Jim

This just shows again how the Shrub has no policy to stand on other than continuing to try and scare the public. Let's not elect this guy, we didn't the first time.

Sounds like fun but my legs are soooo tired from bombing down the knee-deep powder lines at Crystal yesterday. Had entire runs to myself. Heads up on the avy scene on Saturday, be careful. I think I'll be painting and giving my legs a rest.

But snow level going to 6000 on Saturday. Going for a ski tomorrow! ...A SNOW ADVISORY IS IN EFFECT FROM 4 PM THIS AFTERNOON UNTIL 4 PM THURSDAY AFTERNOON FOR THE WEST SLOPES OF THE CENTRAL AND NORTH CASCADES... MOIST WESTERLY FLOW BEHIND A PACIFIC COLD FRONT WILL BRING SIX TO TWELVE INCHES OF NEW SNOW TO THE WEST SLOPES OF THE CASCADES TONIGHT AND THURSDAY. SNOWFALL WILL DEVELOP IN THE CASCADES TODAY...WITH A COLD FRONT MOVING ACROSS THE AREA THIS EVENING. SNOW WILL CONTINUE TONIGHT AND THURSDAY IN THE MOIST WESTERLY FLOW BEHIND THE FRONT...WITH THE SNOW LEVEL REMAINING NEAR 2000 FEET. THIS EPISODE WILL PRODUCE WIDESPREAD ACCUMULATIONS OF SIX TO TWELVE INCHES OF NEW SNOW ALONG THE WEST SLOPES OF THE CASCADES BY THURSDAY AFTERNOON.

If things are so great in the rtw states, then why is there such a strong correlation between rtw and level of poverty? Hmmm. Maybe someone else is raking in the difference? http://www.citizencomputing.org/USPoverty99.html

I've had some experience with unions. My old man worked in union shops all his life. When a machine lopped off the ends of two of his fingers it was the union that made sure he got the correct medical care and that his position was available when he came back. If it was up to the company he would have been tossed aside. I worked for the teamsters back east for a while, loading trucks between undergrad and grad school. Yea, they did pinch your paycheck for dues but if it weren't for them there would be no collective bargining. And that's what big business wants, the ability to call all the shots. On the other hand their are some stale unions around. A frined worked in the NYC mechanics shop for the subways. Bascically he was told to dial it back a bit because he was too efficient. That was in the 80s, now there's more of a cooperative atmosphere between the union and mgmt.

How about his dentist?

Huh? Because folks with $110k plus salaries are feeling job insecurity?

Actually, as a practicing wildlife ecologist (25 yrs), biodegradable flagging is the norm these days, at least in enviornmental work. It should be the choice for any marking, but some folks don't know or want the vinyl stuff that does last a long time. The biodegradable stuff is easy to find, check out Foresty Suppliers or Ben Meadows catalogs.

Didn't Dennis Rodman marry Carmen Electra?

I think this is what Bush is doing with his national guard records.

I consider myself progressive on social and environmental issues and conservative on fiscal issues. The backbone of true conservative politics used to rely on fiscal responsibility - a truely conservative approach to government spending, a cautious approach to foreign affairs, and encouraging free enterprise. The neoconservative movement is stripping away many of these goals. We have bloated and growing federal spending, increasing subsidy programs (largest farm bill and wasteful military spending), a foreign policy based on speculation and isolation from the world community, and an increase in business and financial mergers and a corresponding decrease in competition. This group is pegging the meter in the wrong direction.

Hmmm. Food for thought. Sounds like Ja Man would build more character and (hopefully) help with my crack climbing while Ancient Art is a cruise with a Dr. Suess finish. Thanks for the specifics.

No, No. I need your opinion on Ancient Art or Ja Man - which would you go for if you had one tower day available?

So, I'm planning a trip to Moab in April that will be a mix of climbing, and then some biking and hanging with family and friends. I'll have time for one day of cragging and one tower day. So if you had the choice would you climb Ancient Art on Fisher Towers (short 10ish section otherwise 5.8) or Ja Man on Sister Superior (10c). Background: I would rather climb a 10c face any day over a 5.9 crack, which, I know, means I should climb more cracks.

Give it a try and you'll see. Change in grip forces you to pull way harder with the arm w/o the towel while using muscles in the towel arm differenly. Ow, ow, my tendonitis hurts just thinking about it.

And my overall point is that this thread runs through all of the justifications for the war. I would have disgreed with the decision, but had more respect for the administration if they had stated their true reasons for going to war. That Saddam is a despot, that we need to protect the oil resources, and that we intend to make this an example of democracy in action in the middle east. But instead they tried to scare the public and justifiy it with what they knew was false and purposefully twisted information. It was not the intel or lack thereof. Later gotta get some work done.

Ok lets settle for a moment on this specific issue. The Bush administration said that Kamel's testimony indicated that there Saddam had a wealth of WMDs and used this as part of the overall war justification. Newsweek and the UN testimony transcrips show that Kamel said the EXACT OPPOSITE, that Iraq had no weapons. He never said that there were WMDs in Iraq after the Gulf War. So why did the Administration say Kamel said there were WMDs. The administration had the transcripts. They lied because they wanted to scare the public.

