slothrop

Yeah, the locals won't be pleased that this article tells people to park in the wrong spot and walk in front of their houses again. Perhaps the directions were taken from an old guidebook by the editor. I'm not really impressed with the way placing gear is described as an "early" method... I thought I was reading about the Indonesian hobbits there for a second. I liked reading about the area's history via Garth Bruce and Brian Burdo, and it's always amusing to read someone describe "how the rope got up there" to non-climbers. Nice job, Jason. It's too bad no mention was made of the total lack of police reponse to the trailhead thefts, but at least the issue is getting some press.

Lookin' fly in a leisure suit:

I posted this elsewhere already, but y'all are such drunkards, I thought you might appreciate it: At a friend's birthday party last night, we came up with a way to celebrate democracy this coming Election Day. No matter who wins, everyone has fun with the Election 2004 Drinking Game! Gather your voting-age friends around the television (preferably with cable) and follow these simple rules: 1. Every time Kerry wins a state, drink some red wine. 2. Every time Bush wins a state, drink some cheap American beer. From a can, of course. 3. Every time Nader's share of a state's votes equals or exceeds Bush's margin of victory in that state, throw up. (You may wish to place buckets at strategic points around the room.) That's it! No matter the outcome, you are sure to stagger into work the next day throbbing with pride in your democracy and the pounding headache of your worst hangover ever. Politically advanced players may wish to add the following optional rules: * If Pete Coors wins his Senate contest in Colorado, shotgun a Coors Light. * Whenever Nader appears on screen complaining about not getting on the ballot in a state, take a giant bong hit and chill out, ya damn hippie. * Special for Fox News viewers: whenever Fox calls a state prematurely for Bush, crush a beer can against your sloping Neanderthal forehead. No, an empty can, you moron! Note that if the election is too close to call or mired in legal controversy, you must continue to drink! It's not over until freedom prevails, so you might want to stock up with enough alcohol to last until January 20. When your liver starts to enlarge, take comfort in the words of our future ex-President on playing his part in the raging frat-party that is American democracy: "It's hard work."

I swear I'll shut up about politics eventually... From today's New York Times. Friedman is a fairly conservative guy by all accounts and he makes a lot of sense in this editorial: A Hole in the Heart By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: October 28, 2004 When you read polls showing a significant number of Americans feel our country is on the wrong track, what do you think is bothering people? I think it's a deep worry that there is a hole in the heart of the world - the moderate center seems to be getting torn asunder. That has many people worried. And they are right to be worried. American politics is so polarized today that there is no center, only sides. Israeli politics has become divided nearly to the point of civil war. In the Arab-Muslim world, where the moderate center was always a fragile flower, the political moderates are on the defensive everywhere, and moderate Muslim spiritual leaders seem almost nonexistent. Europe, for its part, has gone so crazy over the Bush administration that the normally thoughtful Guardian newspaper completely lost its mind last week and published a column that openly hoped for the assassination of President Bush, saying: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. - where are you now that we need you?" (The writer apologized later.) Meanwhile, French and German leaders seem to be competing over who can say more categorically that they will never send troops to help out in Iraq - even though the help needed now is to organize the first U.N.-supervised democratic election in that country. How do we begin to repair this jagged hole? There is no cure-all, but three big things would help. One is a different U.S. approach to the world. The Bush-Cheney team bears a big responsibility for this hole because it nakedly exploited 9/11 to push a far-right Republican agenda, domestically and globally, for which it had no mandate. When U.S. policy makes such a profound lurch to the right, when we start exporting fear instead of hope, the whole center of gravity of the world is affected. Countries reposition themselves in relation to us. Had the administration been more competent in pursuing its policies in Iraq - which can still turn out decently - the hole in the heart of the world might not have gotten so large and jagged. I have been struck by how many foreign dignitaries have begged me lately for news that Bush will lose. This Bush team has made itself so radioactive it glows in the dark. When the world liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, America had more power in the world. When much of the world detests George Bush, America has less power. People do not want to be seen standing next to us. It doesn't mean we should run our foreign policy as a popularity contest, but it does mean that leading is not just about making decisions - it's also the ability to communicate, follow through and persuade. If the Bush team wins re-election, unless it undergoes a policy lobotomy and changes course and tone, the breach between America and the rest of the world will only get larger. But all Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney have told us during this campaign is that they have made no mistakes and see no reason to change. The second thing that is necessary to heal the hole in the world is a decent Iraqi election. If such an election can be brought off, the Europeans, the Arabs and the American left will have to rethink their positions. I know what I am for in Iraq: a real election and a decent government. The Europeans, the Arabs and the American left know what they are against in Iraq: George Bush and his policies. But if there is an elected Iraqi government, it could be the magnet to begin pulling the moderate center of the world back together, because a duly elected Iraqi government is something everyone should want to help. The real question is, What if we get a new Iraqi government but the same old Bush team incompetence? That would be a problem. Even an elected Iraqi government will see its legitimacy wane if we cannot help it provide basic security and jobs. Last, we need to hope that Ariel Sharon's hugely important effort to withdraw Israel from Gaza will pave the way for a resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians. When there is no peace in the Holy Land, and when America has no diplomacy going on there, the world is always more polarized. I am no Sharon fan, but I am impressed. Mr. Sharon's willingness to look his own ideology and his own political base in the eye, conclude that pandering to both of them is no longer in his country's national interest, and then risk his life and political career to change course is an example of leadership you just don't see much of any more in democracies. I wonder what Karl Rove thinks of it?

