Jump to content

mattp

Members
  • Posts

    12061
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mattp

  1. I was against the Iraq war even before Saddam attacked us on 911, but at this point I'm wondering: is it really a good idea for the Democrats to work so hard to pass legislation with a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq? I think it is a valid that some complain how politics and pork are being traded for a Congressional mandate. I wonder, too, if this deadline for withdrawal is a good idea anyway. The whole thing is rather complicated, but on the face of it there certainly is some reason to think that bad guys might just decide to lay low for a while and pop back up after we are gone and, similarly, the Democrats are playing into the hands of those who say politicians should not micromanage a military effort. Lastly, they are setting themselves up to be criticized as "weak on defense" just as they were for 25 years after the Vietnam war. It seems to me the Dems would do better to rally around the bypartisan report and focus on drawing the rest of the world and in pariticular the rest of the region into an effort to resolve problems in and around Iraq, to work on homeland security, and -yes - to look for a way to bring our boys home but not necessarily with a Congressionally imposed deadline that is fixed around the election schedule rather than any military or in-theatre milestone. Shouldn't we be talking about how America so willingly followed our President into this mess? Shouldn't we be talking about whether we as a nation want to continue with unilatteral cowboy politics and ends-justify-the-means tactics, or whether the U.S. might be able to step up to the plate and take a stand for freedom, democracy, deplomacy, and all that stuff we were told about in kindergarten? The democrats are just pursuing more of the same, and I'm afraid they are wasting an opportunity to really take a stand for something and move the ball forward. They are probably going to waste their subpoena powers on short therm political hay, seeking to "expose" as many White House staffers as possible without ever addressing how the system is set up. Sad.
  2. Right on, Mr. Fox. Set up a fake olyclimber is in the hospital thread, using an anonymous avatar to rip off the generous hearted among the cc.com community. How much has Steven Seagal kicked in? (Just in case Mr. Fox is for real: get better Porter!)
  3. I've been using a pair of stubai strap-on's for just about everything except waterfall climbing for several years. Pro Mountain Sports has them in an aluminum model, and the shop owner swears they are just as good as (but lighter than) my steel pair. Either way, these are an excellent choice for general use as they fit any boots. I've even used them on sneakers, though I don't recommend such a combination. (By the way, they are "ten point" crampons but the front points are horizontal enough to facilitate ice climbing and I've climbed water ice as well as moderately steep alpine ice with them.) promountainsports.com Most standard mountaineering routes around the Northwest are not very demanding as to boots. On most any given outing after mid-June, you'll spend most of your time on dry ground and in the summer, at least, it doesn't get cold. What you really want for the standard routes on glacier clad peaks in the Cascades is a pair of heavier than average hiking boots (these will kick steps better than lighter boots), but something that doesn't have too high of a cuff. You could probably rent a pair of plastics for that Rainier climb where your hiking boots are likely to get wet and remain that way.
  4. Here are a couple. Grand Ledge, Michigan, with RR's and hand-tied diapers, 1973. Pancake Pinnacle, North Cascades, 1977. Check out the axe! South Face of Washington Collumn, Yosemite, with painter's pants and hand tied etriers, 1979.
  5. Neuroscience aside, I'm not sure I'd argue that we should treat criminals as not being responsible for their actions. However, for thirty years I've frequently heard criminologists and police officials saying that increasing the severety of punishment doesn't produce much deterrent. In general, criminals don't think they are going to get caught or they just don't think about long term consequences.
  6. Peter won't do this because that would be "Nazi like." We were talking about birkenstock wearing idealists intervening in Mexican politics, but in the "poor love Walmart" thread he argued strenuously that it was elitist and Nazi of me to suggest that people who care about an issue - and I was using U.S. automobile safety and air pollution control as examples - should study that issue, reach a conclusion, and try to influence politics to bring about a change in a law that affects others.
  7. It is the footwear that makes the whole thing invalid. They wear Birkenstocks for Christsake! If the American Enterprise Institute takes the opposite stance, it is totally valid.
