billcoe

And from Israel as well: link " Apr 9, 2008 17:50 | Updated Apr 10, 2008 9:23 Netanyahu: 'We won't be able to deter nuclear Iran' By JONATHAN BECK "Iran will be the first nuclear state in history against which deterrence won't work, even if the deterrent is nuclear," Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu said Wednesday at an international conference titled "Russia, the Middle East and the Challenge of Radical Islam." [binyamin Netanyahu speaking...] Binyamin Netanyahu speaking in the "Russia, the Middle East and the Challenge of Radical Islam" international conference in Jerusalem, Wednesday. Photo: Courtesy IDC Herzliya / Shalem Center The conference was held at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem under the auspices of the center's Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies and the Eurasian Institute of the Inter-Disciplinary Center, Herzliya. "Nothing will stop the Iranians - not the use of force and not a fear of being hit in retaliation," he said, adding that "every Israeli withdrawal from territories it controls leaves room for Iranian terror to enter." Netanyahu added that "if in the past, Hizbullah was a state within the state of Lebanon, it seems today that the government of Lebanon is a state within a Hizbullah stronghold." "In the last 30 years, we have been living in a world where Sunni extremists succeed in attacking targets in the Western world, while on the other hand, Shi'ite Iran is rapidly advancing to the point of no return in its nuclear aspirations," the Likud leader said. Regarding the conflict with the Palestinians, Netanyahu said there was "no chance that moderate factors in the Palestinian Authority will succeed in halting terror or replacing Israeli forces in securing the territory. Israel should ensure its safety on its own and provide Palestinians with the financial growth they aspire to, in order to create real peace partners." Netanyahu finished his speech by stating that "unlike the common belief that peace will bring about financial improvement, history teaches us that the opposite is far truer." Opening the session before Netanyahu, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Navarov, who heads the North America Bureau in the Russian Foreign Ministry, said, "Russia understands that the security of one state cannot be based on upsetting the security of others." Responding to a question by one of the other members of the panel, Navarov said that "Russia will not make use of its nuclear capabilities, and there is an acute need to find other solutions to the problems the world is facing." However, in a statement seemingly critical of Navarov's stance, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad, head of the Defense Ministry's Diplomatic-Security Bureau, said that "Russia holds a central role in establishing security in the Middle East, but is no less responsible for the lack thereof." Dr. Peter Gladkov, a former Putin adviser and expert on Russian policy, criticized the policy of the United States under President George W. Bush, saying that "the US's attempt to gain influence in Eurasia in fact expresses a similar characteristic in American policy against Russia. Over time, such a policy can undermine the equilibrium in Eurasian countries because the developments the US is pushing are not always in line with the region's needs." Gladkov's comments were echoed in part by Prof. Uzi Arad, director of the Institute for Policy and Strategy in the IDC, who said NATO was putting too much emphasis on expanding the alliance - a preoccupation that, he said, was pushing subjects such as the Iranian threat to a low priority at the expense of a struggle between the US and Russia over their international influence. Maj.-Gen. Giora Eiland, meanwhile, accused the US of "not putting a stop to the Iranian threat because this is not one of its top priorities. If the US really wanted to stop Iran, it would not waste its time on... setting up missiles in Eastern Europe. This behavior makes Russia, too, avoid entering the Iranian issue, and the US is well aware of this reality." According to former Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov, Russia was "not initiating negotiations with Iran, but ensures communication channels remain open considering the situation created by the EU and the UN. Russia will avoid talking to Iran if some other country picks up the gauntlet. It [Russia] does not see itself as initiating disputes or negotiations, but as an arbiter between different groups." However, Labor MK Ephraim Sneh, who served as deputy defense minister under Amir Peretz, called Russia "the Iranian Empire's No. 1 weapons supplier," saying it "in fact arms the forces most hostile to Israel today. This is totally against the role the new Russia should be filling in the regional and international arenas." He added that "escalation in the ongoing confrontation between Israel and Iran and its proxies is inevitable. This confrontation is part of a wider confrontation between western democracy and Islamic fascism, and the Russian leadership will have to pick sides - the sooner the better." Closing his address, Sneh directly attacked the Russian regime: "Iran's ballistic missiles have a range of 3,500 kilometers. Take a map and a ruler and see where they reach. Also, in all of its wars, Israel was forced to fight against Russian weaponry in the hands of its enemies. If the Russians want to profit from continuing these sales, they should insist next time on getting cash."

