JayB

Lets see. (1) The Bush team has expressed consistent support for a repressive regime (Saudi's) even when it was not on our side, and (2) doing so has been contrary - if not detrimental - to our national interests. Isn't that what you asked about? I was hoping for something a tad more substantive, like the manner in which the Bush administration's policies towards the Saudi's differs from those of the Clinton administrations (or those of any sitting president of your choosing), what new policy initiatives or modifications would constitute an improvement in your view, etc. My own view is that there's a genuine case to be made that the status quo that prevails in Saudi Arabia has the potential to result in outcomes that are not in the interest of the Saudi Royal Family or the remainder of the population, and that there are changes that could be made which benefit both Saudi Arabia and the US. In particular, I think that this administration or any that succeeds it should argue that in the absence of substantial political and economic reforms, there's a very real chance that the chickens of jihad that the Saudi state is setting loose - through the direct funding of violent, extremist Islam, the export of jihadis, domestic repression, failure to cultivate economic development in non-state sectors, etc - could eventually come home to roost in a manner that would make the Bolshevik's treatment of the Romanov's look like a cotillion by comparison, and that this outcome is all the more likely if Iraq goes under. I think that this is but one of many ways in which the US could manage the relationship with the Saudi's differently, but I'm more interested in hearing what course of action you'd advocate.

Why don't you start by telling us why it is that you have concluded that you are right in this case.

Serious questions: 1)Where were you educated? 2)How would you rate your ability to translate your thoughts into written English? dont go off topic just yet. read it again.- ctp belief, differ rant is not wrong by deaf-a-nation. 3)(When you can summon a moment of coherence - take your time)If you work, do you work in a field which requires you to communicate with others in written English?

Serious questions: 1)Where were you educated? 2)How would you rate your ability to translate your thoughts into written English?

This is exactly my point. As a population, we overlook the wrongs of a person, a government, or a group of people as it suits us. All of this at the behest of the government's idea of who is, or isn't an enemy at the time. Does the government have it's reasons? Yes. That doesn't mean that we, as citizens shouldn't question the motives. FYI - you didn't provide any substance to the argument. Your statements have been diversions from the point and questioning my motives, not discussing the issue. You are very good at arguing, but you are not good at discussing and furthering a conversation. I am not sure that anything that you've contributed merits consideration as an argument, actually. You have stated certain convictions that you hold, which appear to be articles of faith, concerning the relationship between government policy and popular opinion in the USA. The "American's (except for an elite cadre that includes - incidentally - me) Are Government Controlled Drones" riff is tired as hell, easily refuted, and evinces the very absence of critical thinking which it has ostensibly been put forward to lament and bemoan. American public opinion frequently runs counter to both the wishes of, and the policies championed by, the Executive Branch and/or Congress. This suggests that the policies established by the government, and the manner in which the government advocates for, or defends them - is but one of many variables that influence whether or not the public supports any given policy. And yes, of [yaaaaawn] course we are all free to question the policies established by our government, and the motives and judgments behind them. Ditto for the reasons why our fellow citizens support a given policy or take exception to it. However, if you want to have a sincere discussion which furthers the inquiry into the reasons why someone has elected to do one or the other, the rhetorical stance you've chosen "Everyone else believes what the government tells them to..." seems like an especially poor means to achieve this end.

As ususal, no rebuttal. Do you let your ego sit by the computer or just lean over your shoulder? I'll bow out now and you two can continue your conversation. This reads less like a response to anything I've written than it does a transcription of the recriminations echoing to and fro between the rational and emotive portions of your brain.

I invite you to leave me out of your intended audience entirely - especially in my capacity as a rhetorical device that makes it unnecessary to make a substantive argument that supports the claims that you've made - and address your points to whomever else may read this thread. In the case of the Saudis, I hardly think that they enjoy the unqualified trust and admiration that you insist characterizes their perception in the government or the broader population. I'd argue that the manner in which the US has dealt with Saudi Arabia is an example of the multifaceted, nuanced foreign policy that's frequently held up as an and ideal.

Just out of curiosity, what's the price differential between Michelin and Nokian? $50 per tire?