  8. First of all: F*CK YOU. You complained that I was flippant in my first post responding to Jay, but you have gone out of your way to include smarmy insult or innuendo in most if not every post. Second of all: I see where you are going with the above. Pollution controls certainly increase the cost of doing business. This may in some cases lead to a reduction in business activity or higher prices to consumers. However, I'm not sure the cause and effect relationship is always as you have described. For example, there is a profitable industry associated with environmental clean up and installing scrubbers and etc. and while some industrial operations have closed or shrunk as a direct result of environmental standards, I'm not entirely sure of the net affect on tax base or productivity. In addition, the higher cost of a refridgerator that results from environmental regulation is certainly reflected in the purchase price, but one could say this may only be reflecting the fact that some of the externalities are now includeld in the price. And as far as I know, Amana and GE are doing OK.
  9. Ok, Jay. Where you been? I would agree in principal that consumers should not be subject to regulations that force them to pay “artificially high” prices for the things they need. I’m afraid we’ll disagree until the end of time about whether standards applied to US markets in necessities – stuff like food and clothing – impose “artificially high” prices. For example, I bet you’d say that rules regarding flame retardant baby clothes or labeling standards for food or a myriad other things are anti-competitive impediments foisted upon business and that these kinds of requirements create artificially high prices. If not these particular regulations, we could easily find others. I can’t fully figure out what you are saying about externalities in your second paragraph. I agree that the merchant has a right to a law saying shoplifting is illegal. I agree that we should be free to do anything that doesn’t injure someone else or infringe on their rights, but I would include indirect but demonstrable harm among the externalities that generally require some kind of disclosure and maybe regulation. I also think that businesses do not and should not enjoy the same "rights" as individuals. Because it is an artificial entity, the owners of a Corporation get built-in liability protection. Business also gets a great deal of support from the State - whether it is the provision of utilities and a legal system way beyond what normal "consumers" require, direct tax breaks, or indirect subsidies, or ... (on and on). The externalities associated with many buiness operations are way more damaging and certainly more remote than those stemming from a neighborhood of consumers: the increased nitrogen flowing into the nearby river or the CO2 and particulates heading into the sky from 100 chimneys, the toxic waste from discarded florescent lights or the additional burden placed on local public health resources. Here I am sure we disagree, but I believe that regulations are absolutely necessary in most business activity and the net effect is positive even though many business regulations are certainly clumsy or imprecise. I also believe it is fair to regulate business. We subsidize business activity at virtually every level from the kid mowing yards to Boeing, and there is nothing wrong with requiring the kid to use weedkiller properly or to dispose of his clippings or his crankcase oil in a responsible manner. Similarly, it is fair to require Boeing obey labor standards, comply with environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc.
  10. Peter, this is painful. I wouldn't even bother with you if I wasn't stuck at home with a bad back and getting bored. Where have I ever expressed contempt for the little guy or businessmen? Is it contemptful to suggest that the little guy is unlikley to spot many of Prole's externalities by the very nature of the fact that they are externalities? Is it wrong to suggest that there may be cases where our leaders should in fact ignore the will of the people? I believe you may be against nationalized health care while the polls favor it. Would you have our leaders obey "the will of the people?" Or 911: many Americans wanted blood after 911, and they really didn't care if it was in any way likely to reduce terrorism or make us more secure - they mostly wanted us to punish Afghanistan. I believe over half were in support of invading Iraq, too, at least in part because they had been lied to, but that is another old argument we've had on this board. You might have thought it was pretty cool; I think it was a big mistake. History will tell, but I hope our President and his buddies talked about whether or not it was a good idea and not "what do the polls say" went they sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. And what is this elite I so wrongly venerate? Experts? If you want to learn about the issue of automobile safety you consult with people who study the matter. Years ago, this included Ralph Nader, who many regard as nothing but a crackpot and whose book "unsafe at any speed" was largely debunked although I think some of that has since been vindicated. However it also included a whole lot of people who were a lot less self-promoting and more cautious in their conclusions. It also included the auto makers, but I certainly wouldn't want our lawmakers to have relied primarily upon information coming from automakers proclaiming that the American industry would be crippled by the enactment of safety standards. Is that contempt for business? I tried for three or four posts in a row to get you to tell me how it was that you think I'm a nazi and what did Coase's thoerem have to do with this. It takes a lot of effort to get you to say what you mean, and meanwhile you call me names and I return in kind. This is nutty. Heil Hitler.
