W

If you say no, we'll invade. No one can stop us now that Henry Rollins joined up:

Or perhaps their reading comprehension is lacking:

Asura- Lost Eden HUVA Network- Distances Also, a new affinity for some old favorites: Radiohead- The Bends Massive Attack- Mezzanine

That would, I think, again be only a change of state of matter. The theory if I recall is that the amount of matter in the universe is fixed, it is all about what state it is in. I'm no physicist, however... That's tricky; who is this entity that is letting go of the desire? And is it letting go in order to gain something- to gain the state of non-desire? Which the current being sees as desirable? A few who've taken it further than the Buddhists will say that being truly free of desire is entirely a matter of full awareness of the workings of your own mind- and cannot be attained by any conscious action to change those workings. The awareness itself creates the insight.

Respectfully: Have you, or anyone else, seen this creator? What do you know of him (her? it?). Have you directly experienced it? On what basis can we undeniably establish this creator as authentic? To what extent could our experience of the creator be a product of our conditioning? I am offering a mere supposition on the possibility that this creator is simply a construct of the human ego's craving for permanence and security. That comes without rejecting the possibility that something or someone did create life. Have you experienced life from the perspective of a dog's mind? Or a fish? How do you know what consciousness is for other living things? A dog clearly has a consciousness of itself on some level, in that it knows it's a dog, it relates to each species in distinct ways. Most animals seem to be far more in tune with their instincts and intuitions that humans, actually. This "higher deeper reality": What makes you so sure that this is not an invention of our mind? Does this really exist, or does it only have validity within the context of the individual? Surely the individual word on this matter is not applicable to all of humanity? Therefore it is fragmented and incomplete! I have to wonder if THE GAME you speak of is nothing more than a contrivance based on a quirk of nature that is our mind's ability to be self-aware. Without condemning it outright, it is not necessarily good or something that makes us "more intelligent"... it is what it is. What is a soul, then? The matter that composes all things is permanent, but it is never in a permanent state. Your cells are in constant change; in some respect you are not the same person you were 2, 10, 20 minutes ago. Memory attempts to hold us in place, yet even that can be witnessed as futile.

Is it? Are we so important that some being with conscious thought had to have created us? I'm not saying there is or is not; but the mind's ability to contrive, including the concept of something greater than one's self, is boundless. Are you sure that the concept of the 'creator' is not possibly the ego's ultimate projection of itself- all powerful, all knowing, owning and ruling over everything? The end goal of desire? We are probably the only species that spends its lives endlessly torturing ourselves, and one another, agonizing over why we're alive. Everything else just seems to be living. True, and it should remain so, yet the history of humans strays far from this.

Is this the new goal? Permanent occupation to secure resources and launch military attacks against anyone in the region who challenges us? I thought it was about saving the oppressed Iraqis from an evil dictator? I don't seem to recall the government ever trying to sell the US public on a permanent occupation of Iraq and the middle east, although that has been my assessment nonetheless from the very beginning. It's nice to hear a confirmation that the government has indeed lied through its teeth to everyone about it's motivations. Also, does this goal (new, or otherwise)have any consideration whatsoever for what the people who live in these countries want? I'm not talking about militants. I'm talking about the general population- or should we consider anyone living there who wants us to leave a 'terrorist'? Suppose the Iraqis, and all their neighbors, don't like the idea of what they see as Christian soldiers occupying Muslim lands and securing their resources? You may have a different vision but that won't change those perceptions. Surely the Iranians must be held accountable. But what you're talking about is nothing more than a modern day attempt at colonialism of a fanatical society that has resisted foreigners for thousands of years. The only thing that will be permanent from this is continued bloodshed and attacks against Americans.

Well, he did say: "obliterate those societies", and "destroy those countries". Which I would assume includes, by necessity, killing millions of citizens of those countries. More immediately, I'm curious as to when this sort of "two enemies" talk combined with irrational calls to kill millions of people (or else "they" might kill us...) will bring us back to the good old days of political assassinations and civil unrest. Would be easy to laugh all this off if he wasn't the pied piper for so many people.

