Fairweather

cool quote from one of abe's letters to a friend: "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the (Civil) war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." False. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp Ivan, respectfully you should know better than this. The temptation to tweak history in order to fit a contemporary world view is pretty normal. But passing along whole-cloth falsehoods is something I would expect from others here--not you. "The above quote, attributed to President Abraham Lincoln, has been periodically dusted off and presented to the public as a prophetic warning about the destruction of America through the usurpation of power and concentration of wealth by capitalist tyrants for over a century now, undergoing a renewed burst of popularity whenever wartime exigencies stir public debate over governmental policies. These words did not originate with Abraham Lincoln, however — they appear in none of his collected writings or speeches, and they did not surface until more than twenty years after his death (and were immediately denounced as a "bold, unflushing forgery" by John Nicolay, Lincoln's private secretary). This spurious Lincoln warning gained currency during the 1896 presidential election season (when economic policy, particularly the USA's adherence to the gold standard, was the major campaign issue), and ever since then it has been cited and quoted by innumerable journalists, clergymen, congressmen, and compilers of encyclopedias. . . . Why have these "money powers" words been put in the mouth of Abraham Lincoln? In a general sense, the reason is because dead people — especially revered leaders — make great commentators on modern-day politics: They can't be questioned about the legitimacy of their comments, interrogated about what they meant, or asked to elaborate about the subject at hand . . ." Read more at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp#S7ge6Ox6DSSybBVK.99[/i]

You've mixed a lot of issues together there, Jim. Not all of them science-related. But yes, I'll agree, any Republican (or Democrat) who fails to understand and acknowledge the logic of evolution is lacking. It's 150 years vetted--and no other model explains the diversity of life on this planet as completely. That said, there are a lot of Americans who weigh religion--or even philosophy--more heavily than science. Not sure they are worthy of the scorn you are serving up. Many of them are otherwise intelligent folks. Even Michelle Bachmann--a true ditz re science--somehow managed to earn an LL.M. from Ivan's old Alma mater. No small task. As for the other Republicans you name, yes, they are all the usual suspects. Here are a list of Democrats you might want to add to your list: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/5-democrats-who-dont-get-global-warming/nope-we-still-dont-get- No big deal; I appreciate your civil engagement. But, anyhow, what are your thoughts on net neutrality?

Joe would be so proud... Context. Snippet. Reading comprehension. Yes, little d, it's a complicated world out there. Especially in green and socialist and racist Wisconsin. Take it slow.

[video:youtube]G790p0LcgbI hmmm...

Our Nero:

Insults? Sorry, Matt, but you are like many others on the left who deny economic reality here. In any event, I don't know any of these evolution-denying Republicans you speak of. Of course, they exist, but are largely on the margins. Probably on par with avowed communists on the margins of the Democratic Party. Straw men are easy to build and knock down--and Democrats have mastered the art. It appears, for this last election anyway, that their fictitious "war on women" boogeyman failed to work.

No sleight intended. When you mentioned the word survey I figured it was safe to assume you weren't handing the birds questionnaires or conducting avian interviews.

Jim, absolutely disagree with everything here. First, it's no secret the GOP favors less regulation of industry. And I really don't think you can find anyone who thinks they don't do exactly what they say vis-a-vis limiting the imposition of additional environmental regs. In fact, I'd say it is the Democrats who hide their agenda--and the Keystone pipeline is a case in point. Harry Reid is finally letting it come up for a vote--albeit only to salvage the electoral hopes of his Louisiana colleague who now plans to vote yes. Very cynical. Secondly, I'd point out that each and every one of the "war on science" examples you cite are environmental. Of course, there is more to science than the niche you occupy. I'm not trying to be an ass here, rather, just point out that you are painting with a broad brush. Yes, there are many Republican "global warming skeptics"--who in turn represent skeptical American citizens. Finally, it's hard to believe your contention that the message about global warming hasn't been heard. The problem is, IMO, that instead of "selling" your message in the marketplace of ideas, you've approached the issue by trying to force delegated agency regulation and judicial interpretation down the American people's throat. Never. Gonna. Work. Not only because scientists tend to make lousy salespeople--and often think the art is beneath their dignity--but also because they so often put on public display the contempt and arrogance I mentioned in my last post. In short, the party in power represents the weighted aspirations of the American people. I believe this is what Jay is trying to say as well. I'd go further and say if you want your message to get a fair hearing next election, be willing to negotiate, be willing to listen, don't lie or play politics with your own science, and don't take falsifiability off the table. Unless you plan on throwing out our whole system (good luck with that) you're going to have to sell. Back to the net neutrality topic? Obama wants to "regulate the internet like a utility." This is a big, big problem. Of course, our idiot-in-chief doesn't think much of free speech and constitutional limits to begin with. Have fun counting gulls. Beats the hell out of what I'm doing today.