  11. I hate to break it to you, PP, but I just looked back at the post in question. After all of this discussion, I still can't understand it. Not your first rebuttal paragraph, anyway. In the second I still see that you think I'm a Nazi. I'm left wondering: do you really believe that it is Nazi [facisism] for a group that may not be composed of those most directly affected to study an issue and try to impact public policy with respect that issue?
  12. Now here's something I almost actually would agree with, though it is not exactly the way I put it. How else do you explain anybody but a millionaire who has lots invested in oil ever having voted for Bush? And thanks for finally explaining what the mandarim class and Coase's theorem have to do with what I wrote. However, you still seem to misunderstand: I did not there nor anywhere else have I stated that the only way externalities are going to be taken into account is if intellectuals and civil servants work together to do something good for "the people." I DID say that understanding the cause and mechanisms of acid rain, or the safety benefits of seat belts, came about through the work of "experts" or something like that, and that government intervention was required or I don't think any corrective action would have been taken. I believe this is true. (Do you disagree?) I suggested it could similarly be true that the impacts of Walmart are not visible to the casual observer, either, and it may also be that just as the oil companies, auto manufacturers, power companies, etc. have done in the past, those evil Walmart perpetrators may actually be trying to hide real externalities. I also said that, if JAYB's consumer cared only about price the way he asserted they did, they might not look at externalities even if they were about to bite them in the face. I did not say the combined efforts of intellectuals and bureaucrats is the only basis for public policy changes -- in fact I would argue quite the contrary. For example, consumer boycotts have been effective in more than one instance. Political campaigns that involve little active input from either intellectuals or bureaucrats have been effective in other areas. Lastly, while I agree with you that it looks as if nobody in power wants to change the fact that we have a bunch of short sighted voters deceived by the moneyed class and dishonest politicians making decisions based on their own need for money, this doesn't mean to me that we should not try to bring about a change. I'm hungry for some curried tofu now - what about you?
  13. Hey Peter: remember way back about three posts ago when you came up with this madarin class of intellectuals issuing decrees from on high or whatever it was? Did I say anything about that? Even close? Nope. Remember your wandering paragraph about Coase's theorem (the point of which I'm still unclear about, by the way), concluding that "you know - externalities are not unique to free markets" or whatever it was? Did I ever say externalities were a biproduct of a specific economic system such as capitalism? Nope (they are a biproduct of economic activity, though, are they not?). I'm calling these straw men, but I suppose you could spit hairs and call them something else -- what used to be your favorite term - a "canard." By whatever label, you are arguing against points I had not made. Now you're getting all huffy because you believe I returned argument in the same fashion. Sorry, but I re-read some of it three times and I honestly cannot follow some of what you've posted. And when I ask for clarification, you step aside and reply to yet some other point. Again: What is the significance of Coases' theorem if it is not somehow related to the idea that if we could only define the market rights and arrange for Prole's externalities to have assigned values or at least labels so they could be given values through "free trade?" And also again: wouldn't this involve market planning, and a close working between government and industry, that you've said is Nazi material? How does this wonderful economic analysis of yours move the ball forward when we are talking about whether or not Wallmart will be good for Mexico?
  14. From the add, it looks as if that would be worth sitting down with some popcorn. Freemarketman is going to save the world!