Nevermind, I don't think the 6th graders running our country can wait more or think further ahead than 10 min. October, although logical, is too far away - they can't wait that long.

I call Mid to late October, it meshes with the Election date quite nicely. It's the way the wind (Hot air in Washington) is blowing, and it has a multiple bonus in that it gets McCain Elected, the Israelis off the hook for the "Nooclear" and issue, and maintains the Dollar as the currency of choice (Iran has been lobbying for the dollar to not be utilized in oil transactions, something the admin would find intolerable.) Link (Pat Buchanan wrote) "Petraeus points to war with Iran Posted: April 10, 2008 8:27 pm Eastern © 2008 The neocons may yet get their war on Iran. Ever since President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the Mahdi Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East. Iran, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, has "fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of the special groups." These "special groups" are "funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government (the Green Zone) ... causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital." "President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders" promised to end their "support for the special groups," said the general, but the "nefarious activities of the Quds force have continued. Are Iranians then murdering Americans, asked Joe Lieberman: "Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?" "It certainly is. ... That is correct," said Petraeus. The following day, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee, "Unchecked, the 'special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq." Translation: The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future of Iraq. The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand, for consider the question it logically raises: If the Quds Force and Hezbollah, both designated as terrorist organizations, are arming, training and directing "special groups" to "murder" Americans, and rocket and mortar the Green Zone to kill our diplomats, and they now represent the No. 1 threat to a free Iraq, why has Bush failed to neutralize these base camps of terror and aggression? Hence, be not surprised if President Bush appears before the TV cameras, one day soon, to declare: "My commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary for two terrorist organizations – Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – to train, arm and direct terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated promises to halt this murderous practice. "I have therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the Iranian attacks cease." Because of the failures of a Democratic Congress elected to end the war, Bush can now make a compelling case that he would be acting fully within his authority as commander in chief. In early 2007, Nancy Pelosi pulled down a resolution that would have denied Bush the authority to attack Iran without congressional approval. In September, both Houses passed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Courtesy of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran. And the signs are growing that he intends to fill it in and cash it. Israel has been hurling invective at Iran and conducting security drills to prepare its population for rocket barrages worse than those Hezbollah delivered in the Lebanon War. Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, the Central Command head who opposed war with Iran, has been removed. Hamas and Hezbollah have been stocking up on Qassam and Katyusha rockets. Vice President Cheney has lately toured Arab capitals. And President Ahmadinejad just made international headlines by declaring that Tehran will begin installing 6,000 advanced centrifuges to accelerate Iran's enrichment of uranium. This is Bush's last chance to strike and, when Iran responds, to effect its nuclear castration. Are Bush and Cheney likely to pass up this last chance to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and effect the election of John McCain? For any attack on Iran's "terrorist bases" would rally the GOP and drive a wedge between Obama and Hillary. Indeed, Sen. Clinton, who voted to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, could hardly denounce Bush for ordering air strikes on the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, when Petraeus testified, in her presence, that it is behind the serial murder of U.S. soldiers. The Iranians may sense what is afoot. For Tehran helped broker the truce in the Maliki-Sadr clash in Basra, and has called for a halt to the mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone. With a friendly regime in Baghdad that rolled out the red carpet for Ahmadinejad, Iran has nothing to gain by war. Already, it is the big winner from the U.S. wars that took down Tehran's Taliban enemies, decimated its al-Qaida enemies and destroyed its Sunni enemies, Saddam and his Baath Party. No, it is not Iran that wants a war with the United States. It is the United States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran."

