tvashtarkatena

Oh, I assure you, my people are as barbaric as they come. Any semblance of education or enlightenment is purely accidental. We have learned, however, to change the subject on occasion.

Vodka. It's not just for breakfast.

i'm afraid that the actual polarity between our views would be insufficient to fire up a screed from these quarters, since i tend to exhibit some similar tendencies of view as poop and brainfog. really? well maybe not. they are just a little too passionate about lonely choss piles in the woods. and richard simmons. plus, i'd hate to get all formal on a subject that i don't see as all that important. i just don't think a post of mine on cc.com would have many repercussions in the larger world. MOMENTUM! That, and the medication you'd have to take to tone it down to that point would be prohibitively expensive, even if covered.

It's important to remember that this ruling: does not affect the ongoing prohibition of corporate donations directly to candidates, parties, and PACS. Corporations may make 'coordinated' contributions, independent of those candidates, parties, and PACs. The FCC is re-examining its rules concerning these coordinated contributions in the face of this ruling. That might be one area to focus activist scrutiny and pressure; ensuring that new FCC rules do all they can to ensure fairness. Allows labor unions, formerly prohibited, from contributing in a 'coordinated fashion' to political campaigns, putting them on par with corporations. allows non-profit corporations to solicit donations from corporations, not just individuals, for candidate support, advertise using all communication channels in that effort, and include formerly banned information, like candidate voting records, in that effort. The ruling is a big win for focused non-profits to engage more fully in the political process. does not prohibit public disclosure of contributions. ********************************** The system prior to this ruling vastly favored incumbents, who, with their name recognition and ability to use publicly funded events like press conferences, are much better able to collect smaller donations from larger constituencies than challengers. An alloted amount of free (publicly funded) media play for candidates would go a long way to alleviate this problem. Furthermore, the campaign budget floor; the minimum amount of money necessary for getting the message out, is far more important than the ceiling. Adequate public campaign financing would go a long way to address this issue. Here's a concise and useful legal analysis of what the ruling does and, contrary to some of the blather posted here, does not do: linky Embedded in my post are some policy changes to support that would minimize the potential harm of this ruling, for those folks who want to pursue the issue in a substantive way.

Great. Trumpet a decision that removes a key tool in our ability to limit corruption in government (limiting the amount of money corporations can spend on candidates or issues during an election cycle) then berate the dissenters for doing naught about it. Nice. The question is, WTF are you going to do about it while the rest of us continue to show this decision for the gang rape that it is. Be sure to let us know how much harder real campaign finance reforms will be post-Court decision now that this is a constitutional "free speech" issue. Um...I don't have to do anything about it, as I'm for the ruling, with reservations. I suppose I could gloat. I didn't berate any dissenters, just asked them what their activism involved. It would still be helpful if the voices in the wilderness shouting out against this injustice could provide the silent majority with links to ways they can a) donate or b) act in an effective fashion to address the issue of too much corporate influence. All the informational links are nice, but if you folks are already doing as much as you can, that should only take a minute or two to post.

They're called Nun Attacks.

I agree that there is momentum building in the bolting issue...amongst a grand total of 2 people. I also agree that there should be a heavily moderated ethics forum that is password protected and...restricted to those same 2 people. And that they should be required to use their own names and cities for logging in.

I know where you live, PAT GALLAGHER!!! Me, PAT GALLAGHER???!! Screw that. That guy's an asshole.

What are you going to do if we don't? Are you threatening us?

I'll bring it to your attention next time. Thank you. Porter treated it like it was a joke that I was concerned. You might want to run that policy by him again. Every single one of the rest of us treated it exactly the same way. Get real.

Let's say I am on the wrong side of this fight. My question is, one more time...What are you going to do about it?

Just another troll, but....I just saw an interview with one of the top tea baggers. Even those ass clowns hate Bush.

Well, I guess fighting for and winning actual change is too hard for some people, and I don't blame you for not being up to the task. It's a long term effort with lots of up and downs, and mostly grunt work. A lot of progressives find that type of effort just isn't sexy enough. Plus, it costs money. It's probably a whole lot more fun to host a home screening of 'The Corporation' and talk about it afterwards over some organic Cabernet.

Yes, this is a special time, an emergency, that requires special powers and methods... Cheney couldn't have said it better. Difficult times are precisely when we should trust our institutions, most particularly the constitution, democratic process, and the rule of law, the most. If not, anything goes. We've all seen where that can take us. In any situation, you must still answer the same question: who decides? And what, exactly, are you suggesting be done, here? Yeah, we might have an issue of too much corporate influence over government after this ruling. How would you suggest we go forward in correcting that problem? Kvetching about the SC ruling, while a valuable discussion and airing of grievances, probably isn't the most fertile option. That ship has left the dock. It is apparent that fetishism of the law prevents you from telling the difference between 1) Cheney undemocratically grabbing power to impose unethical policies that have been widely denounced throughout time and 2) progressives consistently denouncing the unethical underpinning of the rule of law that enables corporations to evade social responsibilities. In what world does the systematic application of the same set of ethics boil down to "everything goes"? The rule of law and our system of government is the machinery by which ethics are translated into policy and action. I often hear from self-described progressives about what needs to change, but when I ask how that change will come about given the machinery we've got, the answers often fall short. My patience with that kind of 'activism' has grown a bit short. The way one lives one's life is still primary, of course, but regarding the kind of national issues under discussion; if there's no tangible path between your activism in the form of money or effort and some form of legislative, judicial, or electoral action that will move your issues forward, I find myself wondering whether its just another case of making oneself feel better and/or carping from the sidelines. I'm not saying you're doing this. Rather, I'm asking the above question regarding what you suggest happen next. I agree with you about the power of large corporations over government. Our joke-of-a-health-care effort requires no introduction at this point. I also agree that the GOP is rotten to the core and that it's core values, or lack thereof, are very, very bad for this country and the rest of the world. The question is: are you shooting real bullets in this fight?