  15. Peter: you make my head hurt! I wasn't talking about Szechwan Chicken or Tandouri Duck - I was describing one aspect of the manner in which a great deal of social policy takes shape whether the remote nazi's are the Sierra Club or your favorite free-market think tank. My point was that JayB's criticisms of the birkenstock crowd's efforts to bring attention to the evils of WallMart is founded at least as much and probably more so in the fact that he has set up a cast of cartoon characaters and has disdain for their values and conclusions as it is with the fact that they don't live in small town Mexico or whatever. My problem with your harping on Coases' Theorem is that it adds way too little to this discussion to merit our dwelling upon in for 2000 words. I know that we've tried market trading of "credits" as one means to address pollution or the utilization of airspace above buildings, but such efforts have been relatively few and their applications have come where we had a great deal of information and undertook a bunch of planning and discussion in setting these systems up. Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't Coases' theorem useful here only to the extent that it makes a rhetorical point for you? Surely you are not suggesting thse kinds of credits be employed as the exclusive, or even a primary method, for setting public policy? Whatever they may be, you're not arguing that we could identify every specific beneficiary/victim or calculate the cost basis of all WallMart's "faults" and "ill effects" -- or are you? Your complaits about the Peking duck are just more of JayB's stabs at birkenstocks. You love to come out with the latest study from the Enterprise Institute or wherever - if I recall correctly you even once posted a link to Drudge or somebody who proved that Iraq attacked us on 911. And you constantly suggest we should discuss these important findings. I can only assume you would want policymakers in Washington DC to consider these same souces or why are we talking about them here? So which is it: can people study issues and present ideas about public policy without being Nazis? Yes or no?
  16. Peter, I think we’re going in the wrong direction here. You are knocking down straw men I can’t even see, but they appear to be located further and further from what we were talking about and your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous. Coase’s Theorem? Whatever. I’m sure you can refer me to volumes of great stuff to read about this and I have been having trouble sleeping lately so maybe it would help. But what are you really saying here: if Prole’s alleged “externalities” were definable somebody could design a complex set of property rights in some kind of matrix that would result in all these factors going away at minimal cost? Who would do this if it were not a team of your Nazi guys who don’t care what “the people” think? Or are you suggesting that there be a Mexican national election on whether or not to set up Coase’s Theorem trading credits, and there is a checklist of 800 potential credits and offsets based upon a proposed 12,000 page field manual written by “the committee” and the voters can vote up or down on each of these potential credits and offsets? And what is this mandarin dialect you are speaking? I can‘t really follow your logic all the way through, but you seem to be saying there is something wrong with folks studying issues, formulating recommendations, promoting those recommendations through some kind of political process, and having elected representatives set policy or legislation based on information rather than bribe and direct personal gain. If that is NAZI like, I’ll take the Nazi method over your Ayn Rand method any day. I believe in our political system, at least to a large extent, and I think it is OK that people who care about an issue work to influence regulations and public policy. I'll seek to elect representatives who say they want to clean up our environment or who don't think America should be known as the biggest bully in the world and expect them to vote for laws that will curb emissions or toxic waste or to vote against the next war powers authorization when some cowboy clearly has a hard on for the biggest pile of crap we could possibly dive into. I'd rather do this than to place my trust in some hair-brained scheme of credits that nobody but an ecoomics professor with a supercomputer can ever hope to understand -- and by the time Mr. Labcoat figures out how to correct an error in the initial allotment calculations we could have replaced the EPA leadership ten times already or voted the cowboy out of office. Oh, and where in a single one of my posts did you see I ever said that "the popular vote can't even be considered?"
  17. Peter. I would certainly agree that externalities are not exclusive to free market economies. That is blatantly obvious from my above-cited examples of the personal automobile or coal-fueled power generation. China is one of the worst examples of this. SO here you state the obvious and rebut some claim I never made. For your second trick, .. well what is your second trick? You mention two sentences but highlight three. I think you don’t like my suggestion that remote people with time and money to study issues may be more likely to identify externalities than Joe blow consumer ... or is it the idea that government intervention might be needed to encourage automobile makers or coal-fired power utilities to clean up their act? I certainly didn’t suggest any alliance of corporate control with governmental regulation, as you claim I did. But I guess if not a Nazi you’d find some other cute name for me anyway because we all know that you think government regulation is anathema. But just how do you think cars would ever have gotten seatbelts or emission standards without groups of experts waging campaigns and getting the attention of government representatives who DID THEIR JOB?
