mattp

I call bullshit. You have statistics and a link? Bring the facts, jack. Bill, subsidies come in many forms. For example, you may not consider it a direct subsidy but it was oil companies and tire companies who wanted the old Interurban that ran from Tacoma to Everett taken out so they could sell more gas and tires. That kind of influence continues, don't you think? Hell, the entire Iraq war was for oil, but even if you don't believe Greenspan on this point we recently won the long term oil contract for US oil companies. just a month ago Do you think taxpayers spend a few pennies working toward securing these contracts? Even lawmakers from both sides of the aisle recognize that we have subsidized oil companies, though I believe the 2007 energy bill eventually passed without that part of the legislation that would have ended certain tax breaks. Republicans fight to maintain subsidies For some more background, consider this: And ask yourself: do you think there is tax money that will be spent on encouraging domestic exploration and development? Of course. --- My point was, however, that canyondweller was nutty to suggest that the government should get the hell out of the way of the oil companies so they could bring us cheaper gasoline. Do you disagree? If anything, our government should take a much more active role in regulating them and steering our energy future toward better long-term solutions.

I don't 100% follow that, Bill, but it seems to boil down to the fact that you feel a guy who has been a senator forever is better qualified than one who is relatively new. Do I have that right? If so, I think this qualification cuts both ways. McCain may be better connected and may know better how the game is played, but that is not necessarily a good thing. If elected, Obama could end up relatively powerless kind of like Jimmy Carter was but on the other hand McCain is way more likely to just continue running the same machine and I don't like how things have been going.

My point is, Eric, you've called the article reported above "baseless" but have apparently failed to undertake any effort to determine whether it was baseless or not. It may have lacked depth, detail or citations, but it would only be "baseless" if it was not grounded in fact. Your post and follow up reminds me of Fairwaeather and KK spewing hogwash about "socialized medicine" in the healthcare thread, and then calling names/checking out of the discussion when I assert that they've misused the term. Is the article noted above "baseless" or not? (It may be; I didn't make the claim.) ... By the way: any presidential candidate who wants to focus on how to get out of Iraq is better than one who wants to stay there for 100 years. Properly inflating your tires is a lot better idea than drilling the coastline. Working toward universal healthcare coverage is a pretty good idea too. Trickle down economics has been proven a failure. Whether either of them can actually deliver on their promises, at least Obama is talking about how to make Americans other than the super rich better off and more secure.

Perhaps, ericb, but most of what was set forth above is verifiable. Run some fact checks: what can you find out about his grades at the Naval Academy? Did he crash 3 planes? What was his navy career? Did campaign finance reform succeed? What happened to his big tobacco bill? etc.

What does canyondweller say about this? Is it really only people who choose to spend their money unwisely or who have chosen not to work who have trouble paying for needed medical care? 2005 Article

Heres an editorial from NYT that makes some of the points I've been asserting here: 2007 Editorial Existing government run healthcare is very good and even the President seeks care at military facilities. Republican fearmongering over "socialized medicine" is complete baloney. Too bad so many right-leaning Americans, and it seems some of our astute friends here at cc.com, swallow a bunch of special interest generated sloganeering about socialized medicine without question.

Fairweather: you sound like KK again. We are not necessarily talking about having the government run all the hospitals and in fact I think few national politicians are considering that at all. In addition, it is anti-tax, anti-big-government and anti-welfare arguments that your favorite politicians use against providing funding for "social services" while proclaiming how patriotic they are in "supporting the troops." Walter Reed would be a better place if it was better funded. Bottom line. And your point about liability? Aren't you one of those who complains about frivolous lawsuits and supports tort reform? The insurance companies who pay the claims want REGULATIONS to protect their bottom line. I can't find the statistic right now, but yesterday I found an alarming number about the actual incidence of malpractice. How should this be addressed -- do you want more government regulation or are you in favor of maintaining personal responsibility through a civil liability system? And "socialized medicine?" Right now we lack a functioning private insurance system and the government ends up picking up much of the tab anyway - and we are not just talking about the uninsured. The indigent rely on Medicaid, the elderly Medicare, and the emergency rooms too are funded with government handouts. And where the government is involved, things mostly go pretty well as far as I can tell. Even though funding is not what it probably should be, the services provided by the Veterans' Administration are in fact pretty good. Walter Reed was a spectacular story because it was, well, spectacular. My older clients who use veterans services are grateful for everything they can get and I never hear them complaining that the quality of treatment is poor. They could use more services, though. In short: the private insurance industry has proven not up to the task of insuring Americans and government involvement in healthlcare has mostly been a big plus.

