willstrickland

Greg, excuse me, but I think any comparisions to the Civil War, WWI, or WWII are WAY out of line here. The State Dept, as well as several high ranking officials in the military command structure, repeatedly emphasized the need for post war planning. They were pushed aside and/or ignored. Read Fallow's "Blind into Baghdad" in the Jan/Feb Atlantic Monthly for an indepth look at the planning before hand. It's an eye opener. The biggest difference here is that we CHOSE to invade Iraq. Rice and Powell had both emphasized in the past that he was contained and containment was working. Gen. Zinni has spoken several times about how containment worked and that it was the best policy. Even George HW Bush wrote that occupying the country would be a clusterf*@#. The thing that I think alot of the media overlooks is that Bush repeatedly rolls out the line "he would not disarm" and that there would be "serious consequences" if he didn't. Look, I think the UN is a fucking useless organization. But, to disarm, you have to have the weapons in the first place. He didn't have them. I'm sure a few things got out via Syria, but bottom line is the guy was not a threat to us, certainly not a threat to Israel who has nukes and is crazy enough to use them. My point is, we had more than enough time to adequately plan, and we certainly knew that we would need a larger force to maintain order in the post-conflict.

This is an interesting take for a couple of reasons. First, we heard over and over beforehand that "neither man has ever lost a debate". And that "Kerry was an Ivy league champion debater, while Bush is deceptively effective with his down home demanor and tweaking of the issues into common-man soudn bites". So I am a little surprised that you think it was "a tie is a loss" situation for Kerry. Second, this debate was supposed to be Bush's strong suit. National security/foreign policy was the area where the people consistently had a higher opinion of Bush. This is the reason that Rove et al demanded that the first debate be the foreign policy one. They know more people watch the first one by a pretty wide margin, and they expected to solidify the "Bush is better on national defense" perception. IMO, they failed to do that. I saw it as exactly the opposite of Greg...a tie for Kerry in this one was as good as a win. And I honestly didn't think it was a tie. I thought Kerry won decisively. Not on substance so much as acting "presidential" and manhandling Bush in what was supposed to be his element. Never forget that Al Gore "won" the first debate before the media got ahold of it. Then it was all sound bites of the infamous "sighs". Soon the conventional wisdom dictated that Bush really won that one. The difference this time around is that the immediate perception was that Kerry won, and the thing people remember...demeanor and body language, clearly favor Kerry. Watch the right wing spin begin with this point: Kerry is going to ask us to pass a "Global Test" before we can defend ourselves. That was a poor word choice and Rove will pound it. Greg, I listened on the radio, then went back and watched video afterwards. The audio really drew attention to the big pauses and "uhhh, ummm" of Bush and you could actually hear him beating on the podium at the close of several of his answers. You could sense that he was flummoxed and pissed off. Seeing the video really drove that home. The left will probably come out with this spin: Bush said they have brought the Pakistani AQ Khan network(the scientist who sold nuclear...or nukulur, secrets to Iran, Libya, etc) to justice. Bush recommended that Musharraf pardon for this guy. WTF? That's justice? Also, watch for a 527 group to run an ad that shows Bush repeating the "it's hard work" line (how many times did he say that?!) and then displaying pictures of him on vacation and citing stats about how he's been on vacation x% of the time, more than any pres. in recent history, etc.

Well Klenke and Cracked, that's the beauty of this great democracy we live in...there are two more debates as well as a VP debate to give you more insight into the two contending teams. I think the biggest question is: Kerry mouths about working with other countries to take some burden off of us in Iraq, but can he actually accomplish this? Highly questionable (WTF is in it for them...if they say no, we kinda have to stick it out alone), but he certainly has a better shot at it than Bush who has basically given the middle finger to Europe. I think one of Kerry's strongest points was that since Bush chose this unilateralist approach, we are footing 90% of the bill and incurring 90% of the casualties. I will definitely watch the VP debate because I think it will be the best for pure entertainment. The stodgy old winger CEO type versus the slimy pretty boy ambulance chaser lawyer. Gloves off bitch, it's on! I'm still voting for Badnarik.

I listened to it live on the radio, then watched some video with the sound off. WTF was Bush doing with his mouth? It was like they had coached him to not do his "Smirky McChimp" face, and everytime he started to do it, he suppressed it into this prissy tight-lipped thing. All the contortions were bizarre. And I swear the guy drank about a gallon of water up there. Kerry's opening was horrible, and he was not making eye contact with the camera. He got better and hit his stride during the middle third. At about 20 min remaining, he lost steam, but then made a decent closing statement where he finally looked into the camera. The bottom line that people will remember was that Kerry looked calm, confident, and as corny as it sounds...Presidential. Bush looked confused, pissed off, and on the defensive. This issue was supposed to be Bush's strong suit..national security/foreign policy and Kerry eeked out a win. Rove is either having a mild coronary, or scheming something dirty right now. I predict a 2%-3% bump for Kerry. And WTF was with answering a question about N. Korea with a statement about Iraq?

I fixed it for you Cracked, but the WaPost one is probably better. I read some of the one I linked and it has alot of spelling errors in names. The stenographer definitely didn't brush up on military commanders.

Cracked, transcript here: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,134152,00.html

Klenke, are you on drugs? Kerry wiped the floor with Bush. Even Scarborough, who always shills for the right, is saying Kerry won the thing. Even the freeper blogs are dismal and calling it a Kerry win. What debate were you watching?

If you want to discuss or critique the way it was done (method) and whether is was "clumsy", feel free to PM me. I was one of the 3 people who chopped it. That said, I think this is a distraction from what we are trying to discuss. I think Bug raises some important issues in his post above. We would benefit more from addressing and discussing those points than rehashing this one specific incident.

