Fairweather

I was driving down South Tacoma Way last week. Two lanes wide. Two bicyclists riding side-by-side, one in each lane blocking traffic about ten cars back in both lanes. I short-honked once and got the finger in return. As I was in my company vehicle and "at work" I didn't push the issue, but it was obvious these two "attitudes on skinny wheels" felt they were somehow superior to the long line of internal combustion engines behind them. Of course, they were in full cycle regalia, and one of them even had a yellow jersey on! I ride too, but fuckers like this piss me off.

The US Army was reduced from 18 combat divisions to 10 under Clinton's tenure. When I now hear the (anti-military) liberals/democrats claim it was Clinton's military that won in Iraq, I just laugh. Clinton was (and still is) a dishonorable man. Not just because of Whitewater, or because he denied Paula Jones her civil rights, but because he sold missile staging technology to the PLA for (a mere) $200,000 in campaign cash. Now he's giving speeches at a chilren's charity event in Seattle for an "undisclosed" fee.

The first guy is the leader of Hamas and is responsible for hundreds of murders. Israel tried to eliminate him recently, but unfortunately, failed. I'm sure his journey to hell will begin soon.

....mannnn. You guys are sick bastards.

DOGPILE!!!!!! How could I miss this opportunity? j_b, you do, in fact, come across as arrogant in the extreme. Not to mention lacking in humor. You cited your age as one reason for this, but I suspect that I and others here are at least as old as you are, and not nearly as rigid. Perhaps some good old fashioned self-examination is in order. Once AlpineK properly esssplayned the rules of Spray to me way back, I became a happier man. Why don't you lighten up?

I'll give the moderators credit. I've gotten into some good mud-throwing with a couple of them, and they've yet to hit me with the mighty delete key, much less ban me outright. (Shit, I guess even moderators have opinions...even if the field is a bit lopsided to the left.) But if Dwayner was seriously banned (not just a joke-banishment) then I think that sucks.

...and if Jim Forman does get the story, can he wear that yellow K5 rain slicker and the big gloves too!

JayB, You hit the proverbial "nail on the head". The Middle Fork Snoqualmie River is "Exibit A" in my post above. It seems that a certain local "trails" advocacy group supports closing access to this magnificent area by gating the road at Taylor River in spite of what their membership thinks about it, and regardless of the fact that they represent only a very small % of the recreating public. At the public hearings I have attended, the support for closing the MF Road has been the minority viewpoint. I view The Middle Fork/STMGreenway as a kind of test. If the "environmentalist" side succeeds in shutting down one of the most popular existing recreation zones in the state, there may be no stopping them. Will yourfavorite area be next on their list? Their goal is to lock out people. One and two day-trippers anyhow. Chimney Rock, Overcoat, Hinmann, Bears Breast, etc, etc, will all become mini-expeditions. As for this area being unique re wildlife? At the last hearing I attended,the USFS actually brought in a wildlife biologist who tried to make the case that this area should be designated roadless for "Grizzly Bear habitat". WTF?

Sphinx Rocks!!! My list of those who's hands I would not shake: j_b (aka Sexual Chocolate) Nerco Dr Flash JGowans ....OK, maybe I'd shake out of some ingrained robotic politeness. But I'd certainly wash my hand afterwards!

Me? or j_b? I'm deeply hurt by this, Sphinx.

...My suspicions about j_b now proven beyond any doubt. ::pink emoticon grabing ankles: this is on par with your level of political commentary ... and what does follow? the pink triangle on the shirt for every suspect? That would be just.... fabulous.

...My suspicions about j_b now proven beyond any doubt. ::pink emoticon grabing ankles:

Jon, I might consider Clark...as soon as he figures out what he stands for w/o having to get his every thought "OK'd" by his handlers. (Bill & Hillary)......... (AP) Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark backtracked from a day-old statement that he probably would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, saying Friday he "would never have voted for this war." The retired Army general, an opponent of the conflict, surprised supporters when he indicated in an interview with reporters Thursday that he likely would have supported the resolution. On Friday, Clark sought to clarify his comments in an interview with The Associated Press. "Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war," Clark said before a speech at the University of Iowa. "I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein." Clark's initial remarks left members of his campaign team a bit flummoxed. "That caught me off guard a little. The general has been very critical of the war," said George Bruno, a New Hampshire activist. Clark launched his bid for the Democratic nomination on Tuesday with the type of media attention candidates crave, but early missteps underscore the dangers facing his late-starting campaign. The former NATO commander and his campaign staff went back and forth on whether he will participate in a Democratic debate next week — all in a single day. Creating more confusion were Clark's comments on the resolution that gave President Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to oust Saddam, remarks that were at odds with his opposition to the war. Veteran Democrats pointed out that Clark is in the unusual position of trying to put a major presidential campaign in place and clearly lay out his positions in the glare of the media spotlight. Other candidates have had months to hone their message below the political radar. "If politics were theater, you get to open in New Haven (Conn.)," rather than on Broadway, said veteran Democratic strategist Bill Carrick, who warned of the dangers of "policy on the fly." Added Carrick: "Howard Dean has been out there for two years rehearsing his act." Carrick compared some of the difficulties Clark has faced to the early days of Edward Kennedy's 1980 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, also a late-starting campaign where the Massachusetts senator tended to blurt out comments that reshaped the race. Kennedy predicted, for instance, that he would beat President Carter in Iowa; Carter easily prevailed. Twenty-five years later those gaffes stick in Carrick's mind. "It completely changed the expectations," he said. "It was all triggered by the late start." The nine other Democratic candidates also have spent the last few months meeting with Democratic activists across the country, getting feedback on various issues and testing their campaign lines. "I'm sure Howard Dean has tried a variety of things along the way," said veteran Iowa activist Jeff Link. "By the time people began paying attention, he had it down pretty good." Iowa casts its votes in four months, giving Clark little time to smooth out the rough edges. "The question is, is he ready to jump into a huge national campaign that's just a few months away," Link said. "That is a pretty good sized organization with a lot of moving parts." In the interview, Clark sketched out a checkerboard of positions, saying he would leave in place a tax cut for middle-income Americans and indicating his support for gun rights, although he supports a ban on assault weapons. Clark said the helter-skelter effort to build his campaign was "like trying to bottle lightning," but he shrugged off the early stumbles. "It doesn't bother me a bit," he said. "It helps you get the message out across America. When you start late, you need that." From what I've read, the guy is still living in the cold war. He wanted to retake an airport in Bosnia from our Russian allies...by force!