canyondweller, the truth is that we subsidize oil companies hugely and our government is run by and for oil companies way more than it should be already. And as to opening up domestic drilling, it is obvious that is just another give away to special interests and not the least bit in yours and my interest unless you own oil company stock. I understand you hate taxes and abhor welfare but such rhetoric really doesn't say anything in this discussion. What are you saying about infant mortality? Say what? By any standard we have the most expensive and pound for pound the least beneficial healthcare system in the world, and you don't want to consider improving it because that would be welfare? You insist "Don't say the "system" doesn't work; because it does for the majority of people invested in it" but the truth is it doesn't work for infants, working poor, even middle class folks who are self employed and have significant health problems, older people on a fixed income who do not health insurance subsidized for them because they worked for "evil big government." The system works very well for the people invested in it - especially the insurance companies and others alligned against healthcare reform. Who do you think is donating money to defeate any national dialog on the issue?

Spoken like a true conservative. The oil economy is working, too. So is our President. And I bet you hate taxes. My wife and I pay $8,000 a year for health insurance that doesn't cover dental or extended care, and we spent well over a thousand dollars for deductibles and uncovered services in the last year. Neither of us has been to the hospital for years, and the doctor's I've seen for recent back problems have ordered expensive tests that offered little chance of affecting their recommendations, they've been hostile to the idea of working with other practitioners or disciplines, and they've generally done little for me. Over the years, those who have been the most helpful - such as our chiropractors, acupuncturists and massage therapists - have frequently not wanted to deal with insurance because the insurance companies screw them over. When I was suffering severe muscle spasm's last year, I went to a clinic near my office and the doctor there wouldn't give me a simple prescription for a muscle relaxer. She must have thought I was a drug addict or something. Flexiril? C'mon. In the last year, my father in law was killed by malpractice at at a Seattle hospital. Our system "works" but it doesn't even come close to working well for me.

Spoken like a true conservative. The oil economy is working, too. So is our President. And I bet you hate taxes. My wife and I pay $8,000 a year for health insurance that doesn't cover dental or extended care, and we spent well over a thousand dollars for deductibles and uncovered services in the last year. Neither of us has been to the hospital for years, and the doctor's I've seen for recent back problems have ordered expensive tests that offered little chance of affecting their recommendations, they've been hostile to the idea of working with other practitioners or disciplines, and they've generally done little for me. Over the years, those who have been the most helpful - such as our chiropractors, acupuncturists and massage therapists - have frequently not wanted to deal with insurance because the insurance companies screw them over. When I was suffering severe muscle spasm's last year, I went to a clinic near my office and the doctor there wouldn't give me a simple prescription for a muscle relaxer. She must have thought I was a drug addict or something. Flexiril? C'mon. In the last year, my father in law was killed by malpractice at at a Seattle hospital. Our system "works" but it doesn't even come close to working well for me.

Silent Running is a great multi-pitch slab climb at 5.9. Pitch ratings are very reasonable (dare I say 'soft'?). Completely bolt protected though. Bring gear for the first and last pitches of Silent Running. The combination of 'Tlll Broad Daylight to The Kone, swithcing to the latter shortly after their shared belay is a good 5.9- route with bolted anchors. It is mostly bolt-protected, though.

I'm hurt, KK. I just asked you to explain what was the basis for your angry retorts and blanket statements and you call me names and tell me to piss off. Is this your idea of critical thinking?

Not a bad idea, but more "socialism."

now this is a load of shit. Yup. More thoughtless sloganeering. With the exception of a few high risk specialties such as OB, the cost of medical malpractice insurance is a tiny amount of the cost of running a medical practice and in fact even including these specialties, medical malpractice claims are a tiny amount of overall healthcare costs. Arguments about "frivolous lawsuits" are industry based hype, largely driven by insurance companies' greed. And the cost of medical malpractice insurance? It has been shown more closely related to what is happening in the bond market than to the rate of actual claims.

fits you well Damn. You really got me there. Your rhetorical skills are awesome, dude!

Weak. Maybe you should piss off.

Just to be clear: what is "socialized health care?" Who has recently proposed it for the U.S.? Answer that and then maybe I'll piss off.

This is a perfect example of thoughtless sloganeering. We're not talking about adopting "socialized healthcare" in the U.S. Maybe we should, but we are not. Not long ago, the French system was mentioned as a potential model but I don't remember anybody saying they want to adopt the system they have in Sweden.

Yes but that'd be "socialism."

High, I think dberdinka's basic premise is fairly sound though I would note that it is a whole different ballgame on those big peaks and our normal sense of "what is right" doesn't quite apply. "Up there," people routinely climb well outside any "safe" zone in terms of preparedness and teamwork doesn't work the same either. I suspect that most of us, if faced with a fixed rope high on K2 and the energy to climb it, would ascend that rope regardless of whether we had adequate skills or reserve to get back down in the event that it was not there for the descent. And once things are going wrong it all too often becomes every man for themself.