Speaking of Rush Limbaugh, here's the latest from the "proprietor of the truth": Are there different rules of engagement for each enemy, or should we just kill them all now?

Damn. Without question, this man's life and work has inspired me as much as anyone I can think of. The true adventurer, this guy represented all that is great about the comraderie and spirit of mountaineering, and the wonder of exploration and the sciences. To Mr. Washburn, Thank You. My hats off to you, sir, for a life lived beautifully.

Hiring a guide makes it less proud, but: Rainier was so easy it was "disappointing", and climbing was getting so boring because you always reached summit so you really needed to do a first winter ascent to make it interesting again, yet: and further: You went to the "hard school" of mountaineering but: If all this is true, you evidently haven't learned by doing, yet you express disdain for hiring a guide to teach you, then you bemoan a lack of a partner to "learn from", and prior trip reports and your posts in general would demonstrate a general unwillingness to listen to your partners. You seem very conflicted and to be honest, ego driven, despite your claim that it is all about "adventure". The fact that you have already climbed Rainier on your own, claim it was too easy, yet just now are asking questions about the dynamics of prusiks and belays, tells me that your ambition far outweighs your skills and judgment- if you're climbing Rainier w/o a guide, you should already have proficient knowledge of such things. Seriously: you seem somewhat earnest in wanting to learn. I suggest you start by detaching yourself from your past experiences and what you think you know and how skilled you believe yourself to be, and adopt a beginners mind. You'll not only actually learn more, you'll probably find it much easier to get partners who will want to climb with you, and keep climbing with you.

Although the trend is certainly leashless, a number of Canmore locals aren't throwing them away entirely, either- not yet, anyway. One of my regular partners who lives up there climbs leashless on most routes, but still occasionally uses them on very steep and pumpy routes and especially in wet conditions when your grip could be compromised. Also, he likes using them on some of the longer routes, mainly because he says the security of leashes simply allows him to climb faster. The important thing ultimately is to experiment but keep it in the comfort zone, and keep your options open. I do know a few people who insist that they climb faster w/o leashes and never get pumped now, but the majority of these people climb 70+ days of ice per season and train almost incessantly. My feeling is that if you get the technique and confidence with leashless mastered, the latter assessment will hold true 90% of the time- although I can't speak from direct experience because for me it's a work in progress. Personally, it seems likely the way my life is that I do not have enough time to devote each season to getting proficient enough with leashless that I could realistically conceive of leaving them behind on mountain routes, especially given that with my ice climbing time at a premium, I often just want to spend my time climbing the routes I've always wanted to do and not top roping and going back to school. While I'm going to press ahead learning these skills as time permits, I don't find vertical ice stale and boring enough that I need to make it much harder. But...as always, that's the wild card and what keeps the game exciting- at different points in my life I have once thought: ice, rock, big walls, the big mountain routes, those were things other people did, certainly I couldn't do those. You just never know what one small decision to try something is going to lead you to do someday. In the end, let others lead you by example rather than shaming you into adopting their style. I'm more inspired to go leashless by watching my partner do the business on AI 6 terrain in the mountains sans leashes than I would be if some Frenchie comes up to me in the parking lot pointing and giggling at my leashes. "Can you believe it? Our children warm up on grade 6 ice and they've not even heard of these leashes...". Get on out there and giv'er.

