johndavidjr

I know-you-are but what-am I???

Looks like IRC is another red herring

Informative link regarding Intl Commission of Red Cross: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5YRL67!OpenDocument

Scott: I thought you referred to NYT headline on useful information. But my point probably applies equally to the supposed Red Cross assertions to which you now refer.

Scott: How in the hell would they, or anybody else, know anything? I dimly remember the word is epistimology, & whatever the word is, it's a good question for philosphers like yourself.

Iraqis will probably remember the story, to the detriment of Bush's stated goal of establishing Texas-style society in Middle East. NYT had a headline said that no useful info was obtained at the AG prison via mistreatment, which seems fairly likely, given its circus-style management. (there are other places, hopefully better run, where same questions would apply) Whether it violated the Gen. Con. is maybe a side issue. If U.S courts decide that suspected terrorists, or rioters or whatever they decide to call them aren't covered, & it's discovered that U.S. accidently killed a few people while trying to provide some "encouragement," then how does that change the outcome?

Post is interesting, mostly a legalistic, red herring. From a cynical viewpoint the question is whether ill-treatment of prisoners is worth the cost to U.S. credibility, as keeping things secret isn't at present a realistic option. If it could save my ass (a mile from WTC) I'd probably favor it, but one can't know that it would be the outcome, & very limited indications suggest no upside so far on any level.

"Facts are stubborn things."

I'd say the Reagan/Bush tax policies have in large measure been very effective in accomplishing their goals to date. Would anyone care to comment on the data found in this link for example? Bear in mind of course, that one percent of the U.S. means almost 300,000 people. A quintile almost 75 million http://www.wealthanddemocracy.com/chart3.htm ____________

Has anybody climbed in Bow Valley? All limestone. Few opportunities to place gear. Lots of bolts (a highly relative phrase) & lots of run-out climbs. Don't know if it's controversial there, but the climbing scene seems pretty well-controlled by consensus (as one might expect in Canada). Speaking of social consensus, my German friend is an Alps nutcase (though more in terms of skiing), but won't even consider trad gear. Meanwhile, at the Gunks, bolted rap stations, which came along in 1990s, were suggested as a means of crowd control, saving the top of the crag from getting trashed by crowds of climbers walking down, saving trees from getting killed by slings & also discouraging rappers from descending popular routes. It's been only a partial success, continues slightly controversial, & bolts are only placed after consideration by a committee approved by the land owner. ------

As one may imagine Mr. Kerry isn't going to be prosecuted any time soon (an absurd thought), so can your strangeness enlighten us rabble as to how citizens' efforts to end the war at the time were counter to U.S. interests?

The original poster here may benefit from recent pharmacological developments, or more likely is half-way pulling our leg(s), but subsequent posts in this thread are more, or less, rational. Pope: I may be misinterpreting your remarks, but try coming to the Shawangunks; climbing quality is incredible, crowds are mind-boggeling, but as you may know, bolts are forbidden except, recently, for rap stations installed by land managers. So on that basis, anyway, one can't say that bolts in themselves draw crowds. Actually the few sport-climbs in the outlying areas of NYC are of low-quality, illegal and practically unknown to Gunks crowd.

very cool & pleasant to read of seeing cougar at Marblemount & fisher at Bridge Creek. I've not seen much big wildlife in Wa. outside of a couple of blk bears & elk, & a BIG hole on slope 1/3 way up Whistler/Cutthroat-- probably result of large predator (bear or cat) digging out a marmot den. In New Mexico once in the Mazanos se. of Alb. I descended a small canyon at dusk & scared a large animal that was sitting six feet up in some brushy trees. I suspect it was a cougar (or maybe bkbear) but never saw it, & half-way imagine it was wondering whether to get some dinner or flee. Earlier that day a patrolling ranger pointed out bear & cougar tracks & I was only able to figure they looked similar (except cougar puke a lot, maybe even more than crap, sorta like otters do & somewhat like owls.) In Vermont, some years later, I examined blk-bear tracks moments after they were made (according to a hunter) & figured they looked pretty much like a very big dog. Griz or larger bkbr, I reckon would be more obvious.

Dru: That's a hilarious photo. Where's it from?

I seem to remember that black bears kill significantly more people in British Columbia that do grizzlies. This is entirely a function of their far greater numbers & the occassional, highly improbable circumstance. I'm not too keen on meeting a grizzly, but I suspect that like wolves, they'll eventually re-establish themselves in Cascades without any help, other than the lack of Fed-subsidized poisoning programs & bounty hunting, which I assume was responsible for their near-disappearance. My buddy from Poland claims wolves are found in a significant part of that country-- with far less wilderness than most of Western U.S. Poland is & was desperately poor & I assume never have systematic poisoning, & I understand guns weren't permitted &/or were unaffordable. Wolves also live in much of Italy's central mountain range, though I understand they have hybridized with dogs.

