Peter_Puget

CBS – I can’t remember much about those routes. All I can tell you is that 5.9 can be pretty hard at times and that the traverse didn’t seem like 5.10 to me. What 5.9s seem like 5.9 to you?

I agree RumR.... besides 5.9 is real climbing it's supposed to be hard.

link Nightfall, Jan. 30. Eight-million Iraqi voters have finished risking their lives to endorse freedom and defy fascism. Three things happen in rapid succession. The right cheers. The left demurs. I walk away from a long-term intimate relationship. I'm separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos. I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together. I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode. My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom. Like many others who came of age politically in the 1960s, I became adept at not taking the measure of the left's mounting incoherence. To face it directly posed the danger that I would have to describe it accurately, first to myself and then to others. That could only give aid and comfort to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and all the other Usual Suspects the left so regularly employs to keep from seeing its own reflection in the mirror. Now, I find myself in a swirling metamorphosis. Think Kafka, without the bug. Think Kuhnian paradigm shift, without the buzz. Every anomaly that didn't fit my perceptual set is suddenly back, all the more glaring for so long ignored. The insistent inner voice I learned to suppress now has my rapt attention. "Something strange -- something approaching pathological -- something entirely of its own making -- has the left in its grip," the voice whispers. "How did this happen?" The Iraqi election is my tipping point. The time has come to walk in a different direction -- just as I did many years before. I grew up in a northwest Ohio town where conservative was a polite term for reactionary. When Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of Mississippi "sweltering in the heat of oppression," he could have been describing my community, where blacks knew to keep their heads down, and animosity toward Catholics and Jews was unapologetic. Liberal and conservative, like left and right, wouldn't be part of my lexicon for a while, but when King proclaimed, "I have a dream," I instinctively cast my lot with those I later found out were liberals (then synonymous with "the left" and "progressive thought"). The people on the other side were dedicated to preserving my hometown's backward-looking status quo. This was all that my 10-year-old psyche needed to know. The knowledge carried me for a long time. Mythologies are helpful that way. I began my activist career championing the 1968 presidential candidacies of Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy, because both promised to end America's misadventure in Vietnam. I marched for peace and farm worker justice, lobbied for women's right to choose and environmental protections, signed up with George McGovern in 1972 and got elected as the youngest delegate ever to a Democratic convention. Eventually I joined the staff of U.S. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio. In short, I became a card-carrying liberal, although I never actually got a card. (Bookkeeping has never been the left's strong suit.) All my commitments centered on belief in equal opportunity, due process, respect for the dignity of the individual and solidarity with people in trouble. To my mind, Americans who had joined the resistance to Franco's fascist dystopia captured the progressive spirit at its finest. A turning point came at a dinner party on the day Ronald Reagan famously described the Soviet Union as the pre-eminent source of evil in the modern world. The general tenor of the evening was that Reagan's use of the word "evil" had moved the world closer to annihilation. There was a palpable sense that we might not make it to dessert. When I casually offered that the surviving relatives of the more than 20 million people murdered on orders of Joseph Stalin might not find "evil'" too strong a word, the room took on a collective bemused smile of the sort you might expect if someone had casually mentioned taking up child molestation for sport. My progressive companions had a point. It was rude to bring a word like "gulag" to the dinner table. I look back on that experience as the beginning of my departure from a left already well on its way to losing its bearings. Two decades later, I watched with astonishment as leading left intellectuals launched a telethon- like body count of civilian deaths caused by American soldiers in Afghanistan. Their premise was straightforward, almost giddily so: When the number of civilian Afghani deaths surpassed the carnage of Sept. 11, the war would be unjust, irrespective of other considerations. Stated simply: The force wielded by democracies in self-defense was declared morally equivalent to the nihilistic aggression perpetuated by Muslim fanatics. Susan Sontag cleared her throat for the "courage" of the al Qaeda pilots. Norman Mailer pronounced the dead of Sept. 11 comparable to "automobile statistics." The events of that day were likely premeditated by the White House, Gore Vidal insinuated. Noam Chomsky insisted that al Qaeda at its most atrocious generated no terror greater than American foreign policy on a mediocre day. All of this came back to me as I watched the left's anemic, smirking response to Iraq's election in January. Didn't many of these same people stand up in the sixties for self-rule for oppressed people and against fascism in any guise? Yes, and to their lasting credit. But many had since made clear that they had also changed their minds about the virtues of King's call for equal of opportunity. These days the postmodern left demands that government and private institutions guarantee equality of outcomes. Any racial or gender "disparities" are to be considered evidence of culpable bias, regardless of factors such as personal motivation, training, and skill. This goal is neither liberal nor progressive; but it is what the left has chosen. In a very real sense it may be the last card held by a movement increasingly ensnared in resentful questing for group-specific rights and the subordination of citizenship to group identity. There's a word for this: pathetic. I smile when friends tell me I've "moved right." I laugh out loud at what now passes for progressive on the main lines of the cultural left. In the name of "diversity," the University of Arizona has forbidden discrimination based on "individual style." The University of Connecticut has banned "inappropriately directed laughter." Brown University, sensing unacceptable gray areas, warns that harassment "may be intentional or unintentional and still constitute harassment." (Yes, we're talking "subconscious harassment" here. We're watching your thoughts ...). Wait, it gets better. When actor Bill Cosby called on black parents to explain to their kids why they are not likely to get into medical school speaking English like "Why you ain't" and "Where you is," Jesse Jackson countered that the time was not yet right to "level the playing field." Why not? Because "drunk people can't do that ... illiterate people can't do that." When self-styled pragmatic feminist Camille Paglia mocked young coeds who believe "I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening," Susan Estrich spoke up for gender- focused feminists who "would argue that so long as women are powerless relative to men, viewing 'yes' as a sign of true consent is misguided." I'll admit my politics have shifted in recent years, as have America's political landscape and cultural horizon. Who would have guessed that the U.S. senator with today's best voting record on human rights would be not Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer but Kansas Republican Sam Brownback? He is also by most measures one of the most conservative senators. Brownback speaks openly about how his horror at the genocide in the Sudan is shaped by his Christian faith, as King did when he insisted on justice for "all of God's children." My larger point is rather simple. Just as a body needs different medicines at different times for different reasons, this also holds for the body politic. In the sixties, America correctly focused on bringing down walls that prevented equal access and due process. It was time to walk the Founders' talk -- and we did. With barriers to opportunity no longer written into law, today the body politic is crying for different remedies. America must now focus on creating healthy, self-actualizing individuals committed to taking responsibility for their lives, developing their talents, honing their skills and intellects, fostering emotional and moral intelligence, all in all contributing to the advancement of the human condition. At the heart of authentic liberalism lies the recognition, in the words of John Gardner, "that the ever renewing society will be a free society (whose] capacity for renewal depends on the individuals who make it up." A continuously renewing society, Gardner believed, is one that seeks to "foster innovative, versatile, and self-renewing men and women and give them room to breathe." One aspect of my politics hasn't changed a bit. I became a liberal in the first place to break from the repressive group orthodoxies of my reactionary hometown. This past January, my liberalism was in full throttle when I bid the cultural left goodbye to escape a new version of that oppressiveness. I departed with new clarity about the brilliance of liberal democracy and the value system it entails; the quest for freedom as an intrinsically human affair; and the dangers of demands for conformity and adherence to any point of view through silence, fear, or coercion. True, it took a while to see what was right before my eyes. A certain misplaced loyalty kept me from grasping that a view of individuals as morally capable of and responsible for making the principle decisions that shape their lives is decisively at odds with the contemporary left's entrance-level view of people as passive and helpless victims of powerful external forces, hence political wards who require the continuous shepherding of caretaker elites. Leftists who no longer speak of the duties of citizens, but only of the rights of clients, cannot be expected to grasp the importance (not least to our survival) of fostering in the Middle East the crucial developmental advances that gave rise to our own capacity for pluralism, self-reflection, and equality. A left averse to making common cause with competent, self- determining individuals -- people who guide their lives on the basis of received values, everyday moral understandings, traditional wisdom, and plain common sense -- is a faction that deserves the marginalization it has pursued with such tenacity for so many years. All of which is why I have come to believe, and gladly join with others who have discovered for themselves, that the single most important thing a genuinely liberal person can do now is walk away from the house the left has built. The renewal of any tradition that deserves the name "progressive" becomes more likely with each step in a better direction.