I just want to clarify - this was, in fact, an attempt to defend your original statements about the manner in which advertising dollars hopelessly undermine both the breadth of the "political discourse" in the media, and relentlessly crushes the prospects of all promising young reporters who get the story right while reporting on topics that are at odds with the prevailing adverto-consensus? All except for Jim, the brave, solitary dissident who's managed to shed the manacles that encumber lesser souls and peer at the back of the media equivalent of Plato's cave.... Gotta love narcissm and conceit masquerading as sober, disinterested analysis that we've got here.

1. Are you really confused as to why the opinions of a head of state with a significant population in a region of immense strategic significance for the entire world have been granted broader coverage, and subjected to greater analysis and critique than, say - "Chet Guthrie, a HVAC technician from Lubbock Texas..."? 2. That's a good question - how many regimes *has* the US put in power that subsequently "turned on them?" I'd be interested in hearing your assesment, as well as your thoughts on the reasons why the US may have had at that particular moment in history, to act in that manner. 3. If he wasn't honest about what, in particular, would he appear as an ally? If he made no statements concerning the Holocaust or 9/11, yet continued to provide the same kind of support for Hezbollah, various insurgent groups in Iran, still called for the destruction of Israel,etc - his perception in the US would be substantially different?

These conclusions all seem a tad facile (and more than a tad overwrought), and I'm rather surprised to see a sophisticated analyst and meta-consumer of news coverage such as yourself espousing them. What constitutes and acceptable range of political discourse? Can you provide an example of a case where a young reporter broke a significant story in which he got the facts right, and this ruined, rather than made his career because the story - while accurate - departed from the broad consensus that you cite? Is it possible that the collective judgment of the readership concerning the quality of any given publication has some bearing on the price and volume of advertising sold within it, let alone the subscription price?

I don't think there are any either, because such a thing is a logical impossibility. Even if you were to make the assumption that all reportage was completely objective, the everything about the process of determining what stories to run, where to place them, etc - are irretrievably bound up with the perspectives and values of those making those choices. The same goes for the reporters and the choices they make concerning what stories they want to cover, which sources they will consult while researching a story and which they will not, which information is well substantiated enough to be considered factual and which information must be considered tentative and provisional. Then there's the fact that we do not live in a perfectly transparent world. There's a certain tension between timeliness and accuracy, and it's difficult to abide by the highest standards of one without compromising another, and again - the values and perspective of the person tasked with making this choice determine which of the two prerogatives will prevail.

What's striking to me is that you seem to incapable of, or reluctant to make a distinction between a repressive state with a leadership that's openly hostile to the US, and repressive states with a leadership that's not hostile to the US - and seem to be somewhat astonished by the fact that others have done so. This seems like an elementary distinction that should at least be recognized when discussing the matter, whether you are in the idealist or the realist camp

I don't think that China is terribly anxious to engage in activities that substantially undermine the value of assets valued in dollars, either.

Matt - what news source, if any, do to you consider objective?

From: http://www.walmart.ca/wps-portal/storelocator/Canada-Storefinder.jsp?page=sfd "*With 285 stores from coast to coast in Canada, you are more than likely to find a store wherever you go...."

Everyone is free to criticize. I'm not suggesting otherwise. It's the way that he has been singled out as a bad guy that I think is silly. He is no worse than other people the US is on good terms with. An idealist might argue that we should not support repressive regimes even when they are on our side and doing so is in our national interests. A realist might argue that we should support repressive regimes because they are on our side and doing so is in our national interests. I'm not sure what the term is, though, for someone who argues that we should support repressive regimes even when they are not on our side, and doing so is contrary - if not detrimental - to our national interests.

Ditto for the distinction between reasoned discourse and hyperbole, it seems. Booga-Booga.

"I don't think he is a nice guy. But neither is Putin, the Saudi royal family, or any number of current international leaders. Why single Ahmadinejad out when many others are recieved with open arms? It's because of a perceived link to the 9-11 attacks. It's because our administration doesn't like him." Received with open arms by whom? He was addressing the UN, and giving an address at a private institution in New York City, not making a state visit for the purposes of furthering some mutual state-interest. If the head of either Saudi Arabia or Russia engaged in the same rhetoric, and oversaw a state that was sponsoring the same initiatives as the regime which Ahmedinejad is - I can hardly imagine circumstances where a university in the US could invite them to give an address without being criticized for doing so. The freedom to engage in a particular action does not entail freedom from criticism after taking the said action. Sorry.

