bradleym

and you'll find many birchers who oppose it as vehemently as you do, though their reasoning is different.

its all in the how.

leave us alone! we're 'batin.

can you foster entrepreneurship without a bit of 'free-market' or even a whiff of 'laizzez-faire'?

I'm not concerned about the john birchers--they can cherry pick to their hearts content. It changes nothing--their dreamworld has gone to the wall. they can talk about guns and liberty and communists all they like, for all i care. ok fine, a mixed economy. what is that? open your eyes and smell the shit. the infrastructure is falling apart. we have bridges on freeways collapsing! if you haven't noticed there is a deepest economic crisis since 30's! what else will it take for you to see that things can't go in the same direction. united states is 10 trillion dollars in a hole, 3 trillion in the past 8 years. to put it in the perspective it would cost you and i (and every person in this country) over 31k to pay it off. this country had 4 years of balanced budget since the 60's! are you that stupid not to see it? it's not mixed economy, it's fixed economy, system that works! don't worry, my eyes are wide open. i agree that things cannot continue in the same direction, but you appear to be arguing for contradictory things. you say that the bridges are falling down, implying a call for government spending (a stimulus package, say) to fix the bridges (and maybe jump-start the economy?). but then you rant about the deficit, and the fact that we've had only four balanced budgets since 1960. so, which is it? more deficit spending or less? and how do we get from shitty economy to fixed economy?

I'm not concerned about the john birchers--they can cherry pick to their hearts content. It changes nothing--their dreamworld has gone to the wall. they can talk about guns and liberty and communists all they like, for all i care. ok fine, a mixed economy. what is that?

ah well, you heard it here first, I'm a goon too. i'm either for you or against you.

ad hominem? really? funny, i don't recall calling you short, fat or ugly. here is what I was trying to do, but failed singularly: You seem bent on excluding anyone from the conversation about what to do who is not 'pure' as you appear to define it. You appear to live in a black and white world where the bad guys are superbad and the good guys -- well, they must not exist. if anyone deviates from your (not clearly defined) manifesto, then they are 'extreme' and to be discounted fully. in fact, if anyone disagrees with you (however respectfully) they open themselves to charges of 'ad hominem'. you may not get it, but there is a difference between argument and assertion. you've been pretty clear about whom you think is evil, that the new boss is the same as the old boss (clintonites getting jobs with obama), but I have yet to see you 'propose' anything to replace what you tear down. maybe i missed it, but i don't think it was there. in the case of the Economist, you place them alongside oh, i don't know, Jerry Falwell, Milton Friedman, William Kristol, et al. The reality is a little more nuanced than that, but not to you. We live in a real world where real people are in real trouble, and we're all more or less at fault, and all you can do is demonize the Economist? so I questioned you on that, wondering why, since even Obama is now tainted and compromised, we didn't make you president. since free markets are clearly out, and you seem to view issues and solutions as all one thing or all the other, then what do you propose? collective ownership of the means of production? how would you have handled the financial crisis differently? what would have been the outcome? what should we do about the auto industry crisis? we're waiting for your wisdom.

j_b, I really don't know what to say to you. I'll try one more time... Like you, I have always been opposed to the Iraq war, and I am angry about all the needless loss of life. I am no friend to disciples of ayn rand (greenspan), friedmanism or reaganism, and the way the republican party (via atwater, rove and now 'the bullet') have exploited religious / cultural issues and nationalism (and in fact, racism) to implement their short-sighted policies is repugnant to me. I watched in 2004 as an extremist wing of that party twisted Kerry's words from his testimony 30 years ago to make it seem as though he was critical of the troops, and thus they questioned his patriotism and suitability. It was completely wrong, but people went for it. I have watched the tax policies of the bush administration, in concert with the monetary policies of the fed, and how they have systematically dismantled environmental protections and followed policies that affect my children and grandchildren very negatively. in short, my libtard credentials are good (though maybe not as pure as yours), and you and I may actually agree on many things (though on some we do not), though your knee-jerk reactions are leading you to think otherwise. The 'goons' as you call them are well-known on this site, and for the most part they are ignored or dismissed with the derision they deserve. It doesn't really pay to respond to them in kind, though from time to time someone may (again) demolish their assertions. There are others on the site (I've only been lurking here for 3-4 years) who are 'conservative' but who don't strike me as 'goons'. They may engage in the fun from time to time, especially when someone as easily upset as you are comes along, but I've seen where they present reasoned arguments to support their views and claims. I may not agree, but at least a polite conversation is possible. If you want to be taken seriously, and if you honestly want to convince anyone of anything, then you must resist being a goon yourself. I'm not saying that you are, but you do have a tendency to present fairly categorical assertions in a way that invites only a fight of some sort. For example, here is one of your 'facts' or 'arguments' from the last post: 'The Economist is pro-war, pro-deregulation and 100% pro-"free" market, pro-Bush, pro-Reagan: they are extremist, I am not' Would it surprise you to know that the Economist endorsed Kerry in '04, and Obama in '08? Certainly, in general they support 'free-market' principles, but they also recognize the faults and failures, and support (moderate) government intervention to restrain that. Do I agree with everything the Economist says? No, I disagree regularly, but I also agree regularly (I've been reading it for 20+ years). They supported the war, but have been extremely critical of its execution, which has dramatically increased the number of deaths, for example. In short, the Economist are not 'extremist' as you say (compare them to the Weekly Standard or Fox News some time). They may support some things with which you don't agree, but they also have a sophisticated view of a complex world, they understand the give and the take, and I think their motives are as pure as anyone's. Well, the kids and I are headed to Hood. We might make for I-Rock, to search for Ivan's turd or something...