Now Matt you’re cracking me up. First I never challenged any of your facts. I simply asked that you layout the facts that you are arguing about. I just wanted all of us to be on the same page. That you consider this to be debating the facts is simply silly. Here by the way is the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/15/AR2005051500605.html Now here is eactly why I asked you to layout the facts ==>you seem to express them in a confused manner. In your first paragraph you seem to suggest that the issue is whether the Koran got flushed down the toilet. The question is really about whether a US Government report found evidence of it. This is the claim of the Newsweek story. This is consistent with the US reply (that you for some reason consider fishy), the Newsweek retraction and your item #1. You simply appear to be confused. Asking for clarification is not debating or getting you to chase your tail. Nice list however you are missing one important fact disclosed in the Newsweek retraction. Namely their original secret source is now backing away from his/her claim. Also items 5-9 have nothing to do with my criticism of Newsweek. Newsweek simply published a story without adequate support. The same organization in the past (Watergate is my example) chose not to publish stories without additional corroboration. There is a decline in standards. With regard to your item #6 – you again appear confused. The Koran story may not have started the riots but it may have turned a more controlled demonstration into a much more deadly and destructive event.

By the way Matt I just spent a bunch of time writing a devastating rejoinder and lost the whole post ! Never hit the back button!!!!

I must say that I haven't read this post since I lasted posted - - Science to the rescue! LINK

This weekend will be spent listening to Evanescence and playing Sims2. While not climbing it's still pretty

Better than Drum & Bass Night!