If ignorance was a reason to blacklist a person... I still like that he has the chutzpah to stand up to the US. The best part was when he asked to visit Ground Zero. I don't think it's chutzpah so much as active contempt. He's clearly concluded that they can play hardball in Iraq and elsewhere, toy with nuclear inpsectors indefinitely, openly call for the destruction of Israel, crank up the repression within Iran, etc - so long as he reads from the right script when addressing a Western audience, within which there's a substantial bloc who will be prepared to overlook these minor indiscretions if he does so. Exhibit A: "Why I Have A Little Crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by sallykohn Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 05:50:02 AM PDT I know I'm a Jewish lesbian and he'd probably have me killed. But still, the guy speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon... Okay, I admit it. Part of it is that he just looks cuddly. Possibly cuddly enough to turn me straight. I think he kind of looks like Kermit the Frog. Sort of. With smaller eyes. But that’s not all… I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy preceding...." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/23/83652/6735 It would appear that his contempt is well founded. As far as free speech is concerned - Mr. Ahmedinejad, unlike his countrymen - is free to say whatever he wishes in Iran. Even if there were no institutions in the US willing to host him, neither his freedom to do so or his ability to extend his message to any audience of his choosing would be compromised in the least. If some institution chooses to host him, as Columbia has done - I have no problem with them doing so, but any such institution that does so should recognize that the freedom of speech which they are ostensibly promoting also extends to those who are critical of their decision to provide a venue for Ahmedinejad, what he represents, and the opportunity that such an appearance presents for him to further political aspirations that are fundamentally at odds with both the freedoms the values which are encoded in the First Amendment.

I'd get two sets of tires if you can afford it, and some decent chains if you don't already have them. If you are looking to go with a single set of tires, the Michelin LTX M/S would probably be a good choice. Last a long time (80,000 miles on mine so far), relatively quiet ride, and perform well in slippery conditions. The performance on snow isn't going to be nearly as good as a dedicated snow tire, but they do pretty well for all season's. I think it ran me something like $800 US for a set of four installed, so they aren't cheap, but if you plan on keeping the car a while they will provide good value. With regards to the tires, there's quite a bit of good info and user reviews here: http://www.tirerack.com/ LTX M/S Page: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Michelin&tireModel=LTX+M%2FS

I learned a different addage: "If you carry bivvy gear, you will bivvy". Or, more simply put, speed is safety. You can survive a lot with a 1 oz emergency bivvy sack and a lighter, but carrying pounds of extra gear 'just in case' usually increases the chance of crawling your way into an unwanted and dangerous situation. For some, yes. For others - no. For some people on some objectives light = speed = safety. For other people on other objectives light = unable to survive the night/storm/accident = dead. It depends. For me personally - on a winter route, not being fit enough to carry a half-bag, insulating jacket, half an insulating pad pocket rocket, small pot, epic-bivy, a bit of extra food, along with a shovel and enough fuel to last at least a day longer than I plan to be out split between myself and whoever I'm on the route with means that I'm not fit or competent enough to do the route. YMMV.

hdpr-fWK--s

I suspect that I wind up carrying more gear than most folks, but one old guys I ran into when I was learning to lead on gear had a saying that he passed along to me, which was "If you're not good enough to protect it, you're not good enough to climb it." What he meant was that even if you had the physical skills necessary to lead a climb, if your lead consisted of sketching your way up the route with inadequate gear - then you were more lucky than good and really had no business getting on the route in the first place. IMO - if you find yourself ditching or reluctant to carry the survival gear that you (not Steve House, your buddy who leads three number grades higher than you and is in way better shape, the you of ten years ago - you, in your present condition)need to handle a route, then you have no business setting foot on the route. Choose a different route, wait for more forgiving conditions, step-up your game at the crags, train more - whatever. I'm as inspired by the feats of regular Joe's that go out and crush long, hard-routes car-to-car style, but there's often a considerable gap between admiration and emulation, and I try to remember that. I'm certain I'll make mistakes, get caught out in storms, etc - but I hope that I'll always leave enough of a margin to live through whatever cluster I blunder into.