Fairweather

This is getting too confusing. Would the real pinx please stand up?

Oh shit. You're right, that was Pink. Poor lonely bastard.

A joke, hence, the smirking icon. Your original comment, "we didn't need them [men] anyway", could likewise be humorlessly interpreted as relegating men to spermbank/sugardaddy status.

For starters: "Married filing jointly" saves you a shitload of money.

I disagree - and I would like to see your source regarding non-wed fathers still present in their child's home. I doubt their presence is statistically significant over the long-term. Who's last name does the little tyke get? What type of home does he/she get to live in with mommy and daddy's non-wed diminished financial clout? One need not be religious to see the value of a moderately conservative societal structure. Any statistics on the % of male inmates who grew up with single mom?

That explains about 40% of modern societal ills. It's not only the "religious right" who believe kids do better with a dad in the picture.

We were up there too. I don't think I've ever seen the Emmons Glacier looking so smooooth.

You can check this article in the NY Times Jan 5th. Parks Agency Leaves Controversial Book on Shelf January 5, 2007, Friday By CORNELIA DEAN (NYT); National Desk Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 14, Column 2, 561 words Also if you just actually read the article on the PEER website they have a link to the FOIA request reply from Interior that states they have no information, meaning they have not conducted any internal review of the policy. It's not so hard if you just read it. I read it, dipshit. I'm not as concerned about the "alternate history" book on the shelf, however dissapointing, as I am about squelching real science vis a vis ordering park employees not to convey the actual geologic record of the canyon. If this is true - and I still don't see any corraberation posted by you that says it is - it is, indeed, an absolute outrage. Maybe worth a letter to the RNC from a demonstrably loyal supporter.

The real issue here is not God v science. The real issue is the authenticity of Jim's assertion. He has posted a single link to a blog/journal maintained by a highly biased group of public employees/environmentalists. If the charges are true, they are a serious case of unwarranted meddling by the Bush Administration. But at this point, I have no reason to believe the charges are anything more than the very same anecdotal bullshit Jim and Mattp so often accuse talk radio of perpetuating. Show me more, Jim. Maybe I'll share your outrage. But until then, I think you're just sucking koolaid - again. In this exhibit, we have The (Largemouth) Bass - we'll call "Jim" - preparing to bite down on the lure - otherwise known as "unsubstantiated internet blog story". I'm still not sure how many fish an angler can catch with a single lure, but it looks like a productive day already!

I'll have to read up on this. I've always taken for granted the credibility of radiocarbon dating - just as I've never doubted the accuracy of using red/blue shift to measure the movement of distant stellar objects. While I think I have a good understanding of the later, I need to read up on the former. For instance, how does a scientist date a non-organic object such as a stone tool? Organic traces found on the implement? Any good sources? I am also curious about the recent efforts to measure ancient CO2 levels in ice core samples. Isn't the gas-exchange history in a 10,000 year-old bubble so random/complex as to render the tool dubious? Since this is the method currently being used to prop up the human-causation argument for global warming, I would certainly be interested in the validity and accuracy of the science. Any good sources? Even more important; I'm still waiting to Jim to provide unbiased info to back up his original link. I don't think it exists.

The real issue here is not God v science. The real issue is the authenticity of Jim's assertion. He has posted a single link to a blog/journal maintained by a highly biased group of public employees/environmentalists. If the charges are true, they are a serious case of unwarranted meddling by the Bush Administration. But at this point, I have no reason to believe the charges are anything more than the very same anecdotal bullshit Jim and Mattp so often accuse talk radio of perpetuating. Show me more, Jim. Maybe I'll share your outrage. But until then, I think you're just sucking koolaid - again.

Looks like things are moving downhill in a hurry: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6245995.stm

Nice trap. Our own government already has a nasty propensity re agricultural prices/subsidies. Should be scrapped.

I'm sorry; are his armed Bolivarian Circles anything but?

A leader - elected or not - who incrementally supplants democracy with his own cult of personality and shreds a nations guiding documents is no longer legitimate. I'm not sure he's there yet, but I remain convinced it's where he'll be soon enough. And of course you already know that democracy and "the voice of the majority" are not necessarily the same. Do you really support mob rules?

And do you support that level of central control? If it ever comes to that - and I have no doubt it will - I hope our government will support those in Venezuela who remain opposed to such tyranny. And that will surely involve Contra-like groups. Sad, really, because Venezuela doesn't have to go off the deep end to remedy the injustices of its recent past.

Are you honestly trying to say you support Chavez as the embodiment of the Venezuelan people's aspirations? A dictator? C'mon, SC, I think deep down you can see this guy is rotten.

Absolutely not. But I might be upset at my nation's oil weath being exported to Cuba and the jungles of Colombia.

Freedom versus equity? What Hugo is up to goes beyond socialism. He's 100% Castro - albeit a bit more patient. As for Ortega, I admire him in one sense - as one of the only entrenched communist leaders to ever expose himself to a fair election and step down at its conclusion. He claims to have reformed his thinking re private property, and so far I've seen no reason to doubt his sincerity.

Time for Chavez to get slapped. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6243299.stm

You may want to try getting in beter shape next time. The guide service(s) on Rainier - or on any alpine peak - aren't there to ensure your personal comfort zone isn't exceeded. Frankly, RMI doesn't really move all that fast. If you were having trouble keeping up, you were probably having a very bad day - or were not fit. Their job is to get you and those with you safely to the top and back down. If your lack of physical ambition or mental stregnth is going to jeopardize the dreams and safety of the other, more fit clients, maybe you should hire a 1:1 guide that will pamper you - or learn enough about the sport to go at it as an independent. I seriously doubt your claims that the guides were "swearing" at you or other clients. In fact, I flat-out think you're not being truthful. I've never used RMI - or any guide - but I've seen them in action on Rainier for over 25 years and I've never witnessed such behavior. What they WILL do, is encourage (or, in some cases, insist) a climber they feel is not physically capable of reaching the summit to turn around at Ingraham Flats with a guide designated that very task. You won't find any other service doing anything differently.

Part Aussie? Great dogs. Scary smart. BTW; beautiful ceiling! - but who put outdoor siding on the inside?

And she actually believes that excuse?

A freshly scraped blade of excrement and Charmin can turn that 5.8 monkeyface hold into 5.11.