John nailed that one. Watch this sub for the original 10min indoctrination video and substitute "Daaauh Rock", Daaauh Cliff or Daaauh Beacon in your mind when you hear "Daaauh Bears" ioH_GqclagE

Ohhhhh -too late.

Friends, countrymen, people who dislike Professor Pot Kettle Black, lend me your ears; I come to bury Pot, not to praise him. In the text that follows, I don't intend to recount all of the damage caused by Pot's mephitic flimflams but I do want to point out that Pot keeps saying that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all thoroughly justified. For some reason, Pot's apologists actually believe this nonsense. Time cannot change his behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Pot can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, undermine the intellectual purpose of higher education. He ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person. Pot will probably respond to this letter just like he responds to all criticism. He will put me down as "mumpish" or "peremptory". That's his standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about him except the most fawning praise. As will be discussed in more detail later in this letter, he is absolutely determined to believe that you and I are objects for him to use then casually throw away and forget like old newsprint that's performed its duty catching bird droppings, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way. Although there are no formal, external validating criteria for Pot's disorderly claims, I think we can safely say that I once overheard him say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? He said that everyone who doesn't share his beliefs is a foolhardy, soulless hell-raiser deserving of death and damnation. Can you believe that? At least his statement made me realize that ever since he decided to initiate a reign of lecherous terror, his consistent, unvarying line has been that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality. I use such language purposefully -- and somewhat sardonically -- to illustrate how Pot spouts a lot of numbers whenever he wants to make a point. He then subjectively interprets those numbers to support his paroxysms while ignoring the fact that he is totally versipellous. When Pot's among plebeians, he warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against separatism. But when he's safely surrounded by his helots, Pot instructs them to inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that Pot is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you'll understand why Pot doesn't care about freedom, as he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him. Many people lie. However, Pot lies with such ease it's troubling. At the risk of sounding hopelessly amateurish, it ruffles my feathers that he wants to conduct business in a bestial, quarrelsome way. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to him. Most of Pot's writings are thesis-less runarounds that leave the reader unclear as to both his point and his position on the issue. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does Pot aver that his protests are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos? The answer may surprise you, especially when you consider that it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to teach argumentative curmudgeons about tolerance. If I may be permitted to make an observation, people often get the impression that improvident sods and Pot's yes-men are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that Pot could use some etiquette lessons. Let's be sure that I've made myself absolutely clear: Pot is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally vengeful scribblings. Doesn't Pot realize that given the very real threat of him challenging all I stand for it is essential that we build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance? The answer to that question has broad implications. For example, Pot maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of incriminating information about everyone he distrusts, to use as a potential weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? As you no doubt realize, that's a particularly timely question. In fact, just half an hour ago I heard someone express the opinion that the really interesting thing about all this is not that Pot's hirelings care more about speaking, acting, and even thinking like Pot than they care about what makes sense. The interesting thing is that if he truly wanted to be helpful, Pot wouldn't strip people of their rights to free expression and individuality. Just because pathological antagonism exists and has for a long time, there is no reason for us to accept it from Pot. Let me recite the following phrases as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward towards increased ability to wreck our country, derail our civilization, and threaten the human race with extinction: inerudite apostates; conniving, bloody-minded poseurs; boosterism; Pot's bootlickers; Pot Kettle Black. My point is that Pot has recently been going around claiming that his vices are the only true virtues. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. Pot's gestapo appears to be growing in number. I pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction yet I keep reminding myself that Pot's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. Pot insists that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. His prank phone calls have experienced a considerable amount of evolution (or perhaps more accurately, genetic drift) over the past few weeks. They used to be simply uncouth. Now, not only are they both immoral and imperious, but they also serve as unequivocal proof that Pot's compeers were recently seen making my blood curdle. That's not a one-time accident or oversight. That's Pot's policy. Pot does not merely replicate the most mudslinging structures of contemporary life. He does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. Most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Pot spawn a society in which those with the most deviant lifestyle, destructive behavior, or personal failures are given the most by the government. Pot has so frequently lied about how he is as innocent as a newborn lamb that some weaker-minded people are starting to believe it. We need to explain to such people that if you read between the lines of Pot's modes of thought, you'll unequivocally find that if you can go more than a minute without hearing Pot talk about vandalism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. Pot always demands instant gratification. That's all that is of concern to him; nothing else matters -- except maybe to purge the land of every non-incontinent person, gene, idea, and influence. I tell you this because Pot wants to level filth and slime at everyone opposed to his asseverations. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Pot's gossamer grasp of reality. I won't pull any punches here: Implying that Pot can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime is no different from implying that Pot can absorb mana by devouring his nemeses' brains. Both statements are ludicrous. We are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which whiney humanity-haters like Pot are entirely absent. The other road leads into the darkness of terrorism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? We already have our answer; as a respected journalist put it, "Pot's speeches are full of declamation, bloviation, obfuscation, and equivocation". She probably could have added that I am not fooled by Pot's unstable and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that when people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And Pot is to blame. Summa summarum, Prof. Pot Kettle Black often expresses great interest in, and approval of, violent acts reported in the press -- spousal abuse, shooting sprees, capital punishment, and so forth. (this was a randomly generated letter and not written, ,read, or supported by the author)

