bradleym

well then stop driving ur fucking car ya terrorist... That post is like the ping of a well driven pin! would be, if it weren't going into rotten rock.

ok, a little idea here - anyone please feel free to critique... the forest service isn't going to put anyone on the mountain to do this kind of stuff - its not one of their priorities as far as their budget goes. the NPS will only have climbing rangers there if the mountain is in fact a national park, and rules and regs come along with that. so how do we have management, permit checks, and that "babysitter" for those who decide to go up there but really have no business doing so? answer: the Mt Hood Volunteer Climber's Association. have a board of climbers who are willing to schedule time to be available to "patrol" the more heavily used starting points for ascents of Hood - so at Timberline and, say, Cloud Cap... i dunno, just brainstorming, here. this organization would make it their charge to monitor the activity on the mountain and who was going up and coming down, though not for money but because THEY LOVE CLIMBING and they want to see as few accidents on the mountain as possible. having people doing this might not prevent all accidents but it might help reduce the deaths... this would mean that climbers attempting the mountain would have to check in directly with a person rather than just filling out that oh so useful and informative checklist that is in the climbers cave presently... is there anyone that can see something like this working? i'm sure there is bound to be spray coming my way, but whatever. reasonable ideas, comments, suggestions or additions to what i've already mentioned? anyone? Some sort of voluntary system might be helpful, but raises the same liability questions that the mandatory MLU would. If there were someone hanging out at the cave, dispensing advice, trumpeting the weather report or recording who is on the mountain, would it perhaps divert the uneducated and reduce incidents? Doubtful, especially as it is frequently objective hazards at the root of most fatal accidents. Nonetheless, I believe that many times I've been high on the mountain (at least on the south side) there have been PMR personnel hanging around, watching. Several times I've seen them hanging out at the Hogback, watching the queue snaking up and down. I don't know if they are there officially, but it could be that we already have some form of 'voluntary' presence, at least where the most number of newbs is likely to be.

all four of us stayed put in the house, recovering from the flu. family who had flown in for the holiday stayed away, and we barely saw them. it was restful...between coughing jags.

Welf und Waiblingen, plus ca change...

It might be wise for us all to adopt the same approach to more than just religious questions.

Hegel was wrong. Didn't you get the memo? Give it up.

all together now! [video:youtube]

And I thought that all the conservatives in congress (all except 5) who didn't vote for that war bill were the ones "hurting America" You and your buds FW and KKK (and many others) -- all of whom so eloquently represent simplistic viewpoints -- are indeed hurting america.

You're hurting America.

neal stephenson's baroque cycle might be just what you need. about 3g's if memory serves and an extra 500 or so if you read cryptonomicon first.

amen.

no, i'm speaking of those useful idiots who cannot appreciate or tolerate complexity, for whom there can be only one right answer for nearly any policy issue, and who are so easily wound up by litmus tests and taken in by dark conspiracy theories about what 'the other guy' is _really_ up to. Neither 'necessity' nor anything else have 'shown that many of the changes he stated will not be implemented'. time will tell, but the myriad rule changes, executive orders and new legislative initiatives, and now a candidate for the supreme court demonstrate the sincere desire to effect significant change. No politician will ever avoid what you refer to as oblique speak or double talk. Such things are actually useful components of the leadership toolkit. Didn't you ever read Machiavelli or Castiglioni? How do you think things in a polity actually get done?

The current administration are scared to death that there could be another attack on the 'homeland', on the scale of 911 or even smaller, it doesn't matter. Why is this a problem? Because we live in a country populated by mostly stupid people (like californians, who just cut their own throats, again) who will in the main jump to the conclusion that 'Obama didn't protect us', and the likes of Cheney, Rove and Boehner will be only too happy to fan those flames. As soon as that happens, everything else the administration want to do is history (ya know, like implement socialism and take everyone's guns ). So they must step very carefully as they try to disentangle the policies of the past in a very complex world. Some of their moves will appear morally ambiguous, at least in the short term. Should they be watched carefully and persistently? Yes. Should their feet be held to the fire (metaphorically speaking, of course)? Certainly. When they stray onto morally / ethically indefensible ground or betray their own principles, should they be called on that? Absolutely. Wouldn't it be even better to reframe the debate a bit away from talk of 'terrorists' and 'war on terror' etc? pretty hard to do at this point, but a far better response to 911 would have been to recognize we live in an open society (that entails risk) that is ruled by law (i know, quaint) which employs its police to go after criminals (apologies to Boehner and his recent chest-thumping). Happy Memorial Day.

If they really wanted to help, Republicans might take this advice and thus become a serious opposition party. Brooks on Republicans 'Republicans could point out that this crisis is not just an opportunity to do other things' 'Republicans could admit that they don’t know what the future holds' 'Republicans could offer the public a realistic appraisal of the health of capitalism' 'Republicans could get out in front of this crisis for once' 'Republicans could make it clear that that the emergency has to be followed by an era of balance'

nah - as i recall classic vogon poetry causes advanced sedation and ultimatley spontaneous suicide - FW's prose just makes folks pissed off and crotchety libtards are by nature pissed-off and crotchety. j_b exemplifies this phenomenon. you write nice poetry too.