For once, I agree with something Sharon is doing. I admire him for sticking up to the opposition in his own party.

Well, gee, a lot can happen in four years. When you refer to Kerry's base, I think you're talking about Americans. The president is supposed to listen to our views, because he's a public servant. Kerry said he saw no reason to go to war "under the current circumstances": Kerry is willing to change his mind if circumstances dictate. I think we can agree on that. He did not say he would never go to war. If Saddam actually threatened the US, then I believe Kerry would have acted.

No. Not right away. It took the USSR 40 years. And I'd rather have Iraqis do the dirty work than our troops.

No need to get all aggro, man. "Bush poser" would have invaded Iraq anyway. Kerry was playing it safe. I don't like that he voted to give Bush authority to use force, but I think he's come a long way in the course of the campaign in terms of more clearly defining his positions and taking a stronger leadership role. Bush can lead, but he refuses to listen or ask for help and is leading in the wrong direction. I'm not following that man over the cliff.

Yeah, that's great! And we had even more visibility into Iraq's woes (weapons inspectors, no-fly zone) and arguably even more international pressure for regime change. Iraq's army was a piece of shit compared to the USSR's and I don't think the Iraqi secret police would measure up to the KGB, etc. So why not ride it out and watch Saddam get usurped by his own people. That would have been awesome!

No, he was not for the war. Read everything he said, again. He voted to give the president authority to go to war. He's not against the war now. He wants to end the war, just like Bush does: successfully. (What else is there to do?) He's against going to war when we don't have to. We're fighting a war in Iraq, like it or not, so that qualifies as "have to". You're trying to skew everything Kerry says into black-and-white categories, which doesn't make sense.

Well, I can't convince you if you're already convinced. I don't read Kerry's statements the same way. Not once did he say "we must invade Iraq." Agreeing with "the goal of regime change in Iraq" is like agreeing that the Soviet Union would be better off as a democracy--there is no mention of the means or the timeline. I don't know what you're talking about re: the Soviet Union. Even assuming that everyone knew it was a failing state (their propaganda said the same of us) for 30 years, your argument dictates that we should have just waited for Iraq to crumble under the weight of its own corruption. Which is exactly what I think should have happened, with our strong encouragement.

My big idea on Iraq, subject to change: sanctions, no-fly zone, weapons inspectors, diplomatic pressure. Oppose those who wanted to end sanctions: UN, far left wing in the US. Encourage and oversee humanitarian aid to Iraq. Bomb terrorist camps in northern Iraq when we find them, to show Saddam that we will fight terrorist threats against us if they originate from his country. We could have gotten closer to Islamic nations by playing on Saddam's corruption of religion (he clearly was using it purely as a political tool). Assure Iran that we will continue to contain its former enemy (Iraq) so that it doesn't have to get uppity with nukes. Assure Islamic nations that we will help solve the Israel-Palestine problem. Etc., etc. I doubt that what I think is the best way. I'm not as well-informed as anyone in the State Dept. and I don't do this for a living. Since I'm not a policy-maker, I will do what I can: vote for the guy who is willing to change his position in response to reality. The guy who is interested in the world around him and understands the issues.

Dammit, we better go and invade Russia because we forgot to during the Cold War. That'll whip them Commies into shape! We better start some shit now because Putin's kinda funny-lookin' and he doesn't send troops to Iraq. (Hey Scott, how about that Soviet Union? Why wouldn't you have invaded it, considering we have always been the bestest country with the biggest guns in the whole wide world?) You've got some interesting impressions of Kerry, Scott. You seem very attached to the flip-flopper talking point. Kerry hasn't changed his position as much as you think: http://www.factcheck.org/article269.html . Flip-flopping is part of politics. For example: why did Bush give in to pressure from his base (Americans) and establish the 9/11 Commission? That's how politics works. That's the job: get things done for people (Americans) after listening to their concerns and balancing them with everyone else's. I don't care that he changed his position on the 9/11 Commission. I care that he obstructed it in the first place and refused to allow his and Cheney's testimony to be recorded.