Can someone please translate whatever message China is trying to convey into something that I might better be able to understand, like Yiddish or that Bushman clicking language? As it stands, I have no idea whether China is seriously claiming that anyone who dares to lend a helping hand can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result or if it's simply the case that he is a bacillus in the devious gut of teetotalism. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the current debate. Perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of nasty, insufferable loons. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that China attracts chthonic, recalcitrant wisenheimers to his lynch mob by telling them that his termagant peuplade is a benign and charitable agency. I suppose the people to whom he tells such things just want to believe lies that make them feel intellectually and spiritually superior to others. Whether or not that's the case, I must admit that I've read only a small fraction of China's writings. (As a well-known aphorism states, it is not necessary to eat all of an apple to learn that it is rotten.) Nevertheless, I've read enough of China's writings to know that China argues that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. To maintain this thesis, China naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is. On a more pedestrian level, someone has been giving China's brain a very thorough washing and now China is trying to do the same to us. I unequivocally hope you're not being misled by the "new China". Only his methods and tactics have changed. China's goal is still the same: to pass off all sorts of self-absorbed and obviously pudibund stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience". That's why I'm telling you that any rational argument must acknowledge this. China's boisterous values, naturally, do not. Is that such a difficult concept? Many people are shocked when I tell them that China takes feudalism to bed with him at night and snuggles up to it as if it were a big, fuzzy teddy bear. And I'm shocked that so many people are shocked. You see, I had thought everybody already knew that China presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, he devises new schemes to conduct business in a neurotic, whiney way. I can't stress this enough, but we ought to advance freedom in countries strangled by tyranny. That'll make China think once -- I would have said "twice" but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter -- before trying to make a fetish of the virtues of sanctimonious academicism. Forgive me if I ramble; I'm really upset, as I think you can tell. While his semi-literate ramblings might be of some interest to specialists in child communication, I recently informed China that his spin doctors infringe upon our most important constitutional rights. China said he'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further. After all, if he is going to retard the free and natural economic development of various countries' indigenous population, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, only a fool can believe that self-deceiving televangelists are easily housebroken. And second, I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for his subterfuge. I'm absolutely stunned. As will become apparent in the coming days, China has a natural talent for complaining. He can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours. If he gets his way, I might very well jump in the lake. It is deeply unfortunate that innocent children have been brainwashed by China's intemperate, haughty utterances, because all five of my senses indicate that China places his indelible imprimatur upon a form of Stalinism that is fundamentally, pervasively, and inescapably brutish. But let's not lose sight of the larger, more important issue here: China's violent, lawless endeavors. My argument gets a little complicated here. You don't have to say anything specifically about him for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should point out that the emperor has no clothes on. Some people have compared incontinent perverts to sophomoric dolts. I would like to take the comparison one step further: There is only one way to stop China from breaking down our communities. We must make out of fools, wise people; out of fanatics, men of sense; out of idlers, workers; out of empty-headed peddlers of snake-oil remedies, people who are willing to avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both. Then together we can inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that China's cronies take for granted. Together we can show the world that bad-tempered proponents of revanchism often take earthworms or similar small animals and impale them on a pin to enjoy watching them twist and writhe as they slowly die. Similarly, China enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever he threatens to let down ladders that the unpatriotic, quasi-unprincipled, and xenophobic scramble to climb. To put it crudely, time has only reinforced that conviction -- and China knows it. His ability to capitalize on the economic chaos, racial tensions, and social discontent of the current historical moment can be explained in large part by the following. China will open the gates of Hell as soon as our backs are turned. When that event happens, a darkness and evil exceeding anything seen in history will descend over the world. I can hope only that before it does, people will reverse the devolutionary course that China has set for us. Only then can we win the culture war and save this country. What we're seeing is a domino effect of events that started with China stating that it's okay to leave the educational and emotional needs of our children in the corrupt hands of sneaky spielers. That prevarication incited his hirelings to deny minorities a cultural voice. Dour sideshow barkers reacted, in turn, by preventing me from sleeping soundly at night. The next domino to fall, not surprisingly, was a widespread increase in exclusionism, and that's the event that galvanized me to tell everyone that China possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, he can't even spell or define "erudition", much less achieve it. China's lies come in many forms. Some of his lies are in the form of excuses. Others are in the form of plaints. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion. Easy as it may seem to halt the destructive process that is carrying our civilization toward extinction, it is far more difficult to challenge China's snippy assumptions about merit. Perhaps if China thought about it, he'd realize that in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, it's no secret that it is saddening to have to tell him that he is the most impolitic, psychotic conspiracy theorist witnessed by the history of mankind. And here, I claim, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in his pleas. Aside from the fact that he works like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow and advancing his noiseless step like a thief until he manages to numb the public to the autism and injustice in mainstream politics, the basal lie that underlies all of his pestiferous modes of thought is that we can stop cynicism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for noisome roustabouts. Translation: We should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views but you should nevertheless be aware that China always gives noncommittal answers to questions. I'll go further: Anyone who was sober for more than an hour or two during the last five years knows that China revels in his salacious campaign to smear and defame me. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that he likes thinking thoughts that aren't burdensome and that feel good. That's why China accuses me of being brassbound whenever I state that the hysteria and witch-hunts fueled by his rantings will paralyze any serious or firm decision and thereby become responsible for the weak and half-hearted execution of even the most necessary measures quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "phytosociological". All right, I'll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen but the fact remains that I find China's memoirs highly insulting. That fact may not be pleasant but it is a fact regardless of our wishes on the matter. Lastly, I can't end this letter without mentioning that China is a scion of sexist, hectoring jerks. (this letter was randomly generated and not been read, reviewed or written by the author above)

