Fairweather

....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.

Explain this further. I'm not following. Constant attempts to "ban" certain deemed offensive types of speech. (ie: with campus "speech codes"....not to mention their attempts to regulate conservative talk radio.) Constant attempts to subvert/re-interpret the second amendment....surely you understand what I mean.

This nation held a general election in the middle of a civil war! I respectfully suggest that general Franks is mistaken and underestimates the stregnth of our system.

Liberals can't even make it past the 1st and 2nd amendments to our constitution. Most of them believe in "free speech" only as defined by them, and abhore the second amendment. ....So tell me, Scrambler, exactly who would uphold the constitution in time of crisis? You need only look at who tries to subvert it in time of relative peace!

It may surprise some of you to learn that this Republican thinks the "voucher" idea is poor policy. If the parents of a child want to send their kid to private school, let them pay. Childless couples and single individual taxpayers pay into the system in a cumpulsory manner! What makes a parent think they are entitled to get back a portion of their edu-tax pay-in when everyone else in the country is helping with their burden? I have two kids attending public schools here in Tacoma. Granted, the schools are far from perfect, but I truly believe that the education they are getting now is superior to the public education that I received back in the 70's. I propose that the kids coming out of our public schools today are at least as prepared as those of any previous generation. Here in Tacoma the elementary schools are fantastic. The middle schools are abysmal, and the high schools (my kids are 9th and 12th graders) are good. As it has always been, the kids who want to learn and are driven will keep this society going.

The Federal Wilderness Act dates back to the 1960s..I think 1965. It is Federal and controls specifcially designated Wilderness areas in National Forests. That has always been my understanding (I actully did some research on it in law school some years ago). But I can't confirm this 100%. I am curious, because if this is the case then Camp Muir is a violation of the Act. Do you have a cite for the Washington law that you refer to? I believe non-wilderness "corridors" are present throughout the park and include roads and some parts of the upper mountain. (?) The solitude provisions of TWA 1964 state that "opportunities for solitude should exist", but some have argued that this was simply part of the criteria for establishing a given area as wilderness. Additionally, the wording, "should exist" is open for interpretation. Some of the more extreme environmental groups have tried to claim that the solitude clause applies to every square meter of a given wilderness area. This idea has sparked some intense fights between climbers and environmental groups down at Mt Hood, where the USFS administrator has lent a sympathetic ear to the radical fringe and proposed limiting the south route of Hood to 25 climbers per day. (!) I am sure these radical limits, or their proponents, will one day find their way to the upper slopes of Rainier as well. IMHO: The solitude provisions of The Wilderness Act should be clearified....or scrapped altogether as arbitrary. Wilderness should be regulated based on the level of physical impact, not social ideals. The idea should be to encourage more responsible use, not to lock people out. http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=legisAct&error=404

Looks to me like he's giving the finger to the reporter/photographer taking the photo. Maybe he's tired of all the reporters waiting like jackals for he, or his buddies to die instead of reporting about the schoolhouse or police station that the troops just helped rebuild down the street. Maybe you just want to believe he's givin' GW the bird. Hell, maybe he's giving you the finger.....like I am right now.

Thanks for the posts, Dox. I was taken aback by "David M's" letter. He seems to be saying that commercial activity should be eliminated (!) within the park, and seems to subscribe to a more radical interpretation of The Wilderness Act. Additionally, he seems to believe all (?) man-made structures should be removed from the upper mountain. Also, I guess I did not realize that Westside Road was such an "overused commercial corridor". "David S'" letter, on the other hand, reflected my own views virtually to a tee! I think the arbitrary "solitude" provisions of The Wilderness Act are, and have always been, outrageous. His letter puts into words what many feel; that parts of The Mountain can't be considered places in which one seeks solitude. Basically, I support the status-quo on Mount Rainier. (But I would like to see the guide shack eye-sore removed and rebuilt to more "alpine" standards.)

You may find it interesting that annual "defense spending" is third place in US government expenditures, and nowhere near the 2 trillion spent by individuals/governments on energy.... http://policy.house.gov/assets/ann_rep2002.pdf BTW Scrambler, The book might be worth a look. Using free markets to solve problems..... I doubt you'll get many big government/lefties to hop aboard though.