Bolted belays may offer a sense of security, but most of the time I'd say that it is actually the protection pieces that safeguard moves where you might actually fall that are the most important -- and far more important than, say, one of three pieces you probably installed at a belay. I have not paid careful attention to Accidents in North American Mountaineering for several years, but my bet is the number of belay station failures is pretty small compared to the number of accidents due to failing protection. A trad climb with bolted belays does offer some confidence and a cheaper and easier prospect of a retreat, though.

I didn't mean to sound as if I'm down on structured learning, but I just seem to hear a lot of folks suggest it is irresponsible to go out climbing without more formal instruction, and once a week we read about how it is absolutely essential that every rock climber practices how to escape the belay or whatever before they ever consider leaving the ground. We also see folks complaining that this or that curriculum was inadequate or so and so was an irresponsible party leader because "what if something had gone wrong." In my own case, I'm pretty sure some folks around here would say I was irresponsible to take an inexperienced climber on a multipitch climb, and to lead technical rock, without a qualified belayer.

It is common for people to overestimate the steepness of snow and ice. Standing on an actual 45 degree slope feels damn steep and unless you've done a lot of high angle ice climbing it is difficult to tell yourself it isn't much steeper than that. An old standard formula is to take the angle that you think it is, cut it in half, and add ten degrees.

Yesterday, I took a cc.com poster to Index for his first rock climbing outing and after we were through I told him: a day or two of further instruction and some time spent fooling with the gear and I’d say you could take on moderate rock climbs with a reasonable margin of safety. Nuts or not? Some folks like to practice and study to death these days and others prefer to just do it. My new friend has been heading into the mountains on his own, with companions that have little experience, and he’s been able to do some pretty good climbs including Sahale Peak. He and his pal read Freedom of the Hills and then taught themselves how to do self arrest, practicing it forwards and backward, and they’ve been doing some moderate snow climbs but have avoided glacier travel because they recognize their lack of experience. This guy’s read Freedom of the Hills and John Long about rock climbing and without any instruction from me he knew how to jam and what was needed for a good belay anchor. He nearly got one of my cams stuck but was it his fault or mine - placing an expensive gizmo in a location where it could get over-cammed if not taken out just right? He’s been practicing his knots and knew the figure eight, double fisherman, how to properly coil a rope. He’s been bouldering at UW rock a fair bit. Yesterday, we climbed two routes in the Great Northern Slab area, and I opted for routes that I could have solo’d because my partner had never belayed before and I didn’t want to take the time to practice belaying sufficiently that I’d have real confidence in his belay – and just how much confidence should I have in a first-time belayer anyway? But he handled the rope just fine as far as I could tell, and he completed two rappels without any problem (I belayed him as he rapped on a single line and then I tied the two ropes together to rappel as I normally would). He’s going to take a rock climbing seminar at the end of the month, and I don't know the curriculum but I bet they'll teach him how to escape the belay and practice "building an anchor" and I hope they'll spend some time on gear placement. I told him that after that he’ll probably be fairly well-prepared to take on some easy climbs. I warned that learning what constituted a solid placement of gear, how to deal with loose rock, and routefinding are more advanced skills that one only learns with experience and he should seek opportunities to climb with more experienced climbers rather than team up with his inexperienced friends at first, but can’t somebody with basic common sense and a minimal foundation go out and enjoy the hills? In my years of climbing I have not observed that those who slowly progress through a structured climbing curriculum come out of it showing any clearly greater margin of safety or good judgment than those who are motivated to seek out opportunities to climb with more experienced climbers and study up and practice on their own.

Nice post, Bill. Most of the time, those who proclaim "all politicians suck" or "government is not the answer" or "corporations are evil," are tossing about slogans that largely amount to an excuse not to actually think about something. I think you are right about how politicians often start out with some integrity and laudable goals that can get hijacked as their political career unfolds. Certainly, those attracted to and who do well in politics may have certain traits such as an ability to speak out of both sides of their mouth at the same time and an inclination to seek power or attention, but I'm betting both Obama and McCain at least started out thinking they were trying to do something positive. Having said that, I share some of your cynicism at this point - certainly Obama has proven himself willing to pander to the masses just as McCain has. Take this oil reserves idea for example: why the hell would we tap into what are held for a serious national emergency just for a short term bump in oil prices? But McCain? The gas tax holiday was completely nutty and the suggestion that normal Americans other than stock holders will benefit from granting more opportunities to American oil companies is just plain stupid.