Cuz you keep bringing it down.

Riiiiiight. We can do it just because we believe we can. Sorry, my view of world politics is not so faith-based. You gotta pick your battles and your methods of fighting them. Iraq was a poorly-chosen battle and badly fought. Sure, even invincible 'Merica can make mistakes, but we have to know when we make them and change our ways. Bush is ignoring the bad news and refuses to listen to anything other than what he already believes. If you are not willing to change, then the world will change around you. One day, you wake up and everyone's outsmarted you and your set-in-stone strategy. I don't want my country to end up that way.

How can you call Yugoslavia a guerilla war?

Pathetic. You don't even know your own candidate. What do you think Kerry's position is? He clearly wanted to use war as a last resort. In his speech before the vote to give Bush authority to use force (thus making our threats more credible), he called for the use of diplomacy first. He said he wouldn't have invaded Iraq when Bush did, but wanted to let weapons inspectors keep doing their thing. Here's a decent summary of Kerry's opinion on the Iraq invasion: http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2106946&

Ah, "my boy" Clinton. Yugoslavia was what? Are you trying to say something, or are you resorting to again because you have nothing useful to say? England v. the colonies was what? A guerilla war... that the guerillas won.

Huh? Saddam was not attacking his neighbors. He had no WMD. There were international inspectors and a no-fly zone (threat of force) ensuring all of this. Kerry's approach, I believe, would have been to not abandon these successful methods of containment for a risky, unjustified, destabilizing war of unprovoked aggression. The US would have hundreds of thousands of uncommitted troops ready to deploy against real threats (foreign or domestic), billions of dollars to spend on domestic problems and international nonproliferation efforts, and the goodwill and cooperation of many more nations around the world. Did the Soviet Union fall because of a military invasion? Do ya think maybe there were some economic, diplomatic, and social factors that led to its collapse? Years of non-violent pressure from the US and it's allies, maybe?

If the Europeans were so dependent on Iraqi oil and crushing the insurgency is the only way to stabilize Iraq enough to allow oil to flow again, wouldn't Europe jump on the coalition bandwagon and start pulling their weight? Maybe one or more of your assumptions is incorrect. Bush's war planning was terrible. If he didn't plan for an insurgency and Islamic terrorists running amok, he or his advisors have no grasp of what the "war on terror" means. Since they're not willing to adjust their strategy in the face of reality, there's no reason to reelect them. When is the last time an invader won a guerilla war without resorting to genocide? I'm still awaiting an answer. Examples of when it went badly for the invader: Germany v. Russia ('40s), Russia v. Afghanistan ('80s), US v. Vietnam ('60s-'70s).

Iran is not economically self-sufficient, so diplomatic pressure can induce change. Iran's national airline is basically grounded because they can't get parts. Resumption of shipments of these parts is one of the carrots that Europeans have held out to Iran. I don't really get your argument. First, you say no one wants to invade Iran, then you belittle diplomacy as a method of effecting change in Iran. So which is it? It sounds like you're just belittling Europe because it's fashionable--hardly a noble or effective approach to international relations, but one that our current administration seems to favor. Or are you trying to imply that merely the threat of force is necessary? Wouldn't having our forces committed elsewhere substantially reduce the potency of our threat projection capability? No one's going to believe us if we go to rattle our saber and it's already drawn against someone else.

Your tirades would be more interesting if you didn't wander off into criticisms of imaginary positions held by "the left", Jay. Bilateral negotiations are different than unilateral invasions, and bilateral talks and multilateral talks are not mutually exclusive. In fact, having both sets of negotiations could work like a "good cop, bad cop" scheme (with the US as the bad cop, of course ). It would be dumb to dismantle ongoing multilateral negotiations with North Korea, but I don't think it's a bad idea to have one-on-one (not one-vs.-one) meetings, too. You're swinging blind at the Liberal pinata, Jay, and here's why (from a policy paper on Kerry's website: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0601b.pdf): I'm sure you can cite some internet source to say that bilateral negotiations are the only way, but the man who's up for election doesn't agree with that.

You're right, Fairweather. I don't think invading Israel and marching freedom into Jerusalem will win the war on terrrrr. We could gain some goodwill from the Islamic world by helping resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, though. It's an opportunity we shouldn't miss out on, even though it'd be hard work.

Yep, Saddam was a bad guy. No doubt about it. You think this justified an invasion, I don't. It's a boring debate from here on out.

Hey, guess what? The US gives money to Israel to spend on weapons and bulldozers and settlements. Palestinians would probably consider that "funding terrorists". Maybe, just maybe, that has something to do with why Muslims don't like us.