Cool, I'll lead anything you want. I usually don't like to lead gym routes or short routes, but I make an exception for LO wall. BTW, it's not the best spot to boulder, and don't blame me for it being a little shithole, but I PM'ed you a copy of Johns directions. For some damn reason, it stays generally damper/wetter than say: Ozone, despite both being south facing crags. However, you can often get a quick afterwork pump there. Ujahn use to live less than a mile away, so it was very convenient for a while for me to pop over there after work to get a burn. my son and i went to the circuit yesterday, then followed your instructions and found the wall. thanks. when the warm weather comes back, i'll be keen to give a shot.

look to the right side of your browser window. there is a 'thingy' there called a scroll-bar. point at it, click the mouse button, hold it down, and then pull it down with the mouse. the photographs of the drunks will disappear, and then some basalt with indian paintings will appear. like magic.

those are great shots, and indeed that is beautiful country. my brother in law and I head down there about once a year, though sadly this year he has been sick and unable to go. here are some photos from our '06 trip, organized by a basco from jordan valley who knows a lot of ranchers and got permission for us to camp out on some pretty amazing private land. Indian paintings Owyhee River Owyhee River 2 Jordan Craters Leslie Gulch and Succor Creek we too drank a lot of booze, rode through horrendous hailstorms and ended the careers of numerous ground squirrels. anyone who has not been down there should lay some plans.

the times evaluates the question of whether bankruptcy or government intervention would be best for the automakers. Tough intervention or bankruptcy? no one wants to see all those workers thrown out of jobs, or the shuttering of all that industrial capacity, but neither can we allow everything to continue as is, from union contracts to unnecessary dealerships to stupid, inefficient vehicles. It looks right now as though we're on the path to government intervention, but can that ensure the necessary changes? whatever happens, it will be grubby.

Well, if you presented 'arguments' as you say, then I suppose I could reply to them. What you offer are assertions, though, which can only be responded to by counter assertions, ad infinitum. "The Economist are a pack of corrupt, corporatist, right-wing, free-market jackals!" "No, they're not!" "Yes, they are!" Who wants to have a discussion like that? The right-wingers around here (or others who just want to have a bit of fun) can't help but engage in a bit of "red-baiting" as you call it. If you present a reasoned argument, supported by evidence, that addresses the complexities of the situation, then people will respond in kind. If you only engage in extremist ranting, then idem, and you will never get your message across. ciao.

Hi Bradley! Good bumping into you last night. You should have been doing laps earlier in the year with us outside before it rained. BTW, there is a little climbing wall close to your work in Lake Oswego. Kevbone found it only as his company was moving across the river, so I thought I'd just say it now. Maybe it's all old news. Also, Ujahn has like 3 secret bouldering areas close to you, he use to live @ a block off the lake and found these spots while on runs etc. Ask him about it sometime he doesn't keep secrets. I went to one once, and it's a little shithole, but I got pumped fast. (common occurrence:-) likewise bill. anytime you guys need a belay slave, give me a shout, but don't expect me to lead. i'll carry the rope. I've heard about the little wall in LO, but I don't know where it is, so if anyone could shoot me a pm, i'd be grateful... i'll see you some wed/thurs at stoneworks, and i'll remember my harness.

so everyone is corrupt or stupid except you, and all problems facing us have simple explanations and solutions. why didn't we make you president?

perhaps we're all sick of this one, but the times has an article this morning that lays out some of the arguments being made pro and con bailout: More automaker bailout talk i'm not inclined to place too much weight upon anything either the UAW or GM management have to say, but they both pack considerable political clout, and everyone is scared right now. perhaps the best we can hope for is a bailout that comes with restrictions similar to what would have been the case in a bankruptcy. imagine, no more suburbans, no more durangos...

i would amend this to say that humans are incredibly wasteful, and typically only change their behaviors due to price pressures (or threat of physical violence, but that seldom lasts). Capitalism is very efficient for allocating resources but, because it is based on human greed/fear/selfishness/myopia, it contains the seeds of its own destruction. That is why humans develop other societal structures (government, social contracts, customs--civilization, in short) to curb the chaos and to keep it at bay. We've just lived through thirty+ years of the dominant crowd telling us that all we need is capitalism--we don't need no stinkin' civilization--and the results are what we're living through right now. i agree that the only way for this to change is for the majority to 'develop new consciousness', etc., but how is that done? You've got 500 channels of bad TV, James Bond and Britney Spears--and golf, I hate golf! You call for 'ethics', 'analysis' and 'critique', but most just aren't interested in that. You can lead the horse to water, etc. Maybe the progressive crowd can turn some of that around, but we don't value education, and anti-intellectualism is rampant (though perhaps that will subside, and it will be 'cool' again). Investing in education, paying teachers better, encouraging parents to spend time with the kids, read a book from time to time, switch off the entertainment--those are the only path I know to get people to be more thoughtful and to take an interest in larger things than doggie windows. It cannot be mandated, but again perhaps the government (us, really) can deliver incentives that gently push us down such a path. btw, here is an editorial in todays nytimes that seems relevant: Saving the Automakers

i couldn't do without it.