Link explains all

It's perfect! Check it in action: Link I currently have letters on all the top spray thread. Took about as long as it takes to wipe my ass. Awesome stuff!

I unmistakably hope Mr. Sexual Chocolate gives this letter five minutes of his precious cappuccino-sipping, cancer-stick-puffing time. As this letter will make clear, Sexual often argues that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully. A similar argument was first made over 1200 years ago by a well-known lowbrow and was quickly disproved. In those days, however, no one would have doubted that what Sexual insists are original hypnopompic insights are nothing more than warmed-over versions of boosterism. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that I obviously dislike Sexual. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that the virus of heathenism took control of our country's political life long ago. Now, thanks to Sexual's zingers, that virus will continue to spread until no one can recall that Sexual has stated that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. Now that's just grungy. Sexual once tried to deploy enormous resources in a war of attrition against helpless citizens. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you doubtlessly don't understand how Sexual operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that if he isn't hostile, I don't know who is. You might think that anyone who doesn't know that Sexual is bestial must be inhabiting a different world. Well, if that's the case, then I'm afraid Sexual's hangers-on must have spent the past month on Mars. Sexual's asseverations are mired in salacious factionalism. The denial of this fact only proves the effrontery, and also the stupidity, of duplicitous, bitter exponents of misoneism. Sexual's causeries reek of vandalism. I use the word "reek" because there are no easy solutions for dealing with rabid prigs (with "easy" being defined as a solution that will not create an ideological climate that will enable Sexual to put predatory tricksters on the federal payroll). That's the sort of statement that some people insist is drugged-out but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made because high-handed carpers form the association in the public's mind between any prevarications he disagrees with and the ideas of hate and violence and illegality. That said, we mustn't lose sight of who the real enemy is: Sexual Chocolate and his polyloquent, negligent satraps. Just between you and me, Sexual has already begun challenging all I stand for. I wish I were joking but I'm not. What's more, I was appalled when I first learned that Sexual's trained seals want to lead us into an age of shoddiness -- shoddy goods, shoddy services, shoddy morals, and shoddy people. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if Sexual finds a way to panic irrationally and overreact completely. What Sexual is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly satanic activity. When I say that his hastily mounted campaigns are boisterous, I mean it. I don't mean that they remind me of something boisterous or that they have one or two boisterous characteristics. I mean that they are boisterous. In fact, the most boisterous thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that Sexual would have us believe that everyone with a different set of beliefs from his is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Sexual is surrounded by humorless, money-grubbing euphuists who parrot the same nonsense, which is why he says that the rigors that his victims have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that he has the trappings of deity. We'd all be in grave danger if Sexual continued to engage in his snippy, juvenile behavior. Hey, it's not my fault that in public, he vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, he never fails to focus too much on one side of the equation and not enough on the broader perspective of things. I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are Sexual's uncongenial machinations, which use "pressure tactics" -- that's a euphemism for "torture" -- to coerce ordinary people into preventing me from sleeping soundly at night. If we take Sexual's wisecracks to their logical conclusion, we see that one of these days, Sexual will muzzle his critics. What I mean to say is that if they could speak, the birds, snakes, and other creatures who are our Earth brothers and Earth sisters would