Fairweather

I just picked up my new AT setup. K2 8611's, Diamir Titanal 3's, and Garmont G-Rides. I thought about the "Freerides", but I figured the Titanal's were a little more "touring" friendly and that at 165lbs, I really didn't need the DIN12 setting. Also, the brakes won't keep my ski from the depths of a crevasse. I hope my wife doesn't find out I've been spending $$$ again. I'll be sleepin' with my new gear on the sofa!

Actually, so would I. (Mcain, not Ventura.) But do you really think the level of vitriol eminating from the left would be any less if Mcain were the prez? I don't. Do you really think Mcain would have handled Afghanistan or Iraq any differently? If you took the time to read up on him you would see that he is at least as hawkish as GW. Do you know that he was one of the first to demand ground troops be sent into Kosovo? BTW, when does the sun come up again in Fairbanks? You sound like you need a little sunshine.

Will doesn't speak for all of us! I support Alternative #1...no change. NO, I'm not a guide. I just think RMI works well for the uninitiated, and I think it would be outrageous to split the pie three ways. If another guide service thinks they can do better than RMI, then let them bid for the exclusivity that the current system now calls for. Also, the proposed use limits are a step in the wrong direction. Yes, maintaining monopolies brought about and maintained through political connections, a sound idea indeed. I suppose you also support the uncontested contracts in Iraq given to halliburton and other similarly awful companies by our corrupt administration? The guiding contract comes up for a bid every few years, and as far as I know, anyone can bid for it. Last time I checked, competitive bidding is within the boundaries of a free market. I find it amusing, JoshK, that you are so partisan-driven you can turn virtually any issue in to Bush-hating rant.

NEWSTIPS, Conversely, it would be interesting to do a story on the diversity of political opinion that exists throughout the climbing/outdoor community. I'm sure your editor has had more than her fill of evil President Bush stories placed on her desk, and writing about the environment in Seattle usually involves so much preaching to the choir anyhow. Why not a story about environmental hypocrisy? Maybe totaling up the amount of gasoline used by "environmentally conscious" individuals persuing their frivolous endeavors in our local mountains....and throughout the world, for that matter? Or a story about the amount of dollars spent on outdoor gear by "socially conscious" folks versus the amount of money they donate to charity each year? Set yourself apart! Challenge the comfort of your stodgy Seattle viewers and let those hate-filled emails hit your superior's in-boxes like The Columbus Day Storm. Trust me! You'll get noticed.

Will doesn't speak for all of us! I support Alternative #1...no change. NO, I'm not a guide. I just think RMI works well for the uninitiated, and I think it would be outrageous to split the pie three ways. If another guide service thinks they can do better than RMI, then let them bid for the exclusivity that the current system now calls for. Also, the proposed use limits are a step in the wrong direction.

What a bunch of dumbfucks. Unless that slug makes it into orbit, I guess it's gonna come down! Kinda like those weddings in certain middle eastern countries where everyone's firing their AK's into the sky all at once. I wonder how many deceased are tallied each year at those events.

That's what they said about Al Gore too. But I guess he must have come across as an arrogant liberal. Being regularly underestimated by liberal elites is one of Bush's greatest assets. And besides, I think Dean would likely pop an artery upstairs if any tough questions were put forth during a heated debate. I guess the guy has a pretty short fuse.