Jim, you've hedged here, but I think you are far, far off base. Particularly re surveillance. In fact, from the conservative perspective, it is the American left that is hell-bent on spying on the citizenry. Obama's NSA is exhibit A. And his efforts to stifle speech (spying on and investigating numerous reporters) lends itself to the idea that we should probably just take our chances with the market's invisible hand--rather than a bureaucracy with an agenda. In fact, imposing a new version of the "Fairness Doctrine" has been a dream of those on your side of things for some time. "War on science?" Not even worth a response. Related, I've always considered the left's habit of looking down on the electorate as uneducated, fickle, and stupid a very strange (and untrue) dynamic. Your lament about ordinary Americans voting contrary to their own self-interest is particularly telling. It belies, IMO, what the left just can't seem to grasp: that middle-class American voters generally tend to practice one of capitalism's finest features--enlightened self-interest. This makes sense, of course, since the left generally fails to understand capitalism or rejects it outright.

Just chiming in to take this opportunity to *agree* with Mattp on a political thread. In 2014. Ditto.

Good one, I actually did think about that whole reverse chronology thing, but got hung up on the "air." Besides, I have no doubt Marines would fight their way backward through time if given a half-working piece of junk time machine. Good post.

uncle.

I know those dirty once-our-friends Frenchies were shootin at us in North Africa in 1943. Bastards. Not sure where you're heading with this. "In the air...?" We sure didn't have an air force deployed to Libya in 1802. Or to Mexico in 1848.

I recon those Barbary pirates could have been cluster-bombed from above using stolen 19th century Frenchie hot air balloon technology.

So, what's the deal?

Holy shit, that picture gave me a flashback. It was pouring down rain when we left Cub Lake and headed down through that shit alder. I stepped in a bog and got the boot sucked off my foot. Had to dig it out of the mud, which had immediately encased it a foot deep. We each fell about fifty times--but only full-on face plants counted for points.

Yes, thanks Ivan. Do you have any interest in starting a new thread on immigration, amnesty, and the limits of executive power?

Not sure what this level of psychosis indicates, but the analysis is probably best done elsewhere. In any event, it's part of the official record: The upper portion of the Suiattle Road was closed in 2003 and barricaded to all motor vehicles in 2006. You admit to bypassing the barricade in 2008. Videotaped it, even. Not sure what your obsession with precision is here--other than "gotcha"--but the hypocrisy accusation stands. Traditional road access is desirable--and your willingness to blow the barricade demonstrates this. Good on ya. Just have the decency to support similar traditional access for others.

Yep, great area. Glad the road is now open.

Not to brag, but my memory is pretty good. No pics of the butts--must have been some other smoker who was on the Ptarmigan Traverse around that time.

We had a great trip as well--although it did rain for a bit near YangYang Lakes. If I recall, we picked up a few of Ivan's cigarette butts along the way. More hypocrisy from you & yours.

Point number two, simply not true. (And you know it.) We were there a couple weeks later and the USFS ranger who was hanging out on site was talking about it. Apparently that video was quite the topic back in Darrington. BTW, we walked. The road was clearly posted No Motor Vehicles at the time you guys busted through. In any event, the point here is the hypocrisy. "Access for we; let those fat commoners walk." [video:youtube]fD2PER1DGKA