Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Juneriver

2002 - International Year of the Mountains

Recommended Posts

And furthermore....some tasty quotes for thought:

"Liberal: a power worshipper without power."George Orwell

"Conservative. noun. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."- Ambrose Bierce

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."- Pete Brimelow

"A liberal is a man who leaves the room when the fight begins."- Heywood Broun

"A liberal is a man who will give away everything he doesn't own." -- Frank Dane

"I can remember way back when a liberal was one who was generous with his own money." -- Will Rogers

"A radical thinks two and two makes five. A liberal is more conservative. He knows two and two make four, but he's unhappy about it." -- Herbert Prochnow

"The only thing worse than a knee-jerk liberal is a knee-pad conservative." --Edward Abbey

[big Drink][hell no][big Drink]tongue.gif" border="0[big Drink]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice, Dwayner!

Actually, I think you like and need liberals. With whom would you argue if not them? tongue.gif" border="0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget "Environmentalists are the true conservatives." I can't remember the source of that quote, though. grin.gif" border="0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Dwayner:
Many countries do not have the social and political infrastructures to accept our "wealth". It often gets stolen, abused or neglected. I have spent years in such countries and concluded that sharing/throwing our resources at many places in the world is a total waste.

You are right, many countries do not have the social and political infrastructures to accept our “wealth”.

I served as a United Nations Volunteer in Mongolia. I was an advisor to a project called the “Decentralization and Democracy Support Project,” run by the United Nations Development Programme. The goal of the project was to increase participatory methods of self-governance and empower local government. Another goal was to direct aid money around the center and directly to where the people needed it. We also encouraged the creation of non-governmental organizations, what Americans call a 501© (3) , and hoped people would look to solve their problems without depending on a central government. We helped build infra-structure and increase communication. Our project was very conservative and should please all the Republican doubters. We taught a strong local government is better for the people.

So Dwayner I agree with you that the quality of government in many developing nations needs to be improved, but I think something can be done about it. There are, in fact, many people in the world trying to affect the development of social and political structures in the world. George Soros is perhaps the most famous.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwayner:
I believe that population control should be the first step. Although I think the Pope is a pretty decent guy, if I were him, I would have a revelation that birth control is mandatory.

Ouch Pope, what did you do to Dwayner? Population control is absolutely necessary. Here’s my opinion on it: give a rural Chinese or Indian or anyone for that matter 24-hour electricity and a television. People will watch tv and stop making love. Without a tv or books to read people get bored. They’ve got to do something. Do you know which channel they want to watch? It’s either CNN or the Discovery Channel. After that maybe it’s Baywatch.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwayner:
So how about this, bleeding heart alpinists....take the first step and redistribute the wealth...start by selling your climbing gear and sending the cash to your favorite program. I'd have more respect for that then the usual noise-makin!

I give my time to my favorite programs, and I think physically doing something for a cause is a more valuable contribution than just giving money. If It would make you feel better you can sell me some of your old pins and a rock hammer and then give me the money. [chubit]

Shalom, Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah Matt!!!! Discovery Channel before Baywatch any day. Why? Cause Discovery Channel has The Crocodile Hunter!

"Crikey, he's a big one isn't he. What a beauty! Watch this, he's going to lunge for my calf muscle now. Lots of flesh on that, that would make a GRATE meal for a rabid dingo!"

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: Dru ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice comments from Matt! Not the usual blather I expect when such topics come up. (I've spent too much time around the never-been-out-of-this-country, - daddy's-paying-my-tuition-at-the-expensive-private-school-and-my-ex-hippie-"Golden Age of the Sixties"-protesting-professor-taught-me-that-the-US-and-everything-about-it-sucks-college-brat/knuckheads.) Just a few last sprays:Despite the fact that the US is not without it's faults (I, for one, am embarrassed how we tend to export some of the disgraceful by-products of a free-society elsewhere, such as violent movies and junk television), the fact remains, the U.S. is STILL the most generous country on earth.. (And the West has been pouring untold billions of aid into such places as Afghanistan, Egypt, Sudan, etc. while the oil-rich countries in the region don't seem to care that much about their brethren, unless the US or Israel gets too involved. And then millions are sent to rodents like Bin-Loser.)You're right Matt...$$$ ain't enough, but it helps if accompanied by action.and, re: "Ouch Pope, what did you do to Dwayner?" I'm talkin' about the Real Pope, of course, not the climbing pal/smartass who posts on here who actually names himself after a sleezeball CIA agent by that name in the movie, "The Eiger Sanction".