honestly say that I'm no psychiatrist. Still, from the little I know about psychiatry I can sincerely say that he seems to exhibit many of the symptoms of Asperger's syndrome. I don't say that to judge but merely to put his scabrous, cynical monographs into perspective. Sexual may have the right to create division in the name of diversity. He may have the right to delegitimize our belief systems and replace them with a counter-hegemony that seeks to rip apart causes that others feel strongly about. But Sexual crosses the line when he uses his bully pulpit to prey on people's fear of political and economic instability. He wants to encourage and exacerbate passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens. But what if the tables were turned? How would Sexual like that? This probably does not affect your daily life, but it is a fact. Statements like, "I have found, to my considerable surprise, that Sexual trumpets doctrinaire anarchism laced with lamebrained McCarthyism" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. An ancient Greek once wrote something to the effect of, "His central role in the promotion of pathetic barbarism dates back a number of years." Today, the same dictum applies, just as clearly as when it was first written over two thousand years ago. He will promote the lie of insurrectionism long before he can convert me into one of his companions. However biased the national picture already is, Sexual acts as if he were King of the World. This hauteur is astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling. Sexual wants to promote, foster, and institute tribalism. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background. I have not forgotten that my efforts to restore the world back to its original balance lead him to pray for my effacement as fervently as I pray for his. I have not forgotten that he is a fearful man hiding behind a facade of cool. And I cannot forget that there is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when Sexual perverts hatred in order to leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes, it becomes clear that he says that the best way to serve one's country is to institutionalize sex discrimination by requiring different standards of protection and behavior for men and women. This is noxious falsehood. The truth is that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that his memoirs reflect several layers of moral concern for many religions. To say anything else would be a lie. If I were a complete sap, I'd believe Sexual's line that he is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. Unfortunately for him, I realize that it is not news that Sexual's editorials are a veritable dictionary and synonymicon of nepotism. What speaks volumes, though, is that his codices serve merely to illustrate that hatred, prejudice, and ignorance are still prevalent in our culture. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that when people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And Sexual is to blame. Sexual should think about how his expositions lead uppity fast-buck artists to make a mockery of our most fundamentally held beliefs. If Sexual doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet. He is an inspiration to otiose knuckle-draggers everywhere. They panegyrize Sexual's crusade to hand over the country to shiftless, licentious dossers and, more importantly, they don't realize that Sexual is intellectually dishonest in everything he says and does. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: When I hear Sexual say that I'm some sort of cully who can be duped into believing that the world can be happy only when his club is given full rein, I have to wonder about him. Is he utterly sex-crazed? Is he simply being conscienceless? Or is he merely embracing a delusion in which he must believe in order to continue believing in himself? I apologize if this disappoints you but my intent was only to elucidate the question, not to answer it. I shall therefore state only that I don't need to tell you that Sexual makes a virtue of irremediable fault. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that there is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of the most unholy tightwads you'll ever see but the hope that makes you eager to begin the debate about his smears. A final note: Having to listen to the glossolalia that spews forth from Mr. Sexual Chocolate's mouth is not a pleasant experience.

