j_b

they definitely learned about presenting war as an aseptic picnic to the public. i am not sure who said (fisk perhaps) something to the effect that if people knew the reality of war they would never go for another one. ergo no pix of casualties, no body count, use of euphemisms (collateral damage, precision bombing), etc ... something to chew on: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17192

the show sounds pretty bad. in all fairness, i have to add that it does not seem too different from the way countless hollywood b movies portray the enemy of the day. demonizing the enemy is commonly used by most (all?) groups engaged in warfare and i agree it is totally pathetic.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2030480 good article jon hey PP - i hope you were hungry the other night and did not let the crow dinner go to waste.

boo! bad faith! the story you quoted and your post said that the case was closed because the data proved the connection between s and bl. and you thus invited us to eat crow. dod said the data was raw (i.e. unconfirmed) and "The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" therefore the connection between s and bl is very far from being established. the story is thus debunked. is there some element of logic you are missing here peter?

don't most people do destination climbing over road trips? or is there no difference?

the dod said what was wrong with it: "the items [...] were either raw reports or products". this means the data was neither confirmed nor analyzed for its meaning. how many intelligence reports mentioned extensively by the administration have turned out to be true (the whole wmd thing for example, from nigergate to declarations by defectors)? i agree there is an aura of strangeness about the whole thing and imo, it is probably meant to be that way. on the one hand you have bush saying that there is no connection between saddam and 9/11 and on the other hush-hush intelligence data about saddam and bin laden just happens to be 'leaked' to newspapers (how many times before has material of this importance been leaked to the press? hum....) moreover: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54452-2003Nov17?language=printer i wouldn't give up on clark. imo he'll surprise a few: http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player.html?4908&FOX_News_Live&Setting%20the%20Record%20Straight&wvx-300

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2030480 note that the new york post, fox news and the weekly standard are rupert murdoch holdings and well known neo-conservative mouthpieces (i.e. the people in charge of foreign policy). in turn, the washington times is a moonie property. ha! 'journalism' ....

errh ... let's see: "As a presidential candidate, then-Gov. Bush had strong words on the subject of big government. "Big government is not the answer," he said in his nomination acceptance speech at the Republican convention on August 13, 2000. "I trust people; I don't trust the federal government," he said in an October 17, 2000, debate with then-Vice President Al Gore. But President Bush's record indicates quite a different view. On the size of government, a recent study by New York University and the Brookings Institution shows there are 1 million more actual government workers today than in 1999. That brings the total to more than 12 million — the most since the Cold War ended." [...] "However, the report states, "most of the 1.1 million new on- and off-budget jobs appear to reflect increased spending since the Bush administration entered office. Many of these jobs have been added at agencies involved in the war on terrorism, but many have also been added at domestic agencies such as Health and Human Services." And it's not just the size — the cost of government is also up. Discretionary spending on transportation and other non-military items increased by 21 percent under Bush. The taxpayer watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste also says pork barrel spending is up 48 percent since 2001." http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/Politics/biggovernment030922.html

don't let it mollify your enthusiasm

what happened PP? where were you when it was time to take your medicine? it was not very fair of the neocon propaganda machine to leave you hanging out to dry like this. perhaps next time, you'll take what kristol and murdoch say with a grain of salt (scratch that and read real news) not that you have any excuses for being fooled once again. how many times have they done this by now? how many revealing documents, damaging confessions, piles of dangerous weapons, labs and mad scientists have they uncovered to great fanfare and never spoke of ever again? be sure to let us know if they ever publish a retraction (one can keep dreaming ...) sorry if i sound harsh but hopefully it'll be a motivation for you to check your facts before you decide to add to rumors and go on a witch hunt. the dittoheads have gotten away with foul play far too long.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17190

good point jason, although there is nothing like a fiery debate to generate interest in this issue and hopefully written comments to the park. or is it that everyone already agrees that #3 is the way to go? should this thread be flagged and painted red for another week or so. yo moderator!

alternative #3 seems like the way to go imo. i especially like the fact that it finally does away with a monopoly on guiding the mountain, allows for guided parties from outside the area, puts a raisonnable cap on the number of guided climbs of very popular routes and keeps a healthy portion of the mountain free from large commercial groups. the only change i'd make would be to allow a limited number of permits for small guided parties (1:1) on climbs like liberty ridge because a pro would want to be able to offer advanced classic climbs to a select group of clients. i am impressed with the park service for advocating alternative 3 (though it did take quite a while)

hilarious. it should not take you till 7 p.m. to read scrambler's links and get back to us obviously you need to diversify your choice of news sources. the story had been debunked as of saturday.

in some ways it is an anti-hardcore story. the characters emerge as classic anti-heroes who live boring lives after having been defeated by the brits and cower in fear at the sight of wildlife. summitting is eventually quite accessory to discovery and enjoying the journey, i.e. the perfect adventure that also accounts for human frailty. or the ultimate quest for wonder without hype, quite refreshing.

sasquatch is strictly old skool. muther fuker goes ground up. i believe it keeps up with the times since it makes it harder to spot. a little like bb i guess.

i don't know about you people but the molly sidetrack does not make the dense reading any easier

apparently reviews by the fox network of o'reilly and coulter's books did not boost them to the top of best-sellers list. shall we really wonder why? shall we also explain why book reviewers, academics, intellectuals, etc ... have a progressive bias too? anyhow, considering the news, it seems that you should have more serious concern than a supposed liberal bias in the media (which every thinking person knows is not real)

this is what you pretend you do as a cover up to say exactly what you think.