And a Shabbat Shalom to all.- Dwayner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Dwayner:
the U.S. is STILL the most generous country on earth.
- Dwayner

You talking per capita, aid budget, charitable donations, total $$$ spent or what? This from a country that hasn't paid its UN membership dues in years?

[Wazzup]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wanna know why we haven't paid our UN dues in years? Because we get constantly screwed by ridiculous resolutions in the General Assembly year after year after year. It will be a cold day in hell when Togo and Paraguay dictate American economics and foreign policy the US. The UN is a great idea in theory, and is still worthwhile in many ways, but it's often not worth the abuse...and we've propped that place up for many years including hosting the facilities on our own soil. Secondly, in terms of generosity:

"You talking per capita, aid budget, charitable donations, total $$$ spent or what?

I don't have the statistics at hand but I believe we are the top giver in all of these categories as I believe we should be. If you've been blessed with a good life, I think you should pay a little back, and even though it's easy to be cynical about guy's like Billy Gates, at least he is pouring back BILLIONS into worthy causes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Dru:

You talking per capita, aid budget, charitable donations, total $$$ spent or what? This from a country that hasn't paid its UN membership dues in years?

[Wazzup]

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: trask ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why the discussion should deteriorate into such radical propositions, "US [i.e. capitalism] is..." or "US isn't...". Not many (in a calm state of mind) would argue agains free enterprise and market economics, or the good of civilized and well organized society.

Wherever we are, there are different ways of proceeding and that is the point of this discussion I thought. And there definitely exists a struggle between the greed of few and good for many. And any himan society has had and will for at least some time have a government, a controlling body. So the question is how liberal, by the words definition, the control is.

Don't make fools of yourselves dissing liberty. It is what allowed our country to be so great. Comparisons to police states are ignorant, sorry.

