tvashtarkatena

powder today. Too bad it's warming up.

I didn't get a chance to try the Microspikes, yet. I did use my MSR Lightning snowshoes for the first time, however. Love 'em.

I've seen aerial fire fighting operations within the Glacier Peak, Pasayten, and Alpine Lakes Wilderness Areas.

"I had an abortion but I was only following orders."

And there are those who served AND protested...and who worked hard so they don't have to work...and those who envy them.

Maybe he's taken up climbing.

Just fuckin witcha

Just back from 11worth. It's coming down hard everywhere but Seattle. Snoqualmie has more snow on the road than I've ever seen. Bluet less so, but still substantial. We stomped around 8 mile trail for a while. There is no ice yet.

Sobo, sounds like you know a lot about French society. You must have lived there some years, particularly recently. You've probably also lived in one or more French colonies, you know, those countries that used to be part of France from whence all those foreigners the French have been 'letting in' come from. Perhaps you can explain the dynamics of the most recent Parisian riots for us. Tell us more. We need first hand experience on these vital matters. Certainly, from your voluminous replies, you're not just another ignorant American consuming sound bites from API and then regurgitating generalities about 'European' tolerance (after all, it is one big homogeneous country now, right?) and European Muslim 'ingratitude'. Someone with your depth of on the ground experience certainly wouldn't be caught dead oversimplifying from 7,000 miles away in such a manner. I'm sure you are also fluent in French and Arabic, and so read all the French dailies from all sides of the issue. What are they saying over there now?

Ironically, Mojo was a reformer for wymynz rights in his day. Prior to him, women were treated as cattle. He married a rich female merchant who was a fair bit older than himself and she apparently had quite a bit of influence on him. He instituted a fair number of rights for women where there once was none. He didn't take additional wives until after his first wife's death. The scrap with the Jews started with him, however. He allied with the local Jewish community to wage a war of regional consolidation, but the Jews reniged, then he tried to force them. Well, we all know how that one turned out.

Then there are those who neither protested nor served.

Actually, that's true. Certain members of the religious right who are pushing to grant full 'personhood' to the unborn would be happy to see women tried and executed for having early term abortions, including taking the morning after pill. Murder laws would have to be enforced across the board in this manner under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Think about it, ladies. Anyone down for that?

I gotta say that this is one of the most circular, inane threads I've seen in a long time. Tolerance is the only way for a civilized society to go, but tolerance doesn't mean tolerating intolerance. That's a non-idea. Europe happens to be doing quite well right now, thank you, particularly compared to the U.S. Check the Euro lately? Europe does have some discord involving segments of their muslim populations, but it's not because they 'tolerate it'. France, for example, has laws (the banning of headscarves, for example) that would never fly in the U.S. It's also ridiculous to compare the U.S. to Europe given our vastly different histories. Just over 50 years ago several European countries were embroiled in civil wars with their muslim colonies. We were not. The fact that some European countries have a different relationship and issues with these muslim populations should come as no surprise to anyone who has a shred of historical background about Europe's colonial past. So cut the histrionics. Yeah, the Sudanese calling for blood are assholes. Stuff like this happens in nations who do not enjoy a separation of church and state. We in the U.S. would be well advised to take note. Burn yourselves a teddy bear and move on.

How long did you search the intertubez to find that little gem? About 1 minute. There's a video for every occasion somewhere out there.

