mattp

Over the holiday I visited family in New Mexico and my brother and I were able to slip away for a couple days' climbing. This included a half day at Hueco Tanks and I was amazed to find climbs up to about 300' high. The rock at Hueco Tanks is absolutely amazing! It is not a big area for what the locals refer to as "roped climbing" and it is a pain in the neck just to get into the place but it is worth a visit if you are in the area.

Question for Jay: does the guy in the ferry booth earn $18+ an hour or is this like your bus driver example? I really don't know, but I'd be surprised (and agree with you that it is excessive) if that is the prevailing wage for toll booth attendants.

Anybody watching? There's a slice taken out of the moon right now.

What is this, Jay? "The mere mention of GWB?" If you want to talk about characterizations we could speculate about whether you are the type of guy who likes to take completely unfounded jabs at "liberals" just for fun or whether it is because you are a rude son of a bitch. But lets stick to the discussion, OK? If you are referring to my exchange with Fairweather, I think it was and is perfectly appropriate to ask him how he could call a statement made by our current President "thuggish" when he's been defending that bunch of crooks and liars for the entire time cc.com has been live. Back to the discussion: I don't think anyone here would argue that we should try to prevent Bill Gates from getting better care than a disabled coal miner. The question is whether the taxpayer or the general fund should pay for the higher level of care provided Gates. I did not mean to imply that I think we should make it illegal for Bill Gates to pay for extraordinary care. As to the system we now provide the poor? I agree that the rates of reimbursement are discouraging for providers, and that the system is not what it should be. I would favor revisiting the entire thing, and if higher taxes were required I would support that, too (I'm pretty sure they are if we are to cover everybody). I'd also suport a REAL discussion of the deficit, whiile we are at it.

I know you hate government, Jay, but check out the VA some time. Last I heard they actually deliver excellent care for the price and the old stories of rats in the national hospital are out of date. I haven't looked in to it recently, but I think that is what you'd find. Single (government) payor is probably, in my opinion, a better bet than having private insurance companies whose job it is to deny coverage in charge of anything related to health care. As to your other ideas, I couldn't for a minute agree that the more you make the more you should be cared for. That is just plain wrong. And, as to "third party payors," I'd have to agree that you are probably right that if we are not individually responsible for payment there will be at least some people who like attention or just like going to the doctor or who are hypocondriacs who will over-consume. I don't think that would pose a bigger problem than the current distortions, though.

Fairweather, I still disagree that it was "thuggish" to criticize a political institution in a political speech, and I'd also say that he actually voiced criticism for only that one decision though a much broader criticism of the court might actually have been warranted. Feel free not to respond any time you want but feel equally free to tell us how it was thuggish for Mr. O to do as he did and maybe you can fill us in on how the current leaders of the Republican party or the former president you don't like to talk about are not "thuggish."

JayB: I'm with you in thinking that a Congressional mandate for you and I to invest in private insurance is dubious at best. Would you think it better if Obama care had included a public option? I think the single payor model would have been best, but certainly there should be a public option, no? And what about the payment model? I think that the current "payment for procedure" way of doing business encourages fluff and waste. Do you agree?

Fairweather, I am (once again) disappointed that you refuse to talk about the issues but prefer personal attack. You brought the charge: Obama was thuggish in criticizing a Supreme Court opinion. Then you refused to stand by that charge. You said his criticism threatened the separate of powers doctrine. I stated that I disagreed. But the real point is this: Obama has been centrist and conciliatory toward the opposition. Even if you disagree with this statement, it is very hard to find any basis for calling Obama "thuggish." If you don't want to talk about your boy Bush, how about Boehner and McConnell, who have repeatedly stated that their highest priority was to defeat Obama and deny him any defeatable accomplishment rather than to actually try to do what was right on any given issue? A little bit "thuggish," no? How is it that you would label OBAMA as thuggish given the fact that his predecessor (who you defended at every turn) and the current opposition guys make him look like a lamb?

Fairweather, I answered your question straight on. You gonna tell us how you could support and defend Bush's "you're either with us or against us," his team's intimidation tactics, their promotion of domestic eavesdropping, torture, and all the rest of it but now think it is "thuggish" for a President to have criticized a Supreme Court ruling?

Fairweather, I realize that the commentators on FOX and at the Heritage Foundation were all up in arms about it but I don’t think it was quite that big of an outrage for Obama to criticize a Supreme Court decision - even in a State of the Union speech. And, while Obama took the first shot, Roberts in his follow up remarks criticized the President right back. While you may think these actions violate decorum I don’t see a Constitutional crisis inherent in either. Actually, I fear the Constitutional implications of the Citizens United decision more. And Assange? He’s an embarrassment, to be sure. But Bill is right he did not lie to take us into war and I, for one, am looking forward to his promised leaks about the banking industry.

For backcountry ski huts go to Canada. They are all over the place.

I've done that tour and also toured out via Shield Lake and Toketie. These are both good tours but skiing out snow creek and, even more so, skiing down the hill below Toketie, can be rather challenging.

If "calling out" the supreme court in a political speach is the act of a thug, what do you call "outing" a CIA agent to retaliate against her husband and intimidate other would-be leakers? Oh wait: you strongly defended your boy Bush and his team of freedom fighters in that matter. Obama's folks are children compared to your gang.