I don't know that getting wounded in Vietnam makes him a hero-- a term I'd rather reserve for mythology, Jungian psychology, & climbing hyperbole. I dimly recall that by some high-falutin' definitions, you've at least got to be dead (like RR) to be a hero. But its only a stupid quibble. On the other hand, what was wrong at the time with doing what was possible to help end the war. What would have been gained had we "won?" and what was gained, then or now, by prolonging the conflict? Implicitly I'm saying what isn't terribly controversial; that Vietnam was for naught. I'm not clear about the underlying assumptions of those who see a problem here.

Fairweather: Perhaps the main difficulty with Iraqi armamants really got rolling through the Commerce Dept., (whose secretary is a cabinet member) some of it under that genius of geopolitics, George H.W. Bush, as well as under the dearly departed President Reagan. Some of us may recall Mr. Saddam's nuclear program was almost entirely enabled by acquiring "multiple use" technology from U.S. & European companies during 1980s & right up to Gulf War I. Commerce approved the U.S. transfers, nearly all of which had some fig leaf attached (for example I recall, a system for manufacturing an obscure material used by oil refineries as well as in nuclear triggers. That particular system was installed by the U.S. company at a weapons facility. As the CEO tried to tell me once, "you can build a bomb with a screwdriver.") One difficulty was that much of Iraq, including I suppose its oil industry, was run by its military. A large part of the purchases were indirectly subsidized by U.S. aid programs, though not deliberately, one supposes. The leading anti-proliferation group (not strictly partisan), called Wisconsin Project, has documented the story in great detail, & had been widely reported by the mainstream press, but as we now know, is of primarily historic interest, thanks to the U.N.

Average household cash income, 1979-1997, as calculated by the Congressional Budget Office. (in thousands of after tax, 1997 dollars) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Income Category 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lowest Quintile 9.3 8.7 8 8.5 8.8 9.1 8.6 8.2 8.6 8.7 Middle Quintile 31.7 30.3 29.9 31.2 32 32.6 31.7 31.1 31.8 33.2 Top 1 Percent 256.4 278.4 364 444.2 421.5 506.8 438.2 433.7 447 644.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Effective Federal Tax Rates, 1979-98, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, October 2001, Table 1.2c, p.134

Class & Reagen gibberish Average household cash income, 1979-1997, as calculated by the Congressional Budget Office. (in thousands of after tax, 1997 dollars) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Income Category 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lowest Quintile 9.3 8.7 8 8.5 8.8 9.1 8.6 8.2 8.6 8.7 Middle Quintile 31.7 30.3 29.9 31.2 32 32.6 31.7 31.1 31.8 33.2 Top 1 Percent 256.4 278.4 364 444.2 421.5 506.8 438.2 433.7 447 644.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Effective Federal Tax Rates, 1979-98, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, October 2001, Table 1.2c, p.134

A non-story, as they say.

So happy to note the story on same sight by the highly credible political analyst Jerry Falwell. I really must try and ease out of this degenerating flame war...allow me to beg forgiveness for over-participation and blame it on lousy weather this weekend....I know Gobberment's not the answer, but http://www.crh.noaa.gov/forecasts/NJZ006.php?warncounty=NJC017&city=Jersey+City

It is quite readily apparent to a reasonable person that the comments were hyperbole used in the context of late 1960s by an opponent (Kerry) of the Vietnam War. By the way, that's a really great Web site you managed to locate. But I'll stick to the one provided by my employer, which gives me at least a look each day at the five biggest U.S. newspapers.

Dear Mr. F. Teddy: Fantasy? It appears so, with regard to claim that Mr. Kerry is guilty of "war crimes." I'm not a fan of Mr. Kerry, nor to I particularly care about the severity of his injuries in Vietnam, with which the article you cite seeks to quibble. It does make a brief, & seemingly irrelevant mention of Kerry's view of war crimes at the time (he said victims should be compensated). The article you cite is published by "Insight Magazine" a unit of Washington Times daily newspaper, founded by the Rev. Sun Yung Moon. Insight is generally regarded as a step up from Matt Drudge, and puts out stuff that would damage the already limited credibility of Washington Times. I also note that the article was picked up by a number of looney-tunes right-wing Web sites, which may be where you originally saw it & possibly where you picked up the notion of Kerry committing war crimes. -------------- ------

This thread entertains some utter fantasy about the war record of Mr. Kerry, who I don't particularly like. But Bush II is a disaster of intriguing proportions, if you like car wrecks. (see Dubya arrest record.) Also, suggestion that Bush II sought his cherry appointment to the Texas Nat'l Guard because he disagreed on principle with the Vietnam War, is equally weird. I thought mushroom season out there wasn't until September.

Acted in training films as a "soldier" & spent WWII in Hollywood.