these guys are right that you should not count on it (although a few days after a dump should allow for relatively easy conditions imo). but perhaps a more relevant question is: wth does TTT do on the muir snowfield in winter! (just teasing).

if the weather/conditions are at all conducive to climbing there ought to be a boot track, but someone has to put it in (you just might be the lucky one) also the snowfield is usually not too bad.

on the subject of skis: i have never found skis to be necessary or desirable when climbing rainier in the winter. the muir snowfield has wind blasted snow/crust most of the time which, in general, makes booting up the preferred mode of travel (and the extra weight of the skis ludicrous). granted it'd make the descent faster (yet, skiing with a heavy pack on windblasted snow ...) and perhaps the climb up to panorama point easier. if the snowfield had enough fresh snow to make skinning up advantageous, i'd ponder carefully the safety of upper slopes on the mountain, probably reconsider the summit attempt and go skiing instead. if your plan is also to yoyo ski out of muir then it is an entirely different matter.

drool!!! thanks caveman.

the object was not to say what was on my mind but to let you read what was on professor krugman's mind. i am so sorry for you that it takes him more than a couple sentences to express himself

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17169 The Professor Takes the Gloves Off By Terrence McNally, AlterNet November 12, 2003 Accustomed in economic circles to calling a stupid argument a stupid argument, and isolated (in Princeton, New Jersey) from the Washington dinner-party circuit, Paul Krugman has become the most prominent voice in the mainstream U.S. media to openly and repeatedly accuse George Bush of lying to the American people to sell budget-busting tax cuts and a pre-emptive and nearly unilateral war. Krugman cannot be dismissed by opponents as some dyed-in-the-wool lefty. He's a moderate academic economist who's been radicalized by the Bush White House and the right wing it represents. Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the op-ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. His new book, "The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way In The New Century" (#9 on the New York Times best-seller list and a top seller on Amazon) is a collection of his op-ed pieces from January 2000-January 2003. [...] McNally: I read one quote where you said: "Tell me one real problem that they took on and offered an actual solution." Can we narrow our focus to economics? What is most alarming about the deficit? We know in Keynesian economics deficits are okay... What's the real problem here? Why is it as bad as you think it is? Krugman: I'm sorry, there's one-and-a-half problems. It's still a jobless recovery. That's a very nasty prospect and we have seen no real sign of turn-around there. But beyond that... Look, deficits are okay, but Keynes never said it was okay to run deficits forever. He said that deficits are good for stimulating the economy temporarily during downturns. What we have is the prospect of deficits that are not temporary. The last estimate is, of the $500 billion-plus deficit, only about $60 or $70 billion would go away even if the economy does recover. And it's much worse once the baby boomers retire, which happens in about 10 years. We have the finances of a banana republic right now. If current tax rates and current programs continue, at some point the U.S. government will simply be unable to pay its debts – and long before that point happens, industries will pull the plug. And we have the same thing internationally as well. We have a huge trade deficit. It roughly matches the domestic deficit, and foreigners are lending the country money to cover that. At some point they will pull the plug. Some people say we now have a faith-based currency. I think we have a faith-based government. People believe that we're going to get our act together, but there's no sign that we will. McNally: So perhaps a lulling effect – similar to the one we were talking about earlier – may be working right now to cover our butt for a while, but it could turn quickly. Krugman: That's right. At the moment, the actual fiscal state of the federal government is substantially worse than that of the state of California. The laws are different: the state of California is obliged by law to balance its books each year. It'll fudge a bit but eventually it has to clear the books. The federal government does not. Also, you might say that Bush has some un-earned credits from the responsibility of his predecessors. In the past, U.S. presidents have always in the end done enough of the right thing so that the solvency of the government was never at stake. And it comes back to this denial that I talk about. People can't believe that we're dealing with something completely different now, but we are. McNally: Let me get this straight. You're not saying that we will actually go bankrupt, but that we are too dependent on foreign investors and at some point, they'll say: "You know what, I'm putting my money elsewhere." Krugman: Well, in fact, that does produce something that looks like bankruptcy. When you have a huge debt, not only do you have to pay interest on it, but you have to keep rolling it over. The point comes when investors say: "I don't trust these Americans. They don't seem to be responsible." Then all of a sudden you cannot raise the money to service the debt when it comes due. McNally: We've watched this happen in other countries and the thought is – that's Thailand, that's not the U.S. Krugman: That's Argentina. This is my specialty. I watched it happen in other countries and you look at the numbers and you say: "Geez, we have a budget deficit that's bigger compared with the size of our economy than Argentina before their 2001 crack-up. We have a trade deficit that's bigger compared with the size of our economy, than Indonesia before its 1997 crack-up." You say: "Well, yeah, but this is America and it can't happen here." But there's a lot of things we didn't think could happen here. Something very seriously wrong is going on now. McNally: What I haven't heard quite yet is the point which you make very strongly in the book, that the purpose behind the tax cuts is to bankrupt the government, to undermine social programs, so that no one who comes into office after them will have an easy time restoring them. Krugman: I'm not making that up. That's exactly what the lobbyists and the others behind these people say. The program that the Administration is following looks as if it was designed to implement their ideas. I think it is. [...]