Fairweather

How dare you claim that Chavez has respected property rights, you little punk. Why do junior commies like you and Jim have to blatantly lie to make your points? Talk about denial-flavored Koolaid! Try waking up to the world outside that small-time campus on which you reside and educating yourself about how the real world works. You are un-fucking believable. http://www.landaction.org/display.php?article=265 (even your lefty friends agree!) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aLJI6oIrRB8s http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/03/desperate_cry_from_venezuelas.html (from the right) http://www.inblogs.net/oilwars/2005/09/fascist-or-fair-deal.html http://www.analitica.com/va/ttim/international/4969131.asp (a latin perspective) http://www.arthurmag.com/magpie/?p=1426 (more lefties agree that its "seizure") ...seems the only ones who reject the term "land seizure" as it relates to Chavez are mental lightweights who have somehow established themselves - in their own little minds - as thinkers!

Who can beat it? http://www.ebaumsworld.com/penguinswing.html

But things really started looking up in '62!

You heard it here first folks, the birth of a hot new conservative buzzword: PETROFASCIST! Don't worry Fairweather, you can take all the credit. Hell, write a book! Prole. I'm willing to laugh with, at, or by myself. But your post just aint funny, nor does it make sense. Sorry.

Interesting period piece. But I find writing like this particularly condescending: "What I want to speak for is not so much the wilderness uses, valuable as those are, but the wilderness idea, which is a resource in itself. Being an intangible and spiritual resource, it will seem mystical to the practical minded--but then anything that cannot be moved by a bulldozer is likely to seem mystical to them." Who is this man, icon or no, to determine one cannot be both practical and love wilderness. Classic "us" versus "them". Too bad we can't get past 1960.

Maybe they could take some of the million$$$ they're wasting bulldozing and rebuilding the perfectly good visitor's center and use THAT to fix the roads. Then they wouldn't have to raise the pass costs. Damn Good Idea Tom! From time to time we actually speak the same language.

Scary shit. His loud guttoral ranting coordinated with the flailing hand gestures then followed by strategic pause reminds me of Hitler - while his endless repeat, rephrase, rehash of the same rant harkens Castro. Even if you agree with his hatred of Bush you must admit that the guy is NOT head-of-state material. Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen that one.

I don't care if she's a hooker, as long as she doesn't give me any viruses...or worms.

W, I sincerely appreciate your candor regarding this and other wilderness-related issues. You sound like a pretty even-handed NPS employee. Typically, I have found NPS employees in Alaska the same. Unfortunately, I have encountered many (usually junior level - usually young, female) NPS folks here in the pacific northwest who don't share your sense of balance and act like rabid clubhouse guardians bent on keeping the evil human hordes from contaminating the land with their very presence. I would be surprised if you don't know the type I'm talking about. If my response to this fee trial-balloon sounds excessive, it is intentionally so. Does the Denali NP boundary adjustment of 1980 preclude the NPS from tacking a fee onto air taxi services that land at Kahiltna Base or do McKinley fly-overs? I would have no problem with this. I would have no problem with climbers posting a mostly-refundable rescue bond of $1000, but I realize there are legal implications for the park. I would have no problem charging very large up-front fees to guide service concessionaires. I would have no problem charging foreigners a large fee as they do in Nepal. After all, these visitors have not paid taxes to support the NPS system. I would have no problem with Denali NP dismantling "the program" altogether and adopting a Wrangell-St Elias style approach. But what right does DNP have to charge a legitimate park user, who begins his/her climb outside traditional park boundaries, a thousand bucks? If I walk into a fast-food joint to buy a cheeseburger should I be forced to eat filet mignon - and then be compelled to pay for it? What if I just want to climb a mountain, mind my own business, and pick up after myself?

