slothrop

So are you complaining that Kerry lacks a unifying vision (what is Bush's)? I thought you wanted to hear him speak about his platform, which it seems that he has done. We managed to have strong nuclear arms anti-proliferation with our arch-enemies, the Soviets, during the Cold War. Remember START and all that? I'm sure that, unless we pursue the policy unilaterally (Kerry's not for this, as he himself has said), we can help reduce the spread of nuclear weapons. I doubt Bush is capable of swallowing his pride and dealing fairly with other countries in pursuit of non-proliferation. There has been virtually no effort to control the spread of nuclear weapons under Bush. Discussion of the fine points of policy is beyond the scope of an acceptance speech. I don't think you'll find Bush delving into more detail than Kerry, and I wouldn't expect him to. That's what all those staffers are for--to write the long, detailed policy documents that hardly anyone reads. You can find the details on both the GOP and Dems websites, if you're so inclined. But I think you'd rather argue semantics ad infinitum.

Huh? "articles that do you attack Bush's war record"? It looks like most of the articles are analysis about the race itself, with not much discussion of the domestic platforms of either candidate. Most of what I read discussed the strategy of the two parties and how effective they are (polls, swing states, approval ratings, etc.). And then there is plenty about the Iraq conflict. Not surprising that the focus of German coverage is on international issues (the war) and the political process in the US (which Germans may not understand, since it's different than their own). I wouldn't be surprised if Germans have little interest in US domestic policy, since it doesn't affect them directly. Just like you don't read much in US media about the huge issue (to Germans) of pension reform in Germany.

From the text of Kerry's speech (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5552784/). He may not have written it all, but he sure said it: "I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home. Here is the reality: that won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership -- so we don't have to go it alone in the world. And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us." "We will add 40,000 active duty troops - not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives - and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of National Guard and reservists." "We need to lead a global effort against nuclear proliferation - to keep the most dangerous weapons in the world out of the most dangerous hands in the world. " "The 9-11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans, and the 9-11 families. As President, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that commission." "As President, I will not privatize Social Security. I will not cut benefits. " And several pages' worth after this, where Kerry lays out his platform for the economy, health care, the budget deficit, taxes, and energy policy: "So here is our economic plan to build a stronger America..." Sure there was some oblique (and not-so-oblique) Bush-bashing, but there's also plenty of policy in there.

If video is too low-brow a medium for your multiple-foreign-language-newspaper-reading mind, you can read the transcripts, too: http://nytimes.com/2004/08/30/politics/campaign/RNC_SPEECHES.html Or there's this summary of Kerry's positions, as posted on the NYT website (sorry, in English): And for a Euro perspective: http://www.zeit.de/politik/usa/wahl2004

What has been the commanding-general turnover rate in Iraq, anyway? Something like three per year? Doesn't that seem excessive? I mean, the average undertrained National Guard MP has probably served an 18-month tour.

You were vague and over-simple, so I "took liberties". You complained (I think) about bi-partisan bureaucracy getting in the way of fighting a war. Please give evidence of this, or mention an alternative to bi-partisan democracy/bureaucracy that would be more effective at fighting wars within the framework of our Constitution. Take a nap if you're getting all tired out by this, cheif.

None of the top-level members of the Bush Administration served in Vietnam. Such draft-dodging pro-war people are commonly referred to as chickenhawks. These people let their grand vision get in the war of practical matters, such as fighting an effective war. Perhaps their lack of experience with actual war has jaundiced their vision. Professionalism does not correspond to competence and there are many appointed officials (i.e., not vetted by a vote of the people and subject to cronyism) involved here. It's hard not to see how Iraq is similar (note: not necessarily the same) to Vietnam. Armed insurgents are killing lots of our people and stifling "democratization" of the country. We don't have an exit strategy. I'd say that sounds like either war.

1) They were overruled by their superior, who I named. Some, like former White House economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, were fired when the estimated the cost of the war (accurately) at $100-200 billion (it was $150B as of April). 2) I have no idea what you're trying to say. How many ohms of impedance are we talking about? If you would rather have a dictatorship, I suggest you move to where that's an acceptable form of government. Or gather up a few wives and guns and set up your own in the hills of Idaho.