Matt - it was a simple question: what facts were disputed? What exactly was retracted. That you choose not to answer this and instead obscure the issue at hand in fact quite telling. You even bring in poor Mr. Rather and again miss the point regarding him. He simply failed to meet journalisitc standards and when he got caught he refused to step up to the plate and admit his error. Whether or not Bush evaded in duties as a memeber of the NG is simply besides the point. I think you know that. Making claims about Bush's behavior is I guess a sideways admission that Rather was not up to snuff. The same can be said for Newsweek. For Newsweek it is simply a case of: Newsweek asserted P. Their attempts at confirmation yielded ~P and Null. They then concluded P. From a standpoint of logic their conclusion was simply wrong. Here is what appeared in the Washington Post: link The answer to my earlier question regarding Deep Throat is I believe that they did not rely soley on Deep Throat. Thus there appears to be a change in journalistic standards. This change is proabaly the result of several things not the least of which is asense of desperation on the part of the MSN - really left in general. PP

You guys miss the real story even while it surrounds you: the Left is now resorting to the cheapest tactics as defensive maneuvers. Evidence of weakness and a sheer love of power and position. Newsweek Read this exchange: link Galloway It was wonderful theater, but read the transcripts (if you didn't see the show) they seem quite similar to the above. BTW - Why hasn't anyone brought up details of his last election.... Canada Paul Martin's bending of the rules turned an unremarkable and narrow electoral triumph into a fundamental political divide. Once the left had the likes of Jean Paul Sartres leading the charge now they have George Galloway, Michael Moore, J_B and Ward Churchill. How the mighty have fallen. Once the left marched at the front in Civil Rights protests now they resort to rule bending and filibustering to deny the will of the electorate.

Interesting study: "Abadie finds that a country's level of political freedom better explains the presence of terrorism." Link: NBER - Charge Earlier Draft - -free Check out the graph on page 15. Note that for a rights index of 7 a country would have to improve to a 3 before terrorist risk index was neutral. It appears as if one of the consequences of the Bush Doctrine (i.e. supporting freedom) will necessarily be an increase in the risk of terrorism as freedom increases. Could increased terorrism be indicative of success?Ultimately isn’t 3 a better position than 7? And 2 better than 3. And…..

You're the man!

Newsweek asserted P. Their attempts at confirmation yielded ~P and Null. They then concluded P. From a standpoint of logic their conclusion was simply wrong.

Dru - I expected that you would have posted this by now! Your slowing down. Pablo Picasso Words and music: Jonathan Richman Well some people try to pick up girls And get called assholes This never happened to Pablo Picasso He could walk down your street And girls could not resist his stare and So Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole Well the girls would turn the color Of the avocado when he would drive Down their street in his El Dorado He could walk down you street And girls could not resist his stare Pablo Picasso never got called an asshole Not like you Alright Well he was only 5'3" But girls could not resist his stare Pablo Picasso never got called an asshole Not in New York Oh well be not schmuck, be not obnoxious, Be not bellbottom bummer or asshole Remember the story of Pablo Picasso He could walk down your street And girls could not resist his stare Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole Alright this is it Some people try to pick up girls And they get called an asshole This never happened to Pablo Picasso He could walk down your street And girls could not resist his stare and so Pablo Picasso was never called...

The perfect antidote to what brings you down.

And on a serious note I just realized that PC attendance dropped precipitously after a certain someone went and got married. Well anyhow that’s my excuse.

I agree with you here!

RumR are you channeling BOB!?!?!?!?

Scoe –While you never said “suck” explicitly you did say: “…it was pretty ridiculous.” “I just think you guys were in over your heads and the fact that you did not realize/nor acknowledge this was what upset me off the most.” “For me your pace would have been tolerable had I not known…” “While I agree climbing is about challenging yourself I don’t think french freeing a route like outerspace, which occurred multiple times, is all that challenging” I agree with Matt about passing. There was a similar thread several years ago where one poster slammed slowbies and bragged of how he passed them just by pushing his way thru. A sshort time later he was in a serious accident on easy terrain. Accidents can easily happen anywhere.

Yup telling someone they suck via the internet is always hard to pass up!

The other options could have been used by the parties with the later start. The odd thing is many consider Orbit to be a better route and it usually has less traffic. I for one do not understand why people like OS so much. The only pitches that I have ever enjoyed are the handcrack pitches and they are a pain to get to.

Good style is climbing in a safe manner despite feeling the pressure from those pressing you from behind yet too timid to actually ask to pass.

Climb popular routes and sometimes you’ll get caught in a line up. Complaining about it is like saying: “I love being a doctor, I just hate working with people.”

I believe C-100 is no longer in production as of at least year or so ago. Not sure if all places have sold out yet. USHBA knows this and have simply not updated their site. HY-150 is commonly used, but there've been some reported problems with it having surface cracking in Thailand. I would not use this glue. The new standard is HIT-RE500. Most reliable place to get it is Hilti or some Home Depots have Hilti mini stores.