I have a crate full of gear for you. THis includes crampons, nuts, cams, and 'biners. I'd like to donate it in memory of an Index climber, in support of the Index Fund 2010 campaign (yes, we are near our fundraising goal but not quite there yet). Please send a private message.

What are you talking about, Fairweather? In 2010 he criticized the Supreme Court, but what was the separation of powers controversy in 2009? And thugs? He has continued the policies of your man, Bush, but how has Obama matched "you're either with us or against us" or championed domestic spying or, really, anything else "thuggish?" Obama's shortcoming, in my book, is that he hasn't been tough enough. If there was a public option, which he "bargained away," wouldn't any legal challenge to the requirement for the purchase of health insurance be weaker? Would your candidate McCain, and his sidekick Palin, be less "thuggish?" Really? How about John Boehner? Or ... you-name-the-politician...?

I don't know what you mean by "moderate," but the Spearhead Traverse, in the spring, could be a good three day trip that does not involve a lot of steep skiing or a lot of elevation gain. It can be done in a day, but you'd enjoy yourself on a "moderate" outing in three days if the weather was good. It is popular, though, so you might not want to select that particular objective if you are crowd adverse. The Pemberton Icefield, northwest of Whistler, is also good, high, and generally moderate terrain. There are traverse options with and without helicopter support but it is a more serious objective in a mountaineering sense. Depending on what you call "moderate" there is a lot of high alpine terrain around Pemberton and much of it is relatively gentle compared to the Cascades. For wooded terrain in western Washington, the high plateau north of White Pass is high, flat and full of lakes. You could probably figure out an extended trip there, maybe a loop or maybe something ending up on the 410. Mission Ridge to Blewitt Pass, largely on logging roads, is also a pretty decent tour. You'll be sharing some of it with snowmobiles, though.

I have a 2003 outback and it has been a good car. In fact, I'd say it has been great for the kind of all-around purpose you describe. I am 5'11 and can sleep in the back, it has pretty good cargo capacity, and it drives very well on gravel roads and on snowy roads. Clearance is not huge and it hangs over pretty far in front of and behind the wheels so there is some limitation when it comes to rough roads and water bars and such, as Larry is undoubtedly referring to. Gas mileage is not great but it's certainly better than an SUV.

I'm not following this discussion, but it is pretty interesting to see Obama blamed for the state of our economy, our troubles abroad, and the horror that is TARP.

That "T" slot technique looks OK, Mr. Feck, but more significant might be to pick a dig spot where the doorway will open to a slope such that whatever you throw out the front door will fall away without having to be moved by hand. Pick a dig spot that is on a steep cornice face, and not at the bottom of that face, or otherwise has a drop below it.

But: I don't smoke. I'm ready to cry, though.

I'm on your side, Summitchaser. Seriously. I am excited about climbing and you are excited about climbing and that is what cc.com is all about. Breath deep, step back a minute, and stick around.

Happy birthday, old man.

Really? So is it only State employees who you think have too good of a deal? Or only State taxes you don't want to pay? I'd guess that, on average, Federal employees have a lot better compensation package than State workers. I'd further guess that both you and Jay are equally disapproving of Federal as State employees and that you would argue for lower or certainly not increased Federal taxes along side State and other L-O-C-A-L taxes. However, either way, it is more or less the same "story." An anti-government smokescreen is built on misinformation. If you want to look just at the "issues" regarding State public employees let's look at Jay's "arguments" (I'll talk about him in third person since you seem to want to argue his case for him). Jay reports that bus drivers make 100k (they don't) and they work for M-E-T-R-O (or other local transit operations -- the S-T-A-T-E does not run a bus service). Jay reports that the Sheriffs refused to forgo the cost of living increases (he forgot to mention that all or most of the other County departments agreed to forgo them) but I should note that here we are talking about C-O-U-N-T-Y, not State employees. He also claimed or anticipated that no State agencies were actually going to honor the furlough days, and he was incorrect about that, too (these are S-T-A-T-E employees). Lastly, I don't know what to think about the P-O-R-T-of-S-E-A-T-T-L-E as an institution or whether their employees have a "good" or "bad" deal, but they certainly have never gotten much good press and they are certainly "government" employees or at least public sector employees but not "State" or "Federal" employees. So: although you may enjoy a good smirk, the "facts" are wrong, Jay's prior proclamation is nutty and he expresses a complete unwillingness to consider whatever may be the real issues involved:

I know you are not concerned, Fairweather. Neither is JayB. A combination of tax increases and cuts to social security, medicare/medicaid and military expenditures is needed for anything like a balanced budget yet Jay is focused on a smokescreen.

Jay, I agree with you that government employee salaries and other compensation costs comprise the lions’ share of most government agencies’ costs. That is clear and obvious. I don’t argue with the assertion that government employee’s unions are looking out for their members’ interests and that, further, the “pull” they muster is not necessarily in yours or my interest. But that is true of pretty much every “group” that is organized in the American economic and political landscape. Many people would argue that the pursuit of self-interest is synonymous with efficiency (are you among them?). However, you seem to have a fetish about public employees. You ask where I get this notion? By this I take it that you believe that no matter what else may be at stake you intend to stick it to the state workers. All that matters is that these government workers have an unfairly sweet deal and you don't care what the issues may be until they lose it. That is called "war."