The merits of who should lead are pretty much irrelevant; Simul terrain is, for me at least, terrain where the only reason either climber would fall is being careless and/or an act of nature (broken hold, rockfall, etc.), but otherwise it's terrain neither climber would fall because of the difficulty. I think it goes without saying that both climbers should be of similar skill level, or the terrain pretty damn easy, if you're going to be simul climbing. All that said, I strongly disagree that a lead fall by the leader while simuling is worse than one by the follower. If the second comes off, the leader doesn't just take a gravity leader fall, he is PULLED DOWN by gravity plus an additional force. If his last piece is 15 feet below, for example, the rope likely will whip back through the biner if the second continues falling unchecked; when the falling leader passes the pro, he'll be violent slammed statically into the rock. It would be like a leader fall with pro at your knees, but already at terminal velocity. I'm not at all in agreement that a leader is somehow more able to hold a falling second just because they are the stronger climber- if the leader is pulling a 5th class move and is suddenly hit with a 180 pound dynamic downward load, they're likely coming off. With that theory in mind, the stronger technical climber always goes second on the basis that if a fall did occur, you'd want to increase the chances that it's #1 taking it... but nonetheless, the caveats of paragraph #1 rule above all. It is bad no matter what. If one member's routefinding and protecting skills are weak enough that having them lead is thought provoking, it already sounds like a proper belay is in order, with that person having the top rope.

Oh no you don't- I'm giving him MY house...AND my car. I want this on my conscience. My altruism sure makes me proud.

The personal version is far more commonly seen than the national version. Neither is prevalent, however. Maybe in your life. Too bad for you. T-I wasn't disagreeing with your point. But I stand by my statement- you would be hard pressed to find a person whose actions are dominantly altruistic, although there are surely a few. Everyone has done selfless acts at some point, but I don't think we have yet evolved as a species that this can be accurately described as a prevalent characteristic. And indeed, I make no claim to have transcended my own self. We all have our moments; with increased self knowledge, perhaps we will have many more. It's day to day...

The personal version is far more commonly seen than the national version. Neither is prevalent, however.

Thus: SPRAY>ACTION>WORDS>VALUES and conversely (SPRAY)(ACTION)= ULTIMATE TRUTH I think you are missing the "values coefficient" in your equation. For America, it is 0.96. For Asia, it is 0.82. See Table 1.34a for complete listing.

In practice, it seems that humans talk about values, but act on their interests. If the two are indeed separate entities, and if life is characterized by our actions, then "values" have no significance, they are merely theoretical; empty idealism and idle talk. Actions speak louder than words.

You are saying, essentially, that given the way the world actually is, every nation simply does what it has to do for it's own survival. I agree that this has some validity and relevance. However, sticking to this "reality" as official policy basically says that we will always sell out other people, even our "allies", whenever we perceive that our "interests" are at stake. Every relationship is a matter of convenience and opportunity and usefulness, and when these cease to be upheld, the other person becomes expendable. I don't treat my wife, friends, or neighbors with this sort of regard, so on the large scale, why would I want my country to relate to other countries in this manner? What comes around goes around. And what exactly does this say about our "interests"? What are they? What interests hold such validity to justify, for example: -Selling weapons to the Islamic Fundamentalists running Iran in the 1980's (oh wait, they are still there and being labeled as the new, biggest threat to America), in exchange for hostages (despite our governments stated policy of non-negotiation with terrorists), and money- which was then funneled illegally to support guerrillas in Nicaragua and El Salvador, who killed thousands of civilians in an attempt to save them from socialism (Hey, wasn't Ortega just re-elected? I don't agree with Ortega's politics, but the fact is, the people like him. Why is it so difficult for our government to allow other countries to determine their own destiny?) -Clinton's (and everyone before him) support of the dictator Suharto in Indonesia, whose invasion of East Timor killed an estimated 1/3 of that country's population! -Aid for Saddam's war against Iran (at the same time we were engaged in Iran/Contra, selling weapons to both sides) -Standing idly by while former Yugoslavia turns into genocidal theater (I guess such matters aren't in our "interests"? No money to be made there?) Or Sudan. Or Rwanda. Long list here. -10 years of war in Vietnam which resulted in 58000 Americans killed, and over 4 million Vietnamese killed. The war was lost anyway, and the its spillover into Cambodia destabilized that country enough to allow the Khmer Rouge to come to power and kill millions more people in it's ghoulish attempt to eradicate individual thought. The reason for the war was to stop communism-Vietnam went commie after all, and the system failed predicably and they've recently been given "ally" status once again as they adopt free market principles. Freedom of speech et.al. remains stifled, human rights are almost non-existent, especially in China, but that isn't what matters; what is really important is that their economies are capitalist and we can do business with them. The list is endless and although I list American examples, is exclusive to no country. Despite all the justifications, the decision to undertake these actions were not being made with a gun held to our head. There were options. America was not on the verge of being taken over or collapsing. In each case and countless others not mentioned, our policies were carefully calculated and made over long periods of time. I don't think anyone would take actions that have these sorts of horrific impacts and cause so much suffering on a local level, so I'm left assuming that by the time our leaders have risen to the top ranks, they must be totally insane.