Not that we're gonna' change any minds here, but.... Sunday, November 16, 2003 The New York Times Book Review is considered the industry bible of what’s hot and what’s not in books. But the publication is coming under increasing fire for what some authors are calling a liberal bias. “I think a paper that says ‘All the News That’s Fit to Print’ has a responsibility of covering most things,” said Doug Dutton, manager of Dutton’s bookstore in Los Angeles. “But I think it would be disingenuous to say that the New York Times doesn’t have a leftist slant.” Critics charge that writers like Michael Moore and Joe Klein get reviewed, while others like Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly and radio host Laura Ingraham are ignored. Others, however, defend the Times. “I don’t think it’s a matter of shunning them because of their political slant,” said John Baker of Publisher's Weekly . “I think it sees itself as having the responsibility to pursue the intellectual zeitgeist as it were, and … not in things that it regards as comparatively transient in terms of political whims and currents of the moment." But just what is behind the selectivity? While the Times did not respond to repeated requests for comment, the paper did offer an explanation to author William McGowan’s letter asking why his best seller "Coloring the News" was never reviewed. The Book Review’s editor said the paper cannot review every book and, like any business, tries to provide coverage that appeals to its readers. However, some of the most talked-about political nonfiction of the past few years has been left out of the Times. Joe Conason's “Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth” received a glowing review from the Times, while David Limbaugh's “Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christians” was ignored. Ann Coulter's “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” a best-selling book critical of President Clinton, was overlooked, while pro-Clinton books like Sidney Blumenthal’s “The Clinton Wars” and Joe Klein’s “The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton” were both reviewed. The Times loved “The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century” by columnist Paul Krugman, but ignored McGowan’s National Press Club-winner “Coloring the News: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism,” which attacks affirmative action in media. “I don’t care if their standards are 'we won’t review anyone who’s just putting out, you know, a pop book that we consider not an intellectually serious book,'” said Coulter. “But, come on, are you telling me that Michael Moore, Molly Ivins, James Carville, Al Franken are putting out deep, weighty, intellectual books?” Michael Savage's “The Savage Nation,” which spent 18 weeks on the bestseller list and topped out at number one, was also ignored by the Times, while Ivins’ collection of essays that were critical of President Bush was reviewed twice, after only spending six weeks on the list. Coulter’s “Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism” spent 13 weeks as a bestseller, but was not reviewed by the Times, while Moore’s “Dude, Where’s My Country?” was reviewed after spending four weeks on the bestseller list. Franken’s best seller “Lies And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right,” was reviewed the week it was published, while O'Reilly's “The O’Reilly Factor” was never reviewed. But, with 11 weeks on the bestseller list, O’Reilly recently remarked to Ingraham, “We don’t need them to review our books.”

I have never suggested that anyone be banned/censored/whatever. Indeed, Nerco posting pictures of a woman licking the twin towers, even as a Boeing 767 impacts the structure, only serves to promote my position that his ideas are 100% bankrupt. Re MikeAdam, I was simply pointing out what I perceive to be a double standard. Dr Flash deliberately provoked him and then cried like a baby when he realized the fruits of his foment.

...And when Dr Flash suggested MikeAdam "save a round or two for Bush" when he returns? That was Ok? I realize the sentiments of DrFlash and Nerco don't constitute an overt threat, but IMO they come very close to the line. The hatred and desire for violence expressed by these two idiots is an interesting contradiction to their proclaimed desire for a civil, peaceful society.

I can only hope your post activated "CANNIBAL" and the FBI is kicking down your door at this very moment. Pray that we never meet. Once again, I refer to the fact that Mike Adamson was kicked off this board for making threats, but you and Dr Flash are still free to make assinine and tacit threats against the life of the president. Fucking pricks.

Which is the largest glacier in Oregon? a.) Elliot b.) Whitewater c.) Collier I'm not sure of the answer. Over the years, I've heard and/or read of each taking the prize. Maybe this is due to volume versus area differences? (ie: The Emmons is the largest glacier in Washington, but the Carbon, and possibly the Blue on Olympus, actually contain more ice.) Anyone know for sure?

That's classic left-wing paranoia you're suffering from, Narco. Get help. Are you saying I must choose between the Nazis you now imagine to be in charge, and the Stalinists in your political dream world? ....hmmmm.

Who could forget this gem?...

Was that with the younger Don Johnson?

...or just downright lame.

Slaughterhouse 5

Science trumps environment. It sounds like it can be done with only minimal impact. Who knows, maybe they will eventually build a super-collider from Icicle Creek to Mount Daniel! Maybe then they'll keep the Middle Fork Road open.

I'll second "Brazil".