The court did not decide that an unborn child is not alive. It searched the constitution for any principles or language that would grant the unborn full rights of personhood but came up empty handed. Read my original posting. The court's Roe v. Wade decision did grant considerable rights to the unborn. States may restrict abortions in the second trimester and ban them in the third. The court decided on 'viability', or survivability outside the womb, as the criteria for determining when the rights of the unborn outweigh the rights of the mother. Remember the mother? There's a whole extra human being involved here who also has rights of self determination. A being becomes a separate person when it can physically live unattached from another. Seems reasonable to me. I don't know how the court deals with Siamese twins, however. A first trimester fetus is not viable outside the womb. Under the constitution or otherwise, it cannot be considered a separate 'person'. There simply is no physical reality to that concept. Like it or not, it is inextricably tied with a pre-existing 'person' that already enjoys all the rights and protections granted by the constitution and other laws. Adoption is one thing, but it does not lessen the harm that carrying an unwanted child imposes on a woman. Childbirth is extremely dangerous; the risk and mortality rate for women remains substantial. It also constitutes an extreme financial and physical hardship. Opponents of abortion seem willing to let the State impose these harms, under threat of imprisonment, with impunity on women without considering their pre-existing personhood and all the rights of self determination that comes with it. To me, it's a purely religious thing. Certain religions claim that the second a sperm punches through an egg, that's a whole person, not the potential to become a person, whose rights somehow immediately upon conception trump those of the potential mother. The root of this belief, in my opinion, lies in a puritanical belief in the immorality of sex. Forcing women to have unwanted children is a State imposed punishment for getting knocked up accidentally, for 'being irresponsible'; a concept which people with certain religious beliefs seem to revel in. Fortunately, we have a separation of church and state, which prevents those holding these religious beliefs from imposing them, by force, on the rest of us. My view is that, if you don't believe in legalized abortion, by all means, don't have one. Your choice. Allowing the State to force women to have unwanted children and imprisoning them if they don't comply, to me, not only seems draconian and medieval; it also constitutes a flagrant violation of the separation of church and state for which I give thanks every damn day.

The innocents weigh in.... dudAKxUl3VE

... Roe v. Wade ruled that the 14th amendment does not grant personhood to the unborn. The court did recognize, however, that the states do have two legitimate interests: to protect the health and well being of the mother and to protect the unborn. .... How is this NOT a contridition? Our law does not grant personhood to the unborn, but at the same time is called to protect the unborn; the one who does not have personhood. The 14th amendment specifies those born or naturalized; not the unborn. The supreme court weighed this very clear wording, a women's right to privacy as implied by the due process and equal protection clause of that same amendment, and the legitimate interest of States to protect the unborn and came up with what it considered a balanced compromise. In so doing it considered historical precedence, both legal and otherwise. A contradiction is unidimensional. Balancing two or more competing interests, as in this decision, is not. Essentially, the abortion issue is a balancing act between the rights of the mother and the unborn. As long as there are those two competing interests involved, it's never going to be a simple issue. Some things to consider: Make abortions illegal across the board, and the State forces women to bear unwanted children. This constitutes a pretty grave and invasive harm for an unwilling individual to bear for simply engaging in a legal act; sex. Public safety and well being is also at issue. Such a prohibition would also constitute a self defeating direction for an overpopulated and increasingly resource starved society to take.

$6 million worth of firefighting to fight a 315 acre fire? What I asked was: Given the amount of money that is actually budgeted and available, and given the EXISTING system for allocating that money (regardless of how you think the system could be improved, it's not going to change), how would you prioritize/allocate those funds?

Ask me about my emissions.

It's striking how much JayB argues about the application of the law and how little he actually knows about it. JayB, pick ANY supreme court ruling and read it. It's all about history, context, morality, and balancing interests.

Damn. I must really be a fucking nerd.

Sorry, honey. Subscription only. Plus you have to verify that you're over 55. Hey, I'm going out to try my new Microspikes now.

Fair enough on the fire fighting savings, but who knows where the next fire might strike and what roads will be most critical at that future time? One might argue that, since the area has already burned, the firefighting priority for repairing the Stehekin road is lowered. Blake, how would you divvy up the budget, as it exists, road for road, and what criteria would you use for establishing those priorities?

I don't have a nice enough ass to pull that off.

Does anyone else see the irony of these two juxtaposed statements? Blake, you know as well as anyone else here that the road repair budget is separate and very limited from those expensive federal 'boondoggles'. Yours is a non-argument. Wishing to live in a magical fairy kingdom doesn't make it so. It also seemed that you were nitpicking the NCCC's statement for petty innaccuracies that didn't really have much to do with the issue at hand. A 50 mile versus 30 mile boat ride? Who cares? (most passengers opt for the 50 mile trip, BTW) Only disagreements with their last statement seemed substantive. You could have simply left it at that and made a stronger point. Pretending that 'money has nothing to do with this' will get you nowhere on this issue. This issue is all about projects competing for limited funds. Personally, it seems like, while repairing the Stehekin road might be nice, it's too much buck for the bang as compared to other worthy road repair projects. As you mentioned, you can walk 12 flat miles into the area. That alone seems to reduce the importance of repairing this particularly expensive road to just about zero.