If you were in your mid-20s or so, then I'd say that you were pretty slow in your development. But at 42, Jeez, that's fuk'n great, man! Way to stay in shape. thanks. when i was in my twenties i could run a half-marathon in 1.15, and i probably would have made an awesome climber. now i weigh 35 lbs more...sigh. as i think back, i guess my first climbing experience came when i was no more than ten. we lived in lake chelan, and one day a bunch of us decided to make our way down the outlet channel from the lake to the columbia gorge. i should go look at it again, but i recall lots of boulder jumping and scrambling over some pretty sketchy stuff. surprisingly, we lived and no one got hurt. someone had to drive down to where it empties through the basalt cliffs to pick us up.

i'm a newb. 3 or 4 years ago a friend asked if I'd like to climb Hood, and I've been hooked since, though taking it slowly. I've only been rock climbing for a year and a half, and climbed my first outdoors 5.10a a month or two ago. not bad for a 42 year old, non?

The entire financial house of card coming down while the real economy keeps tanking is a crisis of confidence? I don't think so. We have a systemic crisis that requires profound changes. The End by Michael Lewis Nov 11 2008 The era that defined Wall Street is finally, officially over. Michael Lewis, who chronicled its excess in Liar’s Poker, returns to his old haunt to figure out what went wrong. "At some point, I gave up waiting for the end. There was no scandal or reversal, I assumed, that could sink the system." THe End Follow link for story well, actually I think that it is a crisis of confidence, brought on by years of voodoo economics, de-regulation, anything goes financial practices, and an entire culture of 'I want it now dammit'. it is also contributing to the downturn in the 'real' economy, and in turn is feeding off of that picture as it emerges. i am just as frightened, pissed off and flummoxed as anyone by what is going on, and i don't claim any special knowledge here. i'm just saying that however flawed the bailout may be, it is necessary in the case of the banking system, but not necessary in the case of the automakers. our goal with them should be to protect the workers who are going to lose (sooner or later, bailout only postpones that) in a way that looks after everyone's interest. fwiw, which may be very little.

We acted "quickly and decisively" and all we've done is throw alot of money down the drain. $150 billion for AIG and they are likely to need more. Citibank is toast and will need more funds soon. This reminds me of a maxim from the earlier debates - when people realize the actual effects they are pissed. When it's cloaked in standard Wall Street opacity they can be conned into believing its necessary immediately. you know, you may be right. i certainly have my doubts about the bailout, and i am thoroughly irritated that we're even in this situation, but i think inaction at this point is the worst policy. i agree that there will probably be plenty of undeserving recipients of the largesse. maybe there is still time to implement some of the strictures put in place by the brits (noted above) that may help. there are certainly hearings going on now and in the upcoming lame-duck session to address just these sorts of questions.

Government isn't going to do that as long as policy is determined by the oil, automobile and militari-industrial complex. well, admittedly, its a blunt instrument and may not work, but my vote for Obama / Merckley / against anything proposed by Sizemore last week was a vote to end all that. at least, I hope we won't see a repeat of Cheney and his gang setting national energy policy, but time will tell...

Please explain what standards and principles are being used to disburse the bailout funds. Even Henry Paulson can't - so to argue it's categorically different is impossible because we don't even know what we are doing! Actually, my company is fucked because of the contraction of the credit market. I'm well aware of the nasty effects, and I'm more than well aware the financial bailout has had exactly ZERO of the intended consequences so far. Except the preservation of cronyism and corruption on Wall Street. i don't have a good answer for you, but i don't think it is as bad as all that. to assume that everything works according to cabals and conspiracies, that no one involved possesses any level of integrity, is to give up altogether. you might as well cut your rope. we'll always be able to quibble about how the decisions are made, what motives are dominant, etc., but that doesn't change the fact that, however we got here, the banking system is in trouble and we must act quickly and decisively. it is mainly a crisis of confidence (remember, greed and fear rule most markets) so inasmuch as confidence has been restored, then it has been a success. the amount of money and where it went may actually be secondary--i don't know. LIBOR is falling, though that could change, and there seems to be some loosening of the credit markets. did the bailout do that? hard to say, but i think we'll see no more bank failures, as least for now. are they lending again? that is also hard to say, but there are some powerful people in DC who are watching that carefully. the decisiveness of the financial bailout must now be matched by an equally (or more) decisive government stimulus, which i think we'll begin to see soon. forget the deficit, invest quickly in projects and initiatives that _can_ provide something for all those unemployed autoworkers (et aliis) to do.