I don't want to ealborate any further, it is so obvious when one moves that gray matter. Just want to comment that Dwayner's quotes are out of context and inapplicable. Oh, and BTW, if it wasn't for liberties, Dwayner, you may have long be shot. This is the greatest country because of the degree of democracy and liberalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by W:
Fairweather- When you say "enviro" in the derisive sense of the word, are you referring to the EARTH FIRST! camp of eco-terrorists, and similar kind? Or is it, as I increasingly notice seems to be the case, a term that is used to describe anyone who does not agree 100% with the Cheney...I mean Bush...Administration's "environmental" policy?The way I see it, both sides are equally self-serving. I agree that many of the outspoken environmental organizations are tainted by political propaganda and personal self-serving control trips by liberal do-gooders, who are convinced that their way is the way for all, and will stop at nothing to impose their values upon others through regulations and bureaucratic red tape. On the other hand, since your view seems to mimic that of the current government's, the question I have for you is: Is it any improvement to put the future of our natural recreation places, and the health and cleanliness of our watersheds and our natural resources, in the hands of businesses whose chief aim is growth and profits? Surely you cannot be suggesting that any business, no matter their stated intentions, can put the interest of human betterment and right relationship above all else? That interest may and often does lie within their motives, but most often it is heavily subverted, very secondary to the bottom line of: the business comes first (read: "I" come first). So any action on the part of such a business is bound to be fragmentary- it benefits a group of segregated individuals (of one side or another, it doesn't matter which one), and if it benefits the whole it is often by circumstance and not by chief intent. The problem, then, is not businesses or corporate America, per se; the problem lies in the human trait of "me" and the propagation of the self through the running of businesses by individuals, and in it's interactions with society and the world- and the environment. There are two "I"'s dealing with the environment-keep in mind the following is, for illustration, a look at the extreme end of both: the business (right wing usually) "I" which seeks to profit from the environment, all the while justifying the usage and gross exploitation of the earth in the name of human needs; indeed there are human needs for our resources, but the culture we have created, from the top down, has resulted in one which plunders and recklessly uses these resources like there is no tomorrow- mainly, because there is no day like to today to make money. And it is in response to the base culture which encourages, in almost every facet, immediate gratification and self-promotion and assertion of our values and our lifestyles.The other "I" is the one that claims to "represent" the environment (left wing usually). This person's actions are wholly devoted to coming into conflict with anyone who disagrees with their stated and finalized, unbending stance on what is "right". Extreme activists in particular spend their energy sponsoring exclusory legislation which seeks to shape the actions, or non-actions, and personal freedoms of others through intimidation, stifling regulations, and laws. While some of this legislation does indeed "protect" the environment, the very enaction of it and the means in which "truth" has been imposed has shattered relationships and breeds further conflicts and opposition. These people do not actually do physical harm to the environment, and their actions have in many cases benefitted the environment, but in large part, they are not in fact at all concered with the environment in themselves. Their views are merely a public display of "me", and to ruthlessly propagate them upon the world is the same exact psychological process that the person who is devoted to money, and the art of making it, is undertaking. In all of this, there is regard for neither human relationship nor for the environment. There is merely an ongoing battle of ideologies and egos. So, sorry to digress, but Fairweather, your comments about sour grapes contains merit and absurdity all at once. Merit, in that many who are crying foul are indeed just mad that they are not getting their way. Absurdity, in that it presupposes that any business expansion and "improvements" are being done chiefly with the interest of bettering the lives of all. What I say might sound negative to you. Well, I say that one has to be able to identify false values before the individual, untainted discovery of true values can begin. The unfortunate impact in the meantime is that wild spaces are disappearing, and these places are not something that only a few people need. In fact, the connection with nature is something that a great majority of people have utterly lost, having been raised in the cities and having no conception at all of what undeveloped land looks like. The culture is all we see, and it shapes all that we are, and we are no longer living simply. Having a relationship with nature and recognizing that fundamental need in myself- I have to go away to wild places periodically. It is the only way I know how to prepare for meeting the crazy situations I encounter in the cities. We have developed our land to the exclusion of this relationship. Additionally, the developments in mountain areas are increasingly reflecting the false societal values- the skiing industry certainly does not cater to folks with lower or even middle level incomes. Building golf courses in the mountains? That would be fine, except that golfing also caters and appeals to a certain income level person. Yosemite Park is going out of its way to make it very difficult to go there are not spend any money (i.e.- go climbing there).The Access Fund is one of the few groups that I truly believe in- for they are a group of people who seem to be able to concern themselves with community, to deal with issues in a non-partisan and open minded forum that seeks to listen to understand rather than to assert. Until we can move beyond our own individual personal control trips in our relationships with one another, the environment will merely become an indicating factor of our health as a species. The whole world is basically at war, both abroad and at home. Why should the fact that wild places are disappearing come as any surprise?

W,

It may surprise you that I agree with about 98% of what you wrote. I am simply tired of hearing that "the sky is falling" and certain groups using this as justification for their social/political agendas.

Every religion seems to cry that "the end is near" and environmentalism is no different. Sad thing is, it just isn't true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Matt:

Why don't you crawl back into your cave of ignorance, Brian Rybolt. Why did you decide to hide behind the avatar of "Fairweather"? I am sick of your bullshit popping up all over this site.

Here's something to think about:

If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look something like the following. There would be:

57 Asians8 Africans21 Europeans14 from the Western Hemisphere, both north and south52 would be female, 48 would be male70 would be nonwhite, 30 would be white70 would be non-Christian, 30 would be Christian89 would be hetrosexual, 11 would be homosexual6 people would possess 59% of the entire world's wealth and all 6 would be from the U.S.70 would be unable to read50 would suffer from malnutrition1 would have a college education1 would own a computer

Brian Rybolt, you are in this village. You have EVERYTHING YOU WANT!!! You are the rich, white Christian hetro educated computer owning American. Why can't you share? We, as Americans, are the richest most successful people on the planet. We have a responsibility to our children to reduce our insatiable consumption of natural resources because we take too much! Our resources are finite! We waste too much! We have a responsibility to help those less fortunate because: (1) we can, (2) it is the right thing to do and (3) because it is in out own self interest to do so-- business operates in a global market. Stop distancing yourself from those people in "poor nations that are overpopulating the planet" and start thinking about them as your neighbor. Try and consider why you should help them. It is called civil society.