  18. Jay, I guess your economic theory professor has never told you about the tragedy of the commons. Look it up some time. The very nature of many devastating free market "externalities" is that they are disperssed and less directly recognizable than any one consumer or voter can recognize. The driver of an automobile or consumer of electricity has no way to observe their contribution to acid rain and global warming, but only scientists can figure out the relationship. The purchaser of an automobile, guided by your "poor Mexican" principal of seeking purchasing power above all else, will not likely vote in favor of emissions regulations that drive up the cost of purchase, and the consumer of electricity will not vote against coal plants for this reason either. In both cases, the industries have lobbyists deliberately preventing the flow of information back to the consumer/voter, but the impact of the technology remains clear. The only way anything will EVER be done about these technology impacts is if "smart people" "in power" "thousands of miles away" who are likely "infinitely beter off" than the poor Mexican or even middle class American driver or power consumer, and who know "nothing about an individual driver's "particular circumstances" can read and digest the information despite the efforts of industry lobbyists. Not only must these peoplle who you suggest have no right to intervene invest time and money to actively study the problem, they've got to then distribuite the information, take on GM or the Power Companies through a publicity campaign such as the WallMart effort that you find so distasteful, or maybe if they are elected representatives DO THEIR JOB and take action based upon a perception of the common good rathern than upon corporate earnings and election contributions. I'm not a real Wallmart hater, though I'd have to say I've never even been inside one because I read bad things about the "externalities" and I wouldn't want to go somewhere that doesn't sell birkenstocks even though I don't wear them anymore. That and I don't go to the suburbs to do my shopping. In Seattle, we have Costco, Trader Joes, and Value Village. Rather than drive to Lynnwood, I bought some cheap undies at Ross Dress for Less the other day. My guess, and this is only a guess, is that there is something behind all the anti-Wallmart venom. There may be some distortion, too, but I bet they deserve their bad rap. And the fact that they can't directly debate some of the points brought up against them is why they engate in the "green" or "charitible" marketting campaigns once in a while rather than encourage real discussion of the economics of their business - with actual discussion of relevant factors including Prole's "externalities." Criticized by a vaguely similar armchair populist movement, even Microsoft has been a little more forthcoming about responding to allegations that they are anticompetitive, haven't they? Gotta go do a bong hit, re-allign my crystals, and meditate now. Talk to you later.
  19. Just for old times, Pope, I'll engage a step further. Your post sounds good, but I have two big problems with it. These are central to your criteria. Let's take #1. You say the new climb climb must "need" bolts to link natural, protectable features. I ask: what is "need?" I can comfortably run out moderate slabs (say up to 5.8) where it sometimes virges on soloing, but other folks who climb 5.11 freak out on this. Another guy is more comfortable with actual holds, and feels I overbolt a bit of steep terrain where a fall, however unlikely they feel it may be, will yield a leg-breaker. What is "need?" And for #2. The new climb uses only bolts but "remains bold" and climbs a line that features "exceptional climbing" ... Just what is this "bold" quality that you speak of, and what exactly is "exceptional climbing?" Having "come of age" at a similar time and aspiring to and actually climbing many of the same climbs, there is a good chance that you and I would largely agree about both these assesments when it comes to any particular climb, but I bet too that our assesments here are not mainstream by today's standards. Does this give you and I the license to go out chopping? Like I said, I bet you and I agree more than we disagree about "kids these days" or whatever it is. We've talked about climbing the Half Dome original route together, and not the Leaning Tower or the latest aid climbing sensation and I don't think either one of us is going to climb the "traderoute" Chronic at Little Si. Our "top ten" list for crag climbs in Washington probably shows some overlap. But I'm saying that I don't think you or I have the right to impose our standards here on other climbers. As long as these wreckless vandals you have so much contempt for do not go out and bolt Outer Space, but develop new climbs instead, I commend you for putting up the good fight and all but I don't think you've necessarily got the moral high ground. And you know what? I actually enjoy sport climbing some times. I'm sorry you can't enjoy it.
  20. heh heh. I can't read PP's article right now (actually gotta get some work done) but could it be that intellectuals are disproportionately anti-capitalism because they read and think about the issues? (After all, that is what intellectuals do that makes them intellectuals.) Maybe capitalism is just plain stupid!