Almost, but not before I ask my young son what he thinks. Yup, it pissed him off too:-) BTW, my take, Heston was a very remarkable human being, as is Ice-T.

Moira, I don't know this for sure, but I'm wondering if reporting the theft to Apple might at some point help? I know they keep your name and serial number on record if you have Apple care. My son had Apple care, and in secession broke like 8 of the 40 gb hard drive models, which they replaced no charge. (turns out that snowboarding and hard drives really are not a good combo!) PS, I have lots of music if you didn't have a backup and need some. Good luck.

Stop! Yer harshin my buzz. Anyway, didn't this "spray" issue get unanimously decided years ago and we all decided that we were just going to be rude as hell to anyone and everyone all the time anyway?

I'm keeping that in mind for next time:-)

Spring warm weather is finally gonna hit the high country Friday, as it's been dumping right now and has for about a week, there should be some massive interesting wet slides on most slopes Fri- and Sat don't ya think. Nice call.

Where the hell are you 3 guys that just posted above working that you get all that?!! Maybe I need to change jobs too? ps, that last chick you work with looks like Molly Ringwald.

If the Butte is dry some of us should get some laps tomorrow. Show of hands?

Well thats good to hear about Trash. I will say in my defense, that my post wasn't an analysis though, it was stating facts which I know from first hand experience. The Taiwan invasion within 5 years thing I got from a Chi-Com party member who was shocked that it was new "news" to me, I reconfirmed it with a few other English speaking Chinese while visiting that country last year. Their defense posture re-confirms it: like mainland China loading up more and more on offensive missiles near the straits, pointing at Taiwan. Last public count was over 400, whereas a few years ago, there were none, and no reason for any now. As far as if the US would get involved, too many variables to list, however, most likely we would, and as I knocked heads describing this result to the Communist part member, it would result in many, many of her's and my countrymen dead. I could tell that she was not mentally prepared for a brutal war and US involvement: thats how they are rolling on the subject now anyway, just so you know. They think it will be a cakewalk, much like when they rolled Tibet, and we will stay out.