*Yawn* My inclination is that the democrats are going to accomplish very little for the next two years; just enough to make it seem they are trying to do "something", while blaming Bush for whatever fails, but playing it safe and restrained enough to not damage their chances at winning the white house in 2008. In other words, they are going to play politics just like the Republicans. Also- Bush couldn't care less about who holds Congressional control. He's proven himself immune to congressional or public opinion and it's no accident that he's surrounded himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear. In the next two years, Bush will do everything in his power to circumvent Congress and the Constitution in order to get his agenda realized. I wish I could feel like this is a sunny new day for American politics but I think this is just a sucker hole.

The sarcasm is noted Jay, and I agree that the attempts at labeling such things as a "direct link" are usually a desperate stretch. But what is our recourse for criticism of our government's past misdeeds, which seem to repeat themselves ad nauseum? Right now we're almost 4 years into a war that started to depose a supposedly threatening leader, to whom our very own government provided arms and tactical support to fight the Iranians in the 1980's... and continued to do so for years while that same leader openly committed genocidal acts against his own people. Saddam's character never changed; what changed was his usefulness to us. This sort of "usefulness" that has been repeatedly exploited by our government- to the detriment of countless victims, however unintended- is what I'd like to see more critically examined.

I don't think this information "proves" somehow that the Bush family holds Nazi values. I think what it does illuminate, however, is how adherance to political ideologies, and the charging ahead with aggressive financial dealings by powerful individuals (private, political, or both) allow said individuals to form alliances that essentially provide moral and tacit support for truly despicable leaders and governments- in this historical case, Hitler, or in a more modern case- Saddam in the 1980's. In the quest for actualizing self serving agendas, civil societies continue to make the mistake of not examining these blind alliances with nefarious individuals. Short sightedness always comes back to haunt.

Molly, While working on Mt. Rainier 11 years ago, two friends who were climbing rangers died on a SAR. I was hired to replace them and finish out the season. My first day on the job, I talked with all the climbers at the high camp. Every one of them was very much aware of the accident a week earlier, and that the route conditions were treacherous. Every one. My second day, I watched three of the same people I spoke with the day before, who appeared exceedingly cognicent of the conditions, take a 2500 foot, cartwheeling fall down the route. Two died, one barely survived. I've had numerous friends die climbing in the years since, most recently last spring in Alaska. Each and every of them were more than aware of the risks of this life and in climbing. So your patently false and ill informed judgments are not appreciated in the slightest and are amazingly disrespectful.

True indeed; the term used for this is to "fail upward". (apologies for another Twightism) In places like Alaska, employing the latter and hoping for the former, in the long run, I believe to be the recipe for both success and long life.

Truer words were never spoken. What gets lost in the hype about the light and fast philosophy is that failure has to be expected and welcomed and that the process is the point, not "success". It's cliche to quote Mark Twight, but let's face it, his book and his writings have done a lot for promoting and popularizing this style in the US, and in his assertions he makes no effort to downplay the fact that when employing such a style one must be prepared to fail when even a single problem arises, or to not even begin the climb at all. Many years ago, Charlie Porter once said 'if you wait for the weather you won't do jack-shit', and to some extent that remains true, but the light and fast ethic requires a careful reevaluation of that statement.