QED.

When liberals use this simplistic and, frankly, antagonistic strategy, they shouldn't be surprised when thinking people eventually throw up their hands and get nasty about it. Ha, ha, this from CC's resident Vogon-in-chief. I certainly didn't expect _you_ to understand any of this. You demonstrate every day that you haven't even the _capacity_ to understand it. That is ok, i pity you. And no, I don't plan to meet you at the trailhead for a fistfight. You might hurt me. By reducing a topic as complex as our current economic crisis and the appropriate response to a few simplistic statements, when clearly (to thinking people) it isn't simple, and to introduce topics with prejudicial and inflammatory language, well, ye reap what ye sow, I guess, only jmo cannot take the heat. I think at this point you should tell me to FOAD. It will destroy my argument and prove your brilliance beyond doubt. That is what its all about, correct?

jmo, i hate to be the one pointing this out, and i don't suppose you will accept it, but here goes... You began recently to post statements, assertions and leading questions that perhaps in your mind are 'true' or 'factual' or 'clear as day'. Things like, 'Obama is no messiah', 'why is Obama appointing criminals?', 'Obama is out to destroy capitalism', 'Obama wants to infringe our civil rights', etc (some of these are paraphrased, but i think the essence is accurate). You've also stated several times that the market has fallen significantly since the election, or since the inauguration, as though there is a direct correlation and there might not be anything else than Obama out there in the wide world that is driving markets. In the case of the FOX article that you employed to 'prove' your assertion that 'Obama is no messiah' (no one here, certainly not me, ever asserted that he was--classic strawman), I attempted to demonstrate to you that the reality addressed by that article is a little more complicated than the article would have us believe. I didn't 'prove' that the article was wrong (not my intent), but that it wasn't exactly right either. I don't think that has sunk in with you--in which case, you might be a little more hesitant about your statements--and maybe it never will. You wish to engage in 'civil political debate', yet you insist on declaring that the analyses and solutions to problems are very simple, and that the Obama administration are either very cynical or very stupid for not realizing how simple things really are. (How can we pronounce such final judgements on an administration that is less than two months old, anyway?) For example, you stated in another thread that there are four or so things you would do about the economic situation were you president. Yet, reducing spending to balance the budget could actually make it worse, counter-intuitive as that may seem. Econ 101 describes the economy as a circulation of wealth, and recessions are in part the absence of circulation, so there may actually be a role for government in trying to restart that circulation, even at the risk of future inflation due to deficits. Balanced budgets result as much from increased tax receipts due to a strong economy as they do from cutting spending. There is plenty to debate in the above paragraph, and i'd be happy to do so--i might learn something. But if you insist on making simplistic, and frankly antagonistic statements, then don't be surprised if someone who appreciates the complexities of the situation eventually throws up his hands and gets nasty about it. It has little to do with 'liberal' v 'conservative'. I get in just as much trouble around here with j_b as i might with you, and those labels just serve to perpetuate simplistic and uninteresting shouting matches, when in fact there are interesting things to talk about.

Hmmmm, my point is that Obama didn't do this, the collection of representatives and senators known as the Congress did this, including Republicans. Obama can either sign the bill or veto it. In deciding what to do, he must employ a complex, multi-variable and non-linear calculus that involves negotiations that go far beyond this bill alone. I have endeavoured to demonstrate with my little exegesis of the original FOX article that the reality behind each of the 'mis-statements' is a little less clear and simple than the writer would have us believe. Don't worry--I have no illusions about convincing you of that. But the approach taken by that writer (and frankly, by so-called 'liberal' writers engaged in political trench warfare) relies on a willfully selective use of 'facts', an unabashedly manipulative choice of words to describe and marshal those facts and a cynical insistence on binary modes of argumentation. E.g. Obama is either truthful or he is a liar. It is similar to what the Swift-Boat guys did so successfully to Kerry back in 2004. Even the 'I was for it before I was against it' brouhaha depended on eliding critical information about what actually took place. Rush's supporters complain right now that the same has been done to him with the 'I hope he fails' sound-bite controversy.

Yes, the earmarks make up a very small percentage of the budget. But the budget is so big, even 2% is many billions. Because it's last year's budget, there is even an earmark that Obama put in. When this was made public, they took his name off, but left the earmark. None of this disputes my original point. Obama campaigned promising to reform "pork barrel" spending, and then he has supported a budget that does no such thing. http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/40567717.html?page=1&c=y "Cut Pork Barrel Spending: As a Senator, President Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama and Biden believe that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama and Biden will slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public." www.whitehouse.gov well, like i said, we'll have to wait and see how the budget negotiations go next year. I do not think that 'earmark' is automatically equated to 'pork' anyway, though some would like to say so. incidentally, many of those 'earmarks' have names like Specter, Rehberg, Graham, etc. on them.

