Fairweather

Actually, I wasn't making comment on the validity of the program, just stating the fact that it's a political loser for Dem's trying to regain the House via some kind of fear campaign. BTW, I was just as upset as liberals when Clinton's white house staff was illegally sorting through the FBI files of political opponents on the floor of the oval office.

I'm impressed. Mommy and Daddy must have a really big checkbook!

Isn't this the part where you go off-topic by posting some mediocre pics of a trip you didn't actually take?

Ahhh, yes. More love from the left. Thanks for yet another illustration, Cj.

Obviously you're a sad casualty of the very hate-filled ignorance you so freely label others with. I don't think the Dalai Lama would like you. Seriously.

I've said it before: For president. As for Hillary, I would not vote for a woman with a hyphenated last name. What can I say?

Given the Republican's lack of fiscal restraint, even I could be talked into supporting Dem's for House races just to restore some balance. But, unfortunately for the D's, their agenda is transparent - two years of non-stop hearings and investigations. I think mainstream America sees the Dem's as too focused on things the average Joe/Jane aren't really concerned about - or wholly support...like wiretapping of overseas calls and monitoring of secret banking transactions.

Good TR, Pope. I've always wondered about this peak. It looks like an old cinder cone covered by forest - although I know it's non-volcanic. This is the kind of stuff good memories are made of. Dad comes home tired, happy, and alive.

I don't think most "self-proclaimed liberal secularists" would have any problem addressing the Dalai Lama as "His Holiness", nor the Pope, nor the Archbishop of Canterbury. Being a "liberal secularist" doesn't mean you renounce all forms of religious or spiritual belief - it just means you try to treat them all with equal respect..... I think you are mistaken. The utter contempt for religion shown here is primarily focused on Christianity and, to a lesser degree, Judaism. As a secular conservative, I believe this is because some here feel they live under threat from these groups or sub-sects therein. Maybe they're right, but I still think the whole 'holiness' thing wreaks of political correctness - and you can't be serious when you say that all religions are treated with equal respect here. For the record, I wouldn't refer to The Dalai Lama, The Pope, or Buddah himself as 'His Holiness'. They are/were, after all, just men.

Yeh, I agree that the guy seems to have good intentions, but I am slightly amused when I hear self-proclaimed liberal secularists refer to the man as 'His Holiness'. Huh? I will say that virtually any form of government that a one-day independent Tibet established would be better than the oppression it currently endures. http://www.friendsoftibet.org/global/whytibet/

Wonderful reply. Is that you talking - or the alcohol again?

So you wouldn't mind a rebirth of Tibetan theocracy were the communist tyrants presently occupying it rightfully ousted?

An unfortunate decision made by elitists.

It looks like there have been a few access changes for climbers, although the site would have you believe it's business-as-usual. GPNF/MSNM has contracted with http://www.mshinstitute.org/experience/permit-system.html/document_view "non profit" to handle an apparently expanded fee and restricted date system. (Didn't the "main season" used to end on Oct 15th?) Also note the $7.00 "non-refundable service fee" that is now added to your $15.00 adventure. I haven't followed the steps to fruition yet, but it looks like I have to link to yet a third site - "active.com" to register. What the hell is going on down there? Will I soon have to access "wal-mart dot com" and pay a gratuity for a day in the hills? Note: this topic is more appropriate for the access forum, but since access to the access forum is also restricted, I posted it in this more accessible forum.

I don't think your political views are "ordinary" at all. Most ordinary Americans don't believe network producers should be threatened with imprisonment for expressing their freedoms in the form of drama. History is always viewed through the prism of the author. Hell, I suspect I could even find fault with Ken Burns' Civil War documentary if I tried hard enough. Your views on first ammendment freedoms are terrifying.

????Are you serious???? Read back to yourself what you just wrote above. Tell it to Dan Rather. Despite your past attempts to claim the middle ground, you are exposed as a political hack. Nothing wrong with choosing sides - just be honest with yourself (and others) about it. I find it telling that you, and those like you, claim to be the frontline protectors of free speech and press....until that freedom upsets you in some way. TR

How simple and predictable of you to pick off the weakest point and ignore the others. Care to engage those? Regardless, since you're interested in real issues, how do you feel about senate Democrat's not-so-subtle threats against ABC's broadcast license? Freedom of the press...D-style. And spare me the source-attack, please. http://media.nationalreview.com/ Senate Dems Threaten Disney's Broadcast License 09/07 06:45 PM, Media Culture Sens. Reid, Durbin, Stabenow, Schumer, and Dorgan sent a letter to Disney today containing the following passages: We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation. The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events. [...] Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon. Who in the press will stick up for ABC's right to air this miniseries without having its broadcast license threatened?

Matt, Jim, Cj, and W must have been just as upset when "The Reagans" was scheduled for broadcast a couple years back. ...And isn't Sandy Berger a convicted felon? Something about stealing secret documents related to 9/11 from the national archives two or three years ago? Hey, did any of you folks see Michael Moore's "Farenheit 911"? I hear it was really factual and raw.

Why Peter! You're just bumping up against the credentials of a critical, open-minded thinker - with a doctorate, no less! (As we're reminded so often.) Bow down you small, small man. Don't worry yourself so you poor jealousl little man. You can have one too! While I actually had to earn mine, you can send in a check and get one too. I get spam email about them all the time. I'll just start forwarding them all to you now and, soon, you can have a PhD from Bob's School of Quantum Mechanics or some other fine institution of higher learning. No need to spend your life toiling in some low end job with no social prestige. BTW, in case you hadn't noticed, it's possible to be quite clever without having a doctorate. It's just your unfortunate fate that you're not very good at it. I'm sure there could be a cure for 'rectal optolitis'...if such a condition actually existed. Unfortunately, for you, there is no ready cure for the affliction known as inflated ego....or pompous arrogance. I guess you'll just have to wait for someone to come along and beat it out of you.

Why Peter! You're just bumping up against the credentials of a critical, open-minded thinker - with a doctorate, no less! (As we're reminded so often.) Bow down you small, small man.

Still waiting for you to post a Trip Report....or anything apolitical for that matter. Maybe when you're done polishing Foraker's knob, eh?

The difference between us, Foraker, is that I freely admit my biases, while you go on spouting ad nauseam about your critical thinking skills, science background, advanced degrees, and open-mindedness. Of course, JayB and Catbirdseat's academic talents are put aside (even mocked) when your biases butt up against their admittedly more balanced arguments. Other than you constantly telling us all about these critical thinking skills - which I'm sure you both possess and apply in your field - could you please demonstrate where you've ever shown any political reflection here? I just don't recall. As for me, again, so you'll understand; I am politically biased to the right. And I think its time that you faced your own biases and stop spouting this critical thinking self-assuredness - or give a demonstration thereof. It's called politics, Foraker, and although there's a degree available, we both know that it ain't really science.

Page 1, Chapter 1 of the anti-establishment liberal talking points handbook: If you can't refute the facts, then attack the source.

If a study that comes from eduaction inc. doesn't hold water with you - one of the corporation's finest products - then I doubt anything will. Do you ever question or scrutinize the methodology of studies that provide comfort to and re-enforce your political mindset?