And I'm saying that any of the stuff the Bush admin put up can easily be shown to be false by someone with half a brain. It's difficult to respond to generalities. I've given several examples of lies - show me a piece of evidence that they used of justification that was true - or at least thought of as true by the intellegince community. But you can't because there is none. It's not gray. Everytime I point out a direct lie you start talking about the gray zone. That's the current spin and it doesn't hold water.

Yes they did lie. They said Kamel stated that there wer WMDs in Iraq. As the newsweek article points out he said the exact opposite. The Bushies had the transcripts. That is a lie and distortion of the fact. Next you're going to say they made a misktake in reading comprehension. Pitiful.

But the point is that anyone who looks at the evidence cannot seriously come to the conclusion that there were any trace of WMDs. Here a summary of an issue that actually made it to the mainstream press. THERE WERE NO WEAPONS AND THEY KNEW IT. The Bush administration also made much of Iraq's purchase of high-strength aluminum tubes, which it claimed were used in the enrichment of uranium for nuclear weapons. Outside experts questioned that claim from the very beginning, and the International Atomic Energy Agency reported in early January 2003 that the tubes were for short-range artillery rockets. There were also many dissenters within the U.S. government, especially among experts in the Department of Energy, who doubted that the aluminum tubes were suited for gas centrifuges needed for uranium enrichment. Perhaps the biggest revelation contradicting the official administration line on Iraq WMDs was a story in the March 3 issue of Newsweek (released February 24) about Iraqi General Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, who had headed Iraq's weapons program. Kamel had defected from Iraq in 1995 and was killed upon his return in 1996. On many occasions, Bush administration figures had cited Kamel's testimony to UN weapon inspectors in an attempt to show that Iraq was still hiding weapons of mass destruction, even though Kamel had left Iraq in 1995. The reporter who wrote the Newsweek story, John Barry, had recently obtained a transcript of Kamel's 1995 testimony to the UN weapon inspectors, in which Kamel revealed that "that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them." You read that right: destroyed them. Barry wrote that Kamel's testimony "raises questions about whether the WMD stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist." Barry noted that "Kamel was Saddam Hussein's son-in-law and had direct knowledge of what he claimed: for 10 years he had run Iraq's nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs." The writer added that a military aide who defected with Kamel "backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks." And Barry revealed that Kamel had also given his story to the CIA and British intelligence in 1995 When the Newsweek article appeared, the CIA denounced it as false, but an original transcript of Kamel's testimony to the UN inspectors was produced that confirmed the story.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I would respectfully disagree. It was not that the intel was wrong. Most of it was twisted and stripped of the caveats that the intel folks insisted go along with it. These were ignored for justification. You can discuss why Saddam should be booted out for a number of human rights issues or whatever, but that was not what was sold to the public, and now the admin is changing their tune and pointing in all directions as to why they went in. What they should be held accountable for is what they clearly stated was their justification for starting the war. If WMDs were not the reason then they should have stated the real reason and let the nation have a true democratic discussion about it.

This is always a good ploy. If Bush says the world is flat then most of the meadia headlines would be "Opinions vary on earth geometry". There is no valid opinion on this. Only the facts. OK, lets take one. The Nigerian connection regarding selling of "yellow cake" uranium. The administration had sent their envoy to Africa a year earlier to check it out. He found out it was a fake document and reports back to the US. Then, 5 months later, Bush uses in the state of the union address. The envoy is astonished and writes an Op-Ed piece in the NYT saying, no-no, that's not what we said. Then the Bushies leak word that his wife is an undercover agent for the CIA, as vengeance. So - this was not bad intel. It was a lie plain and simple. And you can easily go down the list just like this with 99% of the admins justifications.

Ah, get used to this line of reasoning because you're going to hear it as a steady drumbeat until November. The intel was imperfect - we did the best we could under uncertain circumstances, then throw in a reference to 911 and a country at war, wave flag, fade out. What a bunch of crap. There's numerous articles written by investigative reports (New Yorker, Harpers, NYT,WA Post) that has thoroughly discreted the administration claims that the intel was bad. The administration made the decision long ago as to what they were going to do and tried (and failed) to get the intel to justify it.

The question of uncertainty is defense issues is always a valid concern. Unfortunately it's not applicable to the Bushie situation - this is the tact the administration is taking to pull the light off the real question that should be asked. Why did the administration cherry-pick bits and pieces of analyis, use false information, and bury the caveats that the analysists had produced, all to conduct a PR campaign for their adventure. It wasn't like they used the informtion to reach a conclusion. They already had a conclusion and were trying, wildly, to justify it. That's why their explanations are falling apart the Shrub's handlers thought it necessary to go on Meet the (lameo)Press.

RobBob - Take a look at this site, it has some good resources, and some discussion of the net metering issue. http://www.irecusa.org/smallwindenergy/index.html