When you go climbing with a friend and he discovers on the top of the mountain that he forgot his lunch, what do you say? Sorry sucker watch me eat? I'll bet you share it with him.

You sound kind of angry. Settle down. By the way; what makes you think I'm white, christian, rich/have everything? Maybe you should look at your own prejudices and bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read a couple books recently that I think many of you who have posted would appriciate.

One book, Guns Germs and Steel, points out that it is an inevitable law, like gravity, that a culture that is more technologically advanced will overrun cultures that are less advanced. While there are horrible concequences that one can read about, like the europeanization of America; you can't avoid reality.

I've also read a book called Fast Food Nation, which will make you vomit when you read about meat packing, but it also brings up some interesting conclusions. The author points out a number of laws that should be inacted, but then he points out that in reality they will never be inacted due to presure from the meat packing and fast food industries. He concludes that the only effective way to make a change is for people to vote with their pocket books. All business follows the law that the customer is always right. So buy a smaller car or better yet one of these new hybrids, don't go to McDonalds or Burger King, buy the more expensive, "organic," meat, milk, ect, and try to consume less stuff.

I think Fairweather's views suck, but he is right that government regulation is ineffective and often bad.

Support politicians who subscribe to a more environmetally sensitive view, but vote with your pocketbook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Matt:

Why do you think they are so angry at America? What has driven them to think the only solution is terrorism? I think it's because they are losers in the global ecomomy. They see us as greedy and unwilling to share. It is a simple case of the haves and the have nots.

...I just can't let this one go unanswered:

Matt,you are an apologist for terrorist murderers. I don't care what your education/background is, what UN agency you've worked for, or what degree(s) you may hold. You need to reconsider this statement. I, for one, am proud to call myself an American.

You should also reconsider how you respond to those with whom you disagree. You do your causes and beliefs a great disservice when you come out with the big guns blazing in a personal attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fairweather you suck big time.

Yes Osama Bin Laden and his buddies are evil and should be wiped off the face of the planet.

But to subscribe to the view that we are good just because someone evil attacked us is wrong wrong wrong. I think you may have watched to much Star Wars as a child.

Osama is a meglomaniac. He just uses the bad points about the US and western culture in general to win support for his cause and inflate his ego.

Even if we hadn't been attacked the bad parts of our culture would still be there. We should be trying to improve our behavior and habits.

You and your buddy George W are just trying to preserve and protect the old school rich folks.

What we really need is new and inovative thinking not the same old bullshit, and you know what, I bet there is a lot of money to be made by people who can find new ways to produce stuff in a sustainable manor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AlpineK,

I will take a look at the two titles you cited if you agree to look at "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. This guy is a Dane professor of statistics who set out to flame the USA for not "toeing the environmental line" and for relying on bogus science to exempt itself from global responsibility.

Instead, what he found was that much of what we have been told is the truth in the media is not based on pure objective science, but rather at best an incomplete picture of the current state of affairs...and at worst, a litany of politically based untruths.

Might I also suggest an oldie; "Environmental Overkill" by the late Dixie Lee Ray. (My favorite Democrat...along with Norm Dicks)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F,

The first book I recomended isn't political in nature (as far as I can tell) it is does bring up some interesting shit on how us european types ended up on top of the heap.

The second does rag on republicans, however if the author had focused more on Chickens and the Tyson Co. he admitted he would have been ragging on politicians from Arkansas...democrats..Bill Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll second the "Guns, Germs, and Steel" recommendation (Pulitzer Prize winner for non-fiction in 1998 or so. The conclusions that the author, Jared Diamond makes will likely prove dissapointing to folks on either end of the ideological spectrum. Diamond dedicates a few hundred pages to proving that...

If you are a people who inhabit a region which supports very few productive cereal crops, has very few animals amenable to domestication, is geographically remote from other population centers and you don't trade much, and have been exposed to very few epidemic diseases in the course of your collective history (amongst other things) - the odds of you're being conquered are considerably higher than your beeing the conqueror.