The latest on MTBE/Energy bill legislation. A FOXNews story...Fair and Balanced: Gasoline Additive Lawsuits Debate Stalls Energy Bill Sunday, November 23, 2003 WASHINGTON — Hoping to rescue energy legislation stalled in the Senate, Republicans were discussing elimination of a controversial provision to give legal protection to the makers of MTBE (search), a gasoline additive found to contaminate drinking water, officials said. These sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Senate and House officials, as well as the Bush administration, have discussed the suggestion, but no decisions have been made. Another GOP source emphasized that House Republican leaders so far have refused to give in on the MTBE liability protection. This source expressed doubt that a solution can be reached over the next three days, meaning an energy bill probably would have to be put off until next year. The energy bill, a top priority of President Bush, is stymied in the Senate. Supporters fell two votes short of the 60 needed to advance it to final passage last week. The proposal under discussion would remove the legal protection in the bill for makers of MBTE as well as ethanol, along the lines of a suggestion made on the Senate floor by Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (search) of South Dakota. Daschle, whose state would benefit from a variety of ethanol-related provisions in the measure, supports the bill and voted to advance it to passage last week. After that vote, he said there "should be no doubt" that if the MTBE liability provisions were taken out, the energy bill would pass the Senate and be enacted into law. He proposed that "safe harbor language be eliminated for ethanol as well as MTBE." The MTBE provision originated in the House, where it has the strong support of Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and Rep. Billy Tauzin (search), R-La., who led the House energy bill negotiations. Most MTBE is produced in Texas and Louisiana. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., on Sunday blamed the gridlock over energy on lawyers who are flooding the courts with lawsuits against MTBE manufacturers. "The trial lawyers held the bill up," he said, appearing on "Fox News Sunday," arguing that the industry turned to MTBE because of "a federally mandated program to reduce (air) pollution" and should be protected. "They were forced to create the product," said Hastert. Critics of the additive have argued that the oil industry chose MTBE to meet federal air pollution requirements, although they knew as far back as the mid-1980s that the oxygenate would be difficult to control and clean up if it got into water supplies. Cleanup costs have been put as high as $29 billion, although the industry has said that number is exaggerated. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he was giving senators 48 hours to find a solution. "If we can't get it done by Tuesday, we won't see (the energy bill again) until January," he said on CNN. While many senators complained the bill had too many favors for special interests, cost too much and failed to do enough to curb energy use, it was the MTBE issue that tipped sentiment against the legislation, which earlier had breezed through the House. "A safe harbor for manufacturers of MTBE is unacceptable," said Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., whose state has filed a lawsuit against 22 oil and chemical companies seeking damages from water contamination. House Republicans appeared to be digging in. DeLay accused Senate opponents of the energy bill of using MTBE "as a scapegoat to obstruct" the energy legislation. He said MTBE manufacturers be protected as part of a compromise expanding use of corn-based ethanol, a rival additive. "The MTBE and ethanol provisions are a true compromise that will become law," said DeLay, who pushed to make the waiver retroactive to Sept. 5 so a string of new lawsuits would be covered. Once viewed as important to reducing pollution from automobiles, MTBE became an object of scorn when it was found that it was difficult to contain and clean up once it gets into drinking water. Traces of MTBE have been found in almost every state and it has the potential of becoming a serious problem in at least 28 states, according to government and private studies. "Cash-strapped local governments should not be forced to bear the cost" of MTBE cleanup and "it is unconscionable that MTBE manufacturers should be shielded," said Donald Borut, executive director of the National League of Cities. The National Conference of Mayors has estimated that the cleanup bill from MTBE contamination could be as high as $29 billion. But a spokesman for MTBE manufactures, Frank Maisano, called the number "wildly overstated" and put the cost "directly attributed to MTBE remediating" at no more than $1 billion.

Catbird, I would support a quick ban on the production/importation of two-stroke engines in recreational vehicles such as snowmachines, dirtbikes, outboards, jetskis, etc. say effective 01/01/2005. I would not support banning existing units or their use. In 10 years most of them would be gone anyhow. And I would not support taking AlpineK's chainsaw away either. (I think he probably sleeps with it and "lubes" it nightly.)

For once, I agree with you.

Don't 2-stroke engines still use lead-containing additives in the oil mix?

I don't follow Michael Jackson "issues" very closely, and it sounds like the guy is strange for sure, but I am bothered by the media's virtual conviction. I am also bothered by the treatment given Kobe Bryant, and given what I've subsequently read since his initial "TV media conviction", I believe him to be innocent. I now have no faith in what the media tells me about MJ. I just hope he gets a fair trial.

Then I'm sure those drug dealers will turn their rifles in by the truckload at the nearest Miami police precinct.

Flame away, but...... What if Michael Jackson is innocent?

A determined individual could kill more people with a 30.06 bolt-action hunting rifle than he could with an "assault rifle". Remember the Texas "clock tower" guy? "Assault rifle" is a label invented by the press to describe only certain types of weapons. The label as the current bill uses it, for example, applies only to specific brands of rifles and not others. The ban on hi capacity magazines if inneffective. Go into any gun shop and you can still purchase a "pre-ban" magazine. Semi-automatic rifles account for less than 1 percent of firearms crimes committed each year in this country. The assault weapons bill was a "feel good" measure passed by lawmakers and their constituents who don't understand firearms.