A: Chavez has yet to invade another country under false pretenses. B: Chavez hasn't run the most formerly admired country in the world into the toilette. C: Chavez doesn't lead the world's largest greenhouse gas producing country while denying that global warming is a problem. C: Chavez doesn't have his finger on the world's most powerful nuclear button. The list goes on, but why bother? At this point, there isn't anyone in this audience who needs a kindergarten lesson in current events. Speaking of kindergarten lessons, dissapproval of a greater buffoon does not translate to support of a lesser. A. The relatives of innocents kidnapped and murdered by Chavez-supported FARC in next-door Colombia probably see things differently. 300,000 rifles for a 64,000-man army, you say? B. No. He is simply leading a nation - whose capital has the highest murder rate on Earth - deeper into the toilet. C. True. He simply sells his nation's heavy, sulfur-rich sludge to those who burn it. C. Hey! That's two C's! You're not one of the Chavez-loving commies about whom I spoke, so I'll leave it at "D" (?). BTW, I thought I was on your ignore user list?

The people of Venezuela have spoken. No demonstrations. No 'parallel government' sworn in. No chairs thrown or shout-downs. But to our resident socialists who regularly sing Hugo's praises, I have a question: How can one man who controls the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government - and has nationalized the country's largest industries, seized private 'unproductive' land, and used his mob to shred the constitution so he can rule in perpetuity - be any better than the leader you so despise here at home? At some point, Chavez' personality cult will wear down and the people of Venezuela will want change. Unfortunately it will be too late. With one notable exception (now reformed?), guys like Chavez don't go away when the poll numbers start to slump. They simply transition from 'elected leader' to dictator and start killing their political opponents.

Um, I'm not sure you understand how things work here, but The National Park Service - that is floating this absurd proposal - is about as far removed from 'capitalism' as is possible. A fee increase like this is simply a back-door attempt by environmental elitists to limit human activity in our (read: their) National Parks.

I've kept my home-built PC upgraded with the times, but I'm looking for something new. I'm impressed with Apple's graphics capability and security. How is web browsing with a Mac? Any problems or 'can't-go-there' issues? Has the whole Mac premise been compromised by their switch to Pentium processors? Why would anyone run Windows on their Mac? Are they worth the extra $$? Do their LCD monitors hold up to continuous use/on? As a Mac user, have you eliminated time spent troubleshooting? How is the support?

Lindsey Buckingham.

This isn't true at all. The cutouts were simply rolled aside or downhill as they almost always are. It was NF-employed trail crews that did the work - not timber companies. Maybe you're thinking of "salvage logging" at Mount Saint Helens and elsewhere? Different subject entirely. As for crosscuts, I recall that the land manager deternined it would have taken up to ten years to reopen all of the trails in WenatcheeNF and MBSNF - where the fallen trees were "piled like jackstraws" across many trails - if cross-cuts only were used. What do you think about the use of simple wheelbarrows for trail work? Of course, you know where I'm going with this.

This is supposedly the rule, but it is mostly (rightly!) ignored by National Park and Forest administrators who recognize the folly and allow their limited use in designated wilderness for trail maintenance. Back in the early 1990's the Alpine Lakes Protection Society attempted to block the use of chainsaws being employed to clear thousands of windfelled trees from a huge storm the previous winter and reopen hundreds of trail miles, citing The Wilderness Act 1964. The USFS manager then threatened to adhere to the letter of the law.....by sending out crews with hand augers and dynamite. ALPS relented. Now that's a land manager I could buy a beer for! Under the strictest, most radical employment of Wilderness Act regs even the use of wheelbarrows could be prohibited. Wheels.

If we make our mountain wilderness/alpine areas inaccessible to all but a super-fit minority, we will seal our own doom and those roads you speak of will be built - to extractively exploit vast tracts of "unused" land.

I certainly don't think that real, demonstrable, physical damage can be deemed a social construct. I'll have to think about the rest of your post though. You probably have a point. For now, I will say that I've always found the term "managed wilderness" a bit oxymoronic.