  21. There you go. The Compressor Route is only 48 years old.
  22. Isn’t it the same in this country? A large number of economically disadvantaged voters (we don’t have poverty in America) are routinely convinced that tax breaks for the super rich are going to help them, even though trickle on economics has been shown as bunk, and elitists intellectuals are saying these economically disadvantaged Americans have been misled. I don’t know the “truth” about Wallmart, but it is certainly feasible that the “externalities” outweigh the extra purchasing power that JayB thinks is so great, and it is also possible that Tvash is correct that poor Mexicans will not be shopping at Wallmart as much as JayB suggests. But of course, only an intellectual would actually try to look at the information before driving home their political message - that is the root definition of the word “intellectual.”
  23. It is not a big room, and there are no real visual blocks, so I think one screen is probably sufficient, Ketch. If you had another at the other end of the room, nobody would probably complain, though. The bigger issue, in my opinion, is sound. We've had a fairly full venue the last few years, and people have been frustrated when they wanted to present a long narrative and some members of their adoring audience wanted to continue with a conversation. My own answer to this has been to put captions on my slides or to try to make presentations that require minimal narrative. This is really a celebration of cc.com and we hope it will allow folks who may otherwise interact through a screen name on the Internet to actually meet and greet each other. For sure, some stories will be enjoyed and some folks may have some great things to say, but I think the evening and the event will generally be served well if at least some of the presenters don't feel compelled to narrate to any great extent. That's just my idea though - anybody else have thoughts on this?
  24. A swipe at the ivory tower gone bad? March 7: Marine Cpl. Matt Sanchez was honored at CPAC with an award and got a photo with Ann Coulter. He has another career as an adult film actor. "Countdown" gets the scoop.
  25. To me, the Compressor Route has far greater historical significance than some previously unlcimbed side of Monkey Face or the previously unbolted state of a popular route at Little Si, Pope, but you are right that the practical reality for us here in the Northwest is that local practices have a greater impact on our climbing experience than what somebody did on Cerro Torre in 1959. However, you also reference another significant point: those on all (both?) sides of this argument seem way too often to adopt one-sided applications of what what they define as "core" or "guiding" principals in this or that discussion. Take the first ascent rule. We often see sport climbing critics say the style of the first ascent must be respected and only the first ascensionists have the right add bolts to a climb. However, these sport critics frequently jettison this rule when it comes to routes established in a style they don't appreciate or when it comes to cases where the actual first ascensionist came back and added bolts these sport climbing critics deem unneeded. And I'm sure you have thought about this, but why is it that only the first ascenionist has a right to add bolts to an existing climb, but anybody who wants to chop bolts has the right to decide which ones to chop? Or how do we or who decides which ones to chop? These "principled" arguments against bolts are at least as self-serving (more so?) as the poster who values the historical significance of what you suggest is a bolted atrocity and may have failed to appreciate the historical significance of the fact that routes at many of our traditional crags were previously developed (mostly and sort of) from the ground up. (Previous discussions around here have shown that the actual on-the-rock practices you advocate were less consistently applied than you suggest but the ideals were certainly there.) The Compressor Route? I think the whole thing makes good spectacle - the climb, aftermath, and critique have been entertaining all of us for nerly 50 years. It also makes good fodder for argument, and there is plenty of reason to take issue with this or that statement published here or there. I don't know enough about it to argue whether I think the route should go or stay. I have no idea what percentage of climbers make the ascent by that route, and how it may impact the experience of those who attempt other routes by changing the overall number of climbers on the mountain or the actual or perceived commitment faced by those who attempt the summit. I agree with those who argue that Cerro Torre doesn't "need" those bolts, such a route probably doesn't belong there, and I bet some are arguing the route lures the unqualified or undeserving - but these are highly subjective and maybe self-serving arguments that I don't think constitute the end-all of discussion. My guess is that climbers headed to Patagonia will adapt their plans either way and the mountain itself will remain the majestic icon that it is. To me, the interesting thing is the manner in which we elect to have this argument. Rhetoric vs. reality, practical vs. ideological, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...