Nalo dude, you look like Sean Hannity's little brother. Greg_W might be interested in givin' you some action.

I would suggest that you start at the top of Chelle's list above, and hopefully after #2, we can reach some mutual agreement on a remedy. I would not advocate elevating the issue to the land managers (i.e. USFS) for the reasons ScottP raises. Try to work it out to our own satisfaction with the race organizers first. If they are uncooperative, and ONLY if they are uncooperative, elevate the issue. That is my take.

I don't get where you're going with this Rudy? We don't live in France, and from what I've seen of the crags you mention, they aren't readily top-ropeable anyway with the exception of the pitches just below the rim in the Verdon. I think bringing up E38 is more valid than some crags halfway around the world. And, yes, the people I know who've climbed in the Verdon reported some "adventurous" runouts. But widely spaced bolts where there is no other protection available, on a crag that is not TR-able isn't really the issue is it? Maybe I am missing something.

In the middle far right of this pic is the "granite sidewalk" that the guy is on in the pic above. It gives you an idea of the angle we're talking about.

For me, it's a simple cost/benefit. DFA you have laid out the argument that you want 1. Safety 2.To push your self and experience the movement, and 3. To Operate in the "leading" mode. 1. Nobody can honestly argue that sport leading is safer than TR (with a few obvious exceptions). 2. You are climbing the same moves on TR as on lead. 3. This is the only argument left..that you prefer the "traditional ascent mode, i.e. leading". So let's do the cost/benefit: Cost: Visual impact, potential to affect access in the future. Benefit: You get to enjoy the fact that you are trailing the rope and risking short and safe falls, rather than having a minimal risk of falling more than a few inches on TR. Leading is often more convenient than setting up a TR. So maybe the real question is: Are there other users of the area who will take offense to the visual impacts and raise the issue with land managers? I can relate a few incidents in the Southeast where hikers raised enough of a ruckus that access was affected.

Yeah whatever. I'm glad you've figgered out the "best" solution. Congrats. Any reasonable voices ou there? How 'bout designating certain areas bolt-free? Any ideas? That's pretty arrogant to dismiss his idea out of hand. There are a lot of people who agree with his stance. I am one of them. I'd love to hear your arguments related to what is gained (other than convenience) by "leading" a sport-bolted line that could be TR'ed instead? We know what the impacts are, so what are the advantages? I don't argue that overhanging routes are a special case. And most routes at Smith are obviously not TR-able. I don't out-of-hand reject sport climbing areas. But I do find it suspect that you are calling him "unreasonable". It sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and it sounds like you cannot address the message so you attack the messenger. IMO. FWIW. ETC.

Here are the most recent numbers from pollingreport.com for a multi-candidate (i.e. including Nader/Badnarik) 9/27 TIPP Bush 45, Kerry 45 9/26 Gallup Bush 52, Kerry 44 9/26 ABC/WP Bush 51, Kerry 45 9/26 Pew Bush 48, Kerry 40 9/23 Time Bush 48, Kerry 43 9/22 GWU Bush 50, Kerry 45 9/22 Marist Bush 50, Kerry 44 9/22 AP Bush 52, Kerry 45 9/21 GQRR Bush 47, Kerry 45 9/19 NBC/WSJ Bush 50, Kerry 46 9/19 Zogby Bush 46, Kerry 43 But honestly, these nationwide horserace type polls don't mean shit in an election this close. Go to the LA TImes website for a cool flash electoral map linked to latest polls in each state. I predict lawsuits in several states, riots in Orlando, Miami, Philly, and Cincinatti, and no winner declared until mid Dec.

Thanks for your work Dane.

Two components: Fed gas tax and state gas tax. The state level varies considerably from state to state. Fed rate is 18.4 cents/gal. Some states levy on a flat rate per gallon, some levy a percent of the purchase price. I lived in GA for a long time, where they have the cheapest state rates at 7.5. Gas is always cheap in Atlanta. The higest state rates are in Wisconsin at 31.1! Now I'm in Alaska with the second cheapest state rate 8.0, a pipline running through town, and a refinery 8 miles down the road. And we pay more than you folks in WA/OR..WTF?! We are getting bent over. Not like they have to transport it like all the other things that are so expensive up here. I can understand that fresh produce is expensive here, I cannot understand expensive gas.

Scott who is Brian Blair? Do you mean Jayson Blair, the disgraced NY Times reporter who just made things up?

Damn, even his hometown has had enough. Check it:

It's not limited to the climate change debate by any means, it's a shift in "journalism". I've been reading alot lately about the political process as covered by the media, and how the shift toward giving the "he said/she said" story coverage without ever fact checking the sides or commenting on the veracity of each side's claims. It's the "new journalism". 20 years of pounding the "biased media" talking point has turned the press into a proxy shill for both the left and the right. They will give equal time and credence to both views even if one of them is demonstrably wrong. The people couldn't be bothered to care....'cause we're goin' to MARS BITCH!

A little Billy Madison ref there Harpell? As I recall the old lady said: "If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis"

A set of nuts is a pretty universal piece of every rack, reasonably inexpensive, and not so specialized that you will wish you chose another style/brand later on. Black Diamond stoppers are the standard. I own a set of BD stoppers, DMM Walnuts, and a set of HB offsets. They are all good in their own way. You can get a set of stoppers for around $80.

Careful there Scott, see my post above. Do you mean inept or indepth? You better edit fast, you're on thin ice there mister.

Hey Shuldt, you weak kneed apologist you ever hear this little ditty?: First they came for the Jews And I did not speak out – Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists And I did not speak out – Because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out – Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me – And there was no-one left To speak out for me. Well guess what pal, you folks with the spelling abililty of third graders are next!