It is also worth noting that "50 Hikes in Mount Rainier National Park" is almost completely void of the rantings Harvey wove into almost every page of the 100 Hikes series. I've never figured out why this is, but could it be that even MRNP wasn't interested in this type of politic and insisted The Mountaineers tone it down?

This past summer my daughter and I went for a short afternoon hike up "High Rock" to the lookout just south of Mount Rainier. This area is USFS land and not designated wilderness. There were a couple dozen people along the way including a couple mountain bikers. At the top, my daughter and I had an interesting conversation with a 50-something woman who was absolutely livid that she had to share her experience with mountain bikes. So deep was her hatred of these human-powered craft that she went on to suggest she would not be at all upset if someone pushed one of the aluminum beasts over the edge - rider included. The funny part of this story is all-the-while she's venting her rage, her Minature Schnauzer dog is snapping and snarling at me and my daughter, and every other passer-by. Realizing this woman's anger put her above questions about her little pup or her somewhat hypocritical views, we politely offered to take her picture on the top while she cradled little Heinrich in her loving arms. In no way was my day "ruined" by any of the folks we met that day. In fact, it was enhanced. You see, John, my comments about Manning have little to do with other user groups. They have more to do with the wedges he drove between the many non-motorized user groups I listed above, who's support he could have used to leave a truly great legacy. Not one where mountain bikes or horses are allowed on every trail, but one where angst isn't regularly stirred by a guidebook author who -it seems to me - felt his stature gave him license to write social rules as he saw fit.

Respectfully, I don't think this question is valid. Who are we to determine the motivations of others? We can certainly judge actions, but not motivations. Other than Harvey Manning/backpacker types, I have rarely seen user groups who won't 'share' with other non-motorized user groups. Valid question. I have no problem with restrictions based on quantifiable, long-term physical damage. Unfortunately, restrictions are too often based on social considerations. Does this apply to ADA requirements too? I've been waiting a long time to see a determined ADA litigant contest Wilderness Act restrictions. The "snowpod" guy on Mount Rainier came close.

I think the recent passings of Ira Spring (whom I consider an ideal advocate for wilderness preservation) and Harvey Manning present us with the opportunity to discuss the best course for ongoing wilderness preservation and use. Do we want the inclusiveness that Ira believed in? Or do we want the absolutism that Manning promoted? Look, we're not talking good vs evil here, we're talking about a course that will either take us to more citizens gaining an appreciation for what we all love - or less. If I have to tolerate other user groups in order to preserve what I love, I'm willing to do that.

Cyclists, certainly. But also: Horses Fishermen Dogs Climbers Day Hikers etc etc etc etc I can cite passages of his utter contempt and rage toward each of these valid user groups in the 100 Hikes series alone. While he rightfully fought against road extensions, his support for the closure of [/i]existing[/i] roads and trailhead access reaches not only the Middle Fork Snoqualmie, but the Middle Fork Cascade River, Stehiken River, etc.

The 100 Hikes series is scheduled for a rewrite. I hope The Mountaineers choose an author who embraces inclusion and the encouragement of our common love of the outdoors - not one who will continue exploiting divisions among diverse user groups or be so quick an advocate for the gate and padlock. Off White says: I've spawned this off of Harvey Manning's obit thread to give the disscussion it's own life and a little distance from Manning's passing. This is the climbers board, not spray, and Fairweather has an interesting point. Keep it civil folks.

What is the date of that editorial? Most or all of those options are available now. (Maybe his prescience was your point?) Pre-tax medical savings plans are already offered, but with one fatal caveat - the employee loses the unused balance at year's end! As for declining benefits in lieu of higher wages - I do just that. My company pays its employees to decline coverage. Not many do, but some, like me, have spouses with medical plans. Now, contrast this with Hillary-care of 1993. She proposed actually taxing the benefits of working Americans to afford government coverage for the uninsured. About 180 degrees Friedman.