I would submit you don't know a damn thing what the Chinese leadership is preparing for or not, so that is worthless speculation on your part. I suspect otherwise, based on obvious evidence seen daily, but have no interest in researching it for you. The fact is: China is currently actively and openly preparing for war with Taiwan. They have a 4+ year count down to war time frame which they have announced internally. This has not been publicized or discussed by our gov't for public consumption here as it would give us less wiggle room diplomatically. Do you not wonder what the US will do when this inevitably occurs? Shockingly: most other countries in SE Asia currently believe that China would currently win a war with the US. This will become more pronounced as they increase their capabilities via the transfer of dollars from consumers. The Chinese should be our allies, yet our hegemony and various poor forigon policy blunders scares them. I suspect that a conflict over resources will sadly occur eventually, as it did with Japan during WW2.

I totally agree with the first part of Ivan's statement.... need to reflect some more on the second part I'm not sure if I'm down wit it. You talkin' like this? Cause I might be down.... now about Rudys job......

You're going to try and make one? ! Bold! I think there are plastic stays inside the back and shoulder straps which make the difference on others I've used. How will you get those?

Scott, if you're ever down this way, I'm buyin' the beer. This pack is awesome. Just awesome. Had it out last weekend again and it rules! What do you use instead of this now?

You requested peoples thoughts on Cascasdeclimbers.com regarding backpacks. Because of your Avatar name, I figured you were looking at doing packs for alpinists. In my opinion, that would be a dry hole, Cold Cold World, Cilogear and a host of others have that simple, strong, alpine lightweight thing covered. I have re-thought this request - there was a perfect in all (but one) respects rock climbing pack made 20 years ago. It was called a Big Wally. Gregory made if off a Ray Olsen design. The only downside: it was priced very very high at @$150.00 (for the time and the competition). Gregory made if off a Ray Olsen design (later Ray Olsen had FROG designs, which meant "From Ray Olsens Garage". At the time, young rich professionals didn't swarm the sport like now, it was lots of poor dirtbags, and the pack was out of reach for all but a few. Nothing is made like it today. I bought a used one, and it is the schizz! It is comfortable beyond any haul pack made, ask Joesph Healy or anyone who owns one, he's a big Metolius booster, and they don't have anything close to it. No one does. My only issue when I got this thing was that they had the haul straps hanging on the outside. When I looked at that, I thought they would get stuck on projections as you climb. However, this pack is really used more for hauling massive amounts of weight into an area and then up and down routes. Not so much for riding on your back while climbing on routes. I have found that the straps are really really damn useful. Last weekend for instance, I used them every time I picked it up off the ground out of the mud, as I didn't have to bend all the way down (as an old person, I appreciate this more than before), and I also used them to wrap them around a small tree mid-point, clipped with a biner and hang the pack while cleaning a route. That Shit is awesome. Light, strong, versitile. My wife, bless her heart, as a gift, had just bought me the newest bestest, greatest, costliest North Face pack. It sucks in so many ways I cannot even count the ways. Heavy, complicated, full of buckles, clips and other nonsensical, and apparently non-functional bullshit. Heres a picture of the Wally. Make one of these, and you will get rich. It is so comfortable and light. I can show you mine, but to duplicate it, I think you would need to tear one apart to look at what was used for a back support and for strap supports, or just ask Ray Olsen. He posts on Supertopo as Raydog. Heres some info. ST link for more on this wonderful pack I ordered a Mt Tools Desparado pack because I don't want to trash this gem for the long haul hiking/new routing I need to do this summer. I can tell from the photo it isn't 1/2 the pack Wally is, but I'll beat the hell out of it anyway. Should be here in about a week. Good luck: Bill Coe

Well, one thing I've noticed people exhibit to a fault is that they are always fighting the LAST war. That is, instead of remembering what is important, really important, they look at the weakness's they are trying replace or bolster and go looking for those. Once they get that they remember the rest of the things they want and the important things the last person/thing/job had. I see this with some folks and their marriages, jobs...leaders, you name it. Such appears to be the case here.

Probably not. You have to ask yourself, whats the specs on the stuff and how much is the freight?