Good read. BTW, The Economist magazine recently included a feature on Lomborg's book. The review was generally favorable. If anything, The Economist is a liberal (in the classical sense - think Jefferson if Classical liberalism is a foreign concept and you're getting warmer. If the term liberal conjures up images of statist socialism you're getting colder...)magazine with a perspective that usually places it a degree or two to the left of the US on environmental issues (That's usually where I end up myself most of the time, but not all of the time). They came out in favor of the Kyoto Accord and its ilk, for example. As commited liberal thinkers, however, they tend to listen when they hear a a persuasive argument to be found on the other side. Here's part of what they had to say.

Environmentalists tend to believe that, ecologically speaking, things are getting worse and worse. Bjorn Lomborg, once deep green himself, argues that they are wrong in almost every particular

ECOLOGY and economics should push in the same direction. After all, the “eco” part of each word derives from the Greek word for “home”, and the protagonists of both claim to have humanity's welfare as their goal. Yet environmentalists and economists are often at loggerheads. For economists, the world seems to be getting better. For many environmentalists, it seems to be getting worse.

These environmentalists, led by such veterans as Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, and Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute, have developed a sort of “litany” of four big environmental fears:

• Natural resources are running out.

• The population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat.

• Species are becoming extinct in vast numbers: forests are disappearing and fish stocks are collapsing.

• The planet's air and water are becoming ever more polluted.

Human activity is thus defiling the earth, and humanity may end up killing itself in the process.

The “litany” of environmental fears is not backed up by evidence

The trouble is, the evidence does not back up this litany. First, energy and other natural resources have become more abundant, not less so since the Club of Rome published “The Limits to Growth” in 1972. Second, more food is now produced per head of the world's population than at any time in history. Fewer people are starving. Third, although species are indeed becoming extinct, only about 0.7% of them are expected to disappear in the next 50 years, not 25-50%, as has so often been predicted. And finally, most forms of environmental pollution either appear to have been exaggerated, or are transient—associated with the early phases of industrialisation and therefore best cured not by restricting economic growth, but by accelerating it. One form of pollution—the release of greenhouse gases that causes global warming—does appear to be a long-term phenomenon, but its total impact is unlikely to pose a devastating problem for the future of humanity. A bigger problem may well turn out to be an inappropriate response to it.

Read the rest of the article and/or the book and see what you think.

The rest of the article can be found here:

www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=718860

Might be worth a read regardless of where you are coming from on the environmental front.

Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Fairweather:

...I just can't let this one go unanswered:

Matt,you are an apologist for terrorist murderers. I don't care what your education/background is, what UN agency you've worked for, or what degree(s) you may hold. You need to reconsider this statement. I, for one, am proud to call myself an American.

You should also reconsider how you respond to those with whom you disagree. You do your causes and beliefs a great disservice when you come out with the big guns blazing in a personal attack.

Brian Rybolt,

Attempting to imagine why people may have been motivated to attack America does not make me less of a patriot. A true patriot as well as a soldier will try to get in the mind of his attacker. “Know thy enemy and know thyself and in a hundred battles you will never be in danger,” says Sun Tsu. Yes, I think many people in the world do not love America and part of the reason is our wealth, part of the reason is our willingness to ignore what other nations believe and do whatever we like and part is the general frustration the world has with us because we’re so damn good at everything we do. It is complicated and deserves some serious thought, not just dismissed as “their problem.” We as a nation need to step back and say, “How can we change for the better?” I think, as President Bush had suggested, expanding the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and Freedom Corps (whatever this is) is a step in the right direction.

I found it personally offensive when you wrote earlier that we should use a nuclear weapon in Afghanistan. I find your conservative diatribe infuriating, but I do not know you as a person and possibly my anger has been misdirected. I do not have animosity towards you as a person, but I disagree with your beliefs. If you are going to keep making generalizations about “enviros,” “poor populations,” and what the Kyoto Protocol was really about then I will take any chance I can get to refute what you say in this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt,

I don't see YOUR last name used here. The fact that I omitted my full name from this site and changed it is of no concern to you. (In fact it is because of hotheads like you that I did so) The fact that you have taken every opportunity to use my full name leads me to believe you somehow feel you are intimidating or "exposing" me. Trust me; you're not. None the less, I believe common courtesy and board etiquette should compel you to respect my choice of "Fairweather".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×