So Off White...I did a little search on this board last night to find my so-called book promotions. What did I find? Years ago I quoted from a couple of them to address questions, including one about Machu Picchu and gave a title of an archaeology book where I describe such sites should anyone be interested. Book promotion???? Hardly. I never mentioned my own name or where I live. And if I had, it would have been my own choice, not that of "mattp" who has an axe to grind when it comes to certain topics. And I consider adding my town of residence to be malicious. And then there are those who ridicule my profession outside of climbing and the moderators must find it amusing despite the complaints. Whatever, dude. I'm driving around Tacoma right now with a cape in my back seat.

Sorry if you took it that way Pat, that wasn't my intent. The TR's are pretty much the best thing about this board, and you've contributed a lot of fine content, thanks. It's all good. BTW...kudos to yet another leclerc classic one liner. Best one since the 'treadmill' comment.

Well, don't be too hard on the guy for being human. Who truly exists above the fray? Who but me, of course. Fuckin' earthlings.

I understand that you and Matt are friends, but don't let that blind you to the fact that he can get pretty nasty. "Outing" is a tool he's used before, but in this case he used it in an especially despicable manner--full name along with home city--in an effort to intimidate someone he doesn't like. If you guys want to be a website for elite climbers only, then, by all means, change the rules and see where it gets ya. Peace. Now, come on, Matt's not such a bad guy. Sure, he can get a little pissy, but he's pretty easy going and well intentioned for the most part. If there was a nasty contest, I think you and I would probably take home more ribbons.

Interestingly, many of the most talented climbers who've posted on this site use their real names, either a first name or a full name. They don't usually bother with the bolt blabber either. Most of the people doing first ascents of rock routes in this region don't post on this board at all, or have only made very rare appearances. I'm well aware of the general demographic of the site, OW...no need to backhandedly shit over those who've taken the time and effort to post some really great and entertaining content, even if you personally don't find that content Rock and Ice worthy. I agree that the bolt thing is a fucking waste of time...always have.

'Prole'. Zat iz a Chewish name, iz it not?

And here I thought threads were flushed to spray because people chose to act like dicks, while all the while it was their avatars making them do it. I think you've vastly overblown your arguments re the importance of avatar v name on civility, which I've observed to be a relatively inconsequential factor on same, but at least you've finally reduced your altitude to an appropriately limited scope regarding you conclusions. Humorously, of the top 10 TR contributors to this site, 8 post under avatars, and none post under their full name or any name that would enable another poster to find out who they really were or track them down in any way... ...not that there's anything wrong with that. A quick survey of the moderators on the site reveals a healthy 'anonymity ratio'. It really is just all in good fun, I guess.

It's not your movies. It's the ponytail.

If the forum is "Vote for me for President", yeah, using your real name might be important. If the forum is Spray...what is essential in the above example becomes quite a bit more inconsequential.

Still, you, like Raindawg, are anonymous to anyone who drops into the site without a lot of history. You're kidding, right? If someone doesn't know me personally, reading 'Tvashtarkatena' or 'PatGallagher' isn't going to make a lick of difference in what they think, one way or the other, about what I post. It certainly doesn't to me, anyway. Furthermore, if they want to answer questions like 'who is this fucker...does he climb...blah blah", that answer's readily available, all under the same avatar (at least in my case).

Bill O'Reilly's statements would be bullshit no matter who uttered them. He entertains a fawning, filtered audience who already accepts his point of view, and so need not include any supporting evidence to back up what essentially are off the cuff remarks. Not a great example, there. Alan Watts is also a poor example. Does his credibility stem from whether or not he chooses to post under his own name? No. It existed long before the internet. Were he to post under a pseudonym, I seriously doubt this audience (who would instantly know who was actually posting) would think any lesser of his postings because he posted under 'Adawg' or 'A&W' or whatever. Now jump to a what is essentially an internet playground like Spray. Not a serious forum; certainly not moderated as such. Not too many Alan Watts types posting here, so nobody comes ready equipped with that kind of pre-existing reputation. In such an environment, is there an inherent credibility assigned to those who post under their own name as opposed to a nickname/avatar in such an environment? If Raindawg posted under his own name, would his anti-bolting raving be better received and listened to? I doubt it. I've witnessed posters here who violently disagree with each other on almost everything join together in substantive advocacy, well outside spray and in the 'real world'. It had nothing to do with the whole 'real name/avatar' thing. It was all about the posts, which had to stand on their own. Finally, posters here often crack off color jokes or make outrageous statements for humorous purposes...its part of what makes Spray entertaining, interesting and, on that rare occasion, compelling. They understandably would prefer not sharing such postings with their HR departments, which these days have taken a somewhat overly invasive interest in nearly every aspect of their employees activities. An avatar is a simple and appropriate way to maintain a healthy and warranted separation of church and state. You don't happen to have that worry, so you may not really understand it. Well, others do.