-->Pork Barrel Earmark Reform so, let me see, 7.7 / 410 = 1.8% of the appropriations, by dollar amount, have been classified as 'earmarks' by Taxpayers for Common Sense. I don't know a thing about these guys, but i'll take their word for it. Of that 1.8% of the bill, our correspondent at FOX has identified 'dozens of wasteful pork-barrel projects', but alas, he cannot tell us which ones those are. furthermore, 'These earmarks were awarded based on seniority, not on merit, and were mostly the result of high-priced lobbying'. I'm sure he knows. At any rate, would it be a good idea for Obama to shut down the government in his first couple of months in office, for the sake of those earmarks? It will probably be more informative to see how things go with the next FY appropriations bill.

I'm getting the distinct impression that no one really cares, but i'm a blockhead, so i'll press on with this evaluation of the FOX op-ed article. -->No Taxes on the Poor 'By signing H.R. 2 into law, Obama happily signed onto the idea that smokers should pay for a $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP). Cigarette taxes are going up 61 cents a pack starting April 1. Obama signed this bill knowing that the majority of smokers in the United States are working poor, and one in four lives below the federal poverty line' SCHIP is designed to help states cover uninsured--and generally poor--children. 'nuff said, i think. '...energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured' Not only is the cap-and-trade regime intended to encourage increased efficiency, reduce dependence on foreign energy sources and stave off climate change (all of which will be a huge financial boon for the economy), the Obama budget includes significant tax credits for lower-income families to offset the rise in energy prices and the follow-on effects. Why didn't your writer include that bit of information? Here is one place to look to find out more

Good lord, this thread has a life of its own...fwiw, here is my response to your response. You're right, my source does appear to be wrong, and I retract what I said about the Lily Ledbetter legislation. The Senate version became law, and I was stuck on the House version, which went no where. Too early in the morning, I suppose. However, this issue will perhaps continue to be a subject of interpretation, since it depends on one's definition of when a law is complete, or at least complete enough to allow the public to review it. in the case of HR2, SCHIP, the law was agreed in the House on the 14th, the Senate on the 29th, then through conference on the 4th, whereupon the president signed it. A stickler, who wanted to prove that Obama is a 'liar', might state that the clock should start ticking when the law is officially presented to the president. In this case, the provisions of the law were essentially in place substantially before that, which is also the case with Lily Ledbetter, which was passed by the Senate on 22nd and the Senate version passed by the House on the 27th, then signed the 29th. The only bill that had substantial changes to it in conference was the stimulus bill, and from conference agreement to signing was several days. As 'proof' that Obama has broken a campaign pledge and therefore legitimate to include in a list of 'Obamas Top 5 Broken Promises', this is a pretty thin reed. The bills may not be on the whitehouse web site simply because the administration is rather young and that simply hasn't been completed yet. There are numerous other steps the Obama administration has taken that are far more substantive, such as opening up the bidding and appropriations process. But if this continues to be an issue for you--if legislation is getting through without anyone being able to see it--then by all means call them on it.

here is my preferred drug.... Warning: NYTimes assessment of Limbaugh

-->Lobbyist Revolving Door This issue, at first glance, appears to be more serious, and it may well be. Time will tell. A bit of googling turned up this, this and this. This is from the horse's mouth, so to speak: Lobbyist Rules The transition team's rules state "If someone has lobbied in the last 12 months, they are prohibited from working in the fields of policy on which they lobbied". I am unable to determine whether Mark Patterson lobbied on behalf of Goldman Sachs in the past 12 months. He was registered as a lobbyist until 12 April 2008. The FOX commentator states "Obama appointed Goldman Sachs lobbyists Mark Patterson chief of staff at the Treasury Department, where he directly oversees his former employer, a recipient of $10 billion of taxpayer funds from the TARP". This insinuates/implies/states directly: 1. that Mark Patterson lobbied on behalf of GS in the past 12 months, 2. that Mark Patterson will 'oversee' GS directly, 3. that Mark Patterson will determine/influence how much money GS receives from the TARP. I cannot find evidence to answer any of these, but perhaps someone else can. Such questions ought to have answers before one may conclude that 'Obama lied'. Moreover, any new president is caught between a rock and a hard place regarding the staffing of the government. Most people who possess knowledge of the areas to be staffed will likely have questionable connections, from having worked in that field for a long time. From the 'brownie' case we understand that such appointees really ought to have experience in the realm they are to oversee. So subtle points must be considered, and tradeoffs will be required. I know that won't cut much ice with the Rush crowd, because to them the world is simple, but there it is. Deal with it, and keep a close eye on the future activities of Mark Patterson. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't have time right now to look into the defense appointee. maybe later.