Score one for the "mainstream media" tonight; I watched ABC's World News Tonight this evening and they did a story on Ted Kennedy's recent anti-Bush tirade in which they broke down each accusation made. They asked TK for evidence to back many of his more outrageous claims, and searched on their own as well. The conclusion: all Teddy's claims were "patently false". Now it looks like the ol' lush is backpeddling big-time. Probably wasn't even sober when he gave the speech. ...The sad thing, is that idealogue stooges like j_b will continue to present garbage like this as "evidence" Bush is a liar. Who was it that said, "if you tell a lie long enough...."?

Elizabeth, The title you have chosen for this thread, "Enviro-Climber Issues", leads me to the conclusion you may believe these two interests always run concurrent. This is certainly not the case. Perhaps a story written to illustrate dissenting points of view within the climbing/outdoor community would liven things up a bit.

Olympic: Ellinor (on the boundary, BTW) N Cascades: Ruth? Church?

Holy shit! My wife calls her that too!

Drop the "green" and "environmental". Not all climbers want to be associated with these two tags. I don't. Not all climbers are "environmentalists", even if they care about some environmental issues. And as Greg said, most environmentalists/associated government "planners" are control freaks, and hostile to user groups like climbers and mountain bikers.

Thanks for the post, Dan. Unfortunately, the local lefties and even most of the liberals here aren't interested in any good news coming out of Iraq. The sky is still falling, and only bad news that casts America in an imperialist light, and buys headway toward taking down Bush, is interesting or acceptable.

......Yeah j_b. And neither am I !!!! Gee. Seems it worked in Japan. Germany. Serbia. Panama. Grenada.......

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/conditions/mt_baker_climbing_notes.shtml Current conditions. Shuksan and Baker. Check it out.

I don't think I really took your argument all that far out of context – certainly no further out than my attempt at mocking humor alluded to. You complain about my debate style in highlighting what I find to be the most absurd parts of your arguments. Let me point out something about your style: you "typically" fail to respond to my arguments altogether. For example, in this thread alone, did you ever answer my question whether part of the ineffectiveness of the UN that you complain about has to do with the fact that we don't support the UN? Did you ever answer my question about whether your claim that we have rendered Al Queda less effective may be wishful thinking on your part? Or my argument that you are looking for a much more slanted set of information about the world than those evil liberals you oh so despise? ...and you, Matt have yet to respond to my presentation on the story about comments made by the Dhahli Lama.....etc... You seem to think that you are owed a response to every sentence you write preceeding a question mark, but that you are somehow free to pick, choose, and decontextualize your responses to others as you see fit. And when you can't redress coherently, you go back to the old "you're just blaming those evil liberals" or the "left wing media, huh" playbook, or summarize with some other smug commentary. So here we go..... ) "We don't support the UN." But where was the UN when we acted against Serbia at the behest of the Europeans? And who is, by far, the biggest $$$ contributor to the UN? We are. (Not even counting our arrears.) ) "...AlQueda being less effective ...wishful thinking on your part..." A recent report indicates that over 60% of AlQueda's leaders are either dead, in third-party custody, or captured and in Guantanomo. I'd say that makes them less effective. In the future I'll try to break out, and reply to each question presented by you ala MtnGoat. Won't that be fun?

Once again Matt... You typically don't "misquote", you just take your opponent's argument to the n'th degree, and then argue against the absurd. Strange tactic, but if it works for you.... My theory regarding Chile and Argentina in the 1970's can be demonstrated by the innocent lives lost in Columbia (ongoing. 50,000) and Peru (Remember "Shining Path"?) where marxist movements were allowed to grow. Our (American) interest in those countries was in stopping the spread of Soviet-style communism, and I don't think those efforts were without validity.

Perhaps you are arguing with yourself here. And, by the way, you are repeating yourself. Once again here, Matt. JayB's post that you (partially) quote was touge-in-cheek satire to almost anyone with the slightest inkling of intellect. In typical fashion, you quote out of context and present this as evidence to your cause.

Now you're just plain-old demagoguing, Matt. I never said Pinochet was a "benevolent" dictator. I put forth the idea that he may have been the lesser of two evils vs. communism. You sure know how to take the "moderate" out of "moderator".