman, his confederate Yousry (masquerading as a translator) and radical lawyer Lynne Stewart. YOUSRY Mr. Abdeen is eh... I am telling the Sheikh about the Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines, and they took hostages...The, in the New York Times, never said that they wanted to free the Sheikh. ABDEL RAHMAN: And Ramzi Yousef. STEWART: Uhm. YOUSRY: But they eh, their demand is to free the Sheikh and Ramzi Yousef. STEWART: Good for them, I didn’t read that either. YOUSRY: She says, Sir that she never read it in the newspapers either. ABDEL RAHMAN: No, I eh, eh.... STEWART: Amazing, and they never said that. YOUSRY: Yeah, they never did, they never did. ABDEL RAHMAN: But are they still holding the hostages? YOUSRY: Yes Sir, they still hold the hostages. ABDEL RAHMAN: Uhm. YOUSRY: [Arranging his papers] They are still holding them, they are telling them that unless they respond to their demands, they will kill them. ABDEL RAHMAN: Wow! YOUSRY: Especially a German female with a heart condition, they are raising a big fuss. STEWART: Have they still, are they still holding them? YOUSRY: Yeah, and they still have them. Filipino children and a sick German woman were all expendable in pursuit of whatever people like Stewart pursue. Leftist professor Ward Churchill, who is under fire for describing victims of the World Trade Center attack as "little Eichmanns", said in his book On the Justice of Roosting Chickens that perhaps a few thousand would have to die for society to come around to his point of view. But they were nothing to cry over: just expendable Nazis. Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it. The little Eichmann victims at the World Trade Center included fifteen Filipinos, sixteen Jamaicans, seventeen Columbians and fifteen Mexicans -- all dismissed with a wave of a hand. The Rocky Mountain News records Churchill as saying, "I'm not backing off an inch. I owe no one an apology". One of the sources of the inhuman 'strength' of the Left is its refusal to acknowledge the existence of anything smaller than a mass noun. Rhetorical service to the people, masses, workers, peasants; the poor and the downtrodden are objects worthy of the Left; but love, pity and sorrow for individuals would is sentiment beneath contempt.

Read this