1) 20/20 hindsight 2) who do you think prevented this spending from happening? the man who voted for the 82 billion before he voted against it. Anyways sir, this is no vietnam. In any shape or form. 1) Not according to the advice of some in DoD. Rumsfeld was all about sending minimal troops. And then Bremer opened up the borders to enable "free trade"--no inspections, no tariffs, etc. Surprise, out goes the looted goods and in comes the contraband! 2) 87 billion. And Kerry's vote didn't change the fact that the bill passed both houses on Oct. 17, 2003.

http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html http://www.gop.com/GOPAgenda/ It seems to me that the RNC convention has had a lot more Kerry-bashing than the Dems' convention had Bush-bashing. The Democrats have a platform, a lukewarm candidate, and plenty of enraged disorganized liberals, while the GOP has an anti-Kerry smear campaign, lots of mindless flag-waving, and good ol' dead Ronnie Reagan.

Get a room, you two.

That's far out, man.

How does one debate this point of view, Greg?

I believe that a large amount of authority is mindless. It eventually serves no purpose other than to undermine personal freedom.

Sounds like a great climb. You can walk off the summit clockwise from the south side of the summit boulder.

What about the confused kids signing up for military service because they think the Neverending Global War on Terror is a good cause? Or the unstable nutcase kids, like gotterdammerung, who just like guns 'n stuff? Should we question their motives, even though their service, on its face, is honorable?

Remember that scene in Forrest Gump where the flag-shirt-clad hippie jackass guy drags Forrest on stage to give a speech at a rally in DC? Was that supposed to be Abbie Hoffman?

Good god, I'm so tired of hearing this. Plenty of "lefties" said plenty of things when Clinton's draft-dodging was relevant. In the news article posted above, a "lefty" said something about Clinton's draft-dodging. Now that it's UTTERLY IRRELEVANT, just like it would be pointless to bring up Ronald Reagan's lack of combat experience during World War II, can we please stop bringing it up?

No matter how many times Dwayner recycles the fruity Peter Pan guy, it's never funny every time! That BLT picture is sweet, though. Kinda like "aid climbing superstars":

M-16 rounds are relatively small, light, and very fast, AFAIK. Perhaps the rounds would just go right through a body at short range, thus not much stopping power?

Planned on Index Saturday, but we drove through to 11worth when the mist hit the windshield. We didn't have a guidebook, so went to familiar ol' Castle Rock. Climbed Fault/Catapult/Bone and MF Overhang (my friend Dan finally led it clean). Some guys had tied a TR anchor directly to the last links in the chain anchor on top of Jello Tower, so we escaped via Midway in one pitch. Dan convinced me to try The Nose. I flailed and cursed and lowered off. We retrieved my gear by rapping from the top after climbing the South Face. I convinced Dan to lead Damnation, which he reports "took ten years off my life". Good day. Sunday was more epic. Dan, Ned_Flanders, my girlfriend Betsy, and I climbed the West Ridge of Lundin. We got a noontime alpine start, ate lots of blueberries, and pitched out some of the climb, so by the time we were rapping toward the eastern gully, it was about 7pm. The best part of the next four hours was walking in the stream because the brush sucked so much. We finally found the PCT and hiked its endless flat pointless stupid switchbacks back to the road. Woohoo!

We can only hope that when the research is complete that establishes industrial chemical X as the cause of the recent rise in peanut allergies, X is banned and not peanuts. Why not pay the kid's family to have him home-schooled? Sounds like a reasonable compromise.

About this much (late July last year): Er, nevermind. This is the approach for the partial North Ridge. Duh.

Hott. Lots of butt-slapping going on between teammates, too. The opponents of those two gave each other long, tender hugs after every point they scored. It was a little creepy, actually.

Werd. I hope the basketball team gets their asses handed to them. I sure wish I had Bravo so I could watch the soccer finals.