Some interesting facts about MTBE. Would someone please explain why the manufacturers of this EPA mandated additive should be exposed to unlimited lawsuits? Could it be that the Trial Lawyers Association has the Dem's in their pocket? http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/192.html Olyclimber, If you choose to respond, please spare me the Greenpeace/EarthFirst hysteria junk mail recital.

That's why the Dems are putting on a good old fashioned filibuster. The worst provision is one which gives blanket protection from lawsuits to gasoline manufacturers who use MTBE in their formulations. MTBE contaminates water and it's strong smell and taste renders the water undrinkable. MTBE, forced upon the public by ENVIRONMENTALISTS. The same lame-asses who are now trying to sue the manufacturers. A great example of what happens when we let environmental(ist) hysteria get in front of science. Also, Catbird, from what I understand this energy bill is facing bi-partisan opposition. Mcain ® is against it, while Dashle (D) is for it. Nice try though. And as for Cheyney's task force, well, that kind of reminds us of when Hillary's health-care reform task force met in secret for over a year without inviting businesses who were likely going to be asked to foot the bill. Brilliant Fairweather. Next you're going to be telling us that people who actually give a fuck about the environment have no business setting energy policy? And you think that people who are concerned about the environment are lame assed? Suck my exhaust pipe asswipe. When you wake up from your pipe dream you can die with the rest of us on this shit hole planet you and your Republican friends are fouling. Oh ya....I'm a liberal, I'm supposed to be nice. Have a nice day! I noticed you didn't address any of my points. You sound like nothing more than a leftover 60's radical prick. Go spank yourself. Oh yea, if you can't tolerate opposing points of view in spray, don't post your shit to begin with ya liberal pussy.

Don't get me wrong, Jake. I support the right of private citizens to own firearms for any type currently allowed. And I hope the current, ridiculous "assault weapons bill" is allowed to expire. And yes, the 2nd amendment is, and was about keeping the govt in check, but thinking that an armed citizenry will stop a tyrant who is supported by our military is just a romantic idea held by folks who think their Mini-14 and a couple of 30 round magazines hold more power than they actually do.

That's why the Dems are putting on a good old fashioned filibuster. The worst provision is one which gives blanket protection from lawsuits to gasoline manufacturers who use MTBE in their formulations. MTBE contaminates water and it's strong smell and taste renders the water undrinkable. MTBE, forced upon the public by ENVIRONMENTALISTS. The same lame-asses who are now trying to sue the manufacturers. A great example of what happens when we let environmental(ist) hysteria get in front of science. Also, Catbird, from what I understand this energy bill is facing bi-partisan opposition. Mcain ® is against it, while Dashle (D) is for it. Nice try though. And as for Cheyney's task force, well, that kind of reminds us of when Hillary's health-care reform task force met in secret for over a year without inviting businesses who were likely going to be asked to foot the bill.

I assume you're referring to Wesley Clark. In my statement above, I didn't allude in any way to the ideology of officers, just their allegance to, and understanding of our constitution. But since you brought it up, a 1998 survey estimated that only 15% of the US military officer corps identified themselves as Democrats. I recall reading that this was a big concern for Clinton and Gore at the time.

....a well educated officer corps, that is! I think our military is our best defense against political wanna-be tyrants....internal and external. (And please spare me your predictable leftist reply, "but Bush is a tyrant"...blah, blah, blah. It just aint so.)

His previouscommander, General Hugh Shelton, demoted him and stated that Clark is a man with character problems. I'll find the link..... He is a Clinton puppet. Just keeping the seat warm for Hillary in '08. Secret: Bill and Hil' don't want the dem's to win in '04. That would be bad mojo for their ongoing political ambitions.

I'll have to disagree with you on this point, Scott. There is NO WAY that 150,000,000 armed citizens could hold out against a gone-tyranical government. Armies sieze control NOT by going door-to-door, but by controlling the institutions and infrastructure that hold together a society. Wanna' eat?...turn in your guns. Wanna' job?...turn in your guns. Want a home loan?... Hey look!...Your name is on the NRA membership roster we recently siezed! Go to jail! Many right wingers that think they could withstand a tyrant with small arms. I beg to differ. IMO, the best defense against tyrants is a well educated military officer corps that would not stand for the blatant subversion of the political process. I think we have that right now.

The idea that the constitution is "flexible", or "a living, breathing document" is what brought about decisions like Dred Scott. The document means what it says, and IMHO is not as open to interpretation as many think. .....But then I'll admit that I do, in fact, support things that are clearly unconstitutional such as the Federal Reserve system and the death penalty.