slothrop

Fairweather, what exactly do you mean by "single-payer gov't-sponsored health care" and why do you think it's a bad idea? Just curious. I heard a fascinating bit of news on NPR the other night. The head of the General Accounting Office, whose 15-year appointment began in 1998, was speaking at the National Press Club about the financial state of the union. He said, basically, that we're in deep shit unless we make serious changes to how the government spends money. This includes reforming Social Security (a relatively small task), reforming health care (including Medicare and Medicaid, a huge task), and budgeting for the long term. Boring, right? But it was amazing to hear from someone who devotes so much care to being non-partisan and apolitical. That's good news, good media coverage. All this bitching about how bad Clinton was and who supported who when is totally nonproductive. It doesn't make any sense to refuse to point out the shortcomings of the current administration just because the last one had serious flaws. We can't even re-elect Clinton, it's not possible! So fucking forget about it already! Let him go around sucking at the teat of his fanbase for the rest of his life, who cares? He loves the attention and his fans love giving it.

You can get a family rate for any group of people at Stone Gardens. I asked Stone Gardens about this the other day and was told that you had to show some kind of proof that you live at the same address with your "family members", like a bill or license or something.

Nice job!

Fun Sunday at Index with Dan, who hadn't been on granite all summer . We did the first part of Aries (fist and finger cracks) up through the little groove to the upper part of Pisces and the top of GNS. Next was Roger's Corner and Breakfast of Champions (woohoo!). We were dried up like raisins by then, so we retreated to the shade (one of the best features of Index, IMHO) to gape and snack for a while. We finished off the day with Princely Ambitions and I finally got to lead that second pitch, where I sprained my ankle this past winter. There was a big pool full of spawning salmon in the river across from the parking lot, but they didn't look tasty, so we had a and at the diner in Gold Bar while the traffic inched down Highway 2. Great day!

I wasn't referring to the boldness of the first ascentionist, but to the boldness that the climb requires. Again, the experience of the FA is going to be totally different, and who can say if the FA really didn't hang on a hook when placing each bolt, etc. blah blah blah. I guess I'm thinking of the climb as a creation rather than as the experience of the FA. You can tell all the stories you want about how bold you are, but the climb will be there longer than you.

Gee, pope, isn't it up to the first ascentionist to decide what their climb "is all about"? Isn't it still bold to face a 30-foot runout, even if you've done the route before, on TR or otherwise? Wouldn't you prefer a climb that requires some boldness and uses fewer bolts? Has anyone been sued yet for their bolt-placing decisions? I betcha Fred Beckey would be in some deep shit for all those 1/4" buttonheads and rusty pitons...

Fern, I agree that leaders bolting on lead will certainly be focused on getting good gear, for obvious reasons, but I know that I don't always make the best route-finding or gear-placement decisions when onsighting something. Maybe you're mistaking survival instinct for thoughtfulness. Matt brings up some ways in which ground-up onsight bolting might leave you with a less well-thought-out route. When pre-inspecting a route, you gain some larger perspective that could be useful in placing bolts more judiciously. Establishing a bolted route ground-up and climbing such a route are completely different experiences. The first ascentionists are creating something, and spend much more time, thought, and effort protecting the route. All the followers have to do is clip the bolts, not place them or think much about where they are. They don't have a choice, since the first ascentionists (not the rock itself, to anthropomorphize some more) have decided where you can place gear! If someone's going to bolt a route, they might as well take the time and effort to create a climb that's got thoughtful protection, since they're already mediating between the rock and the climber (contriving) and thus taking away from the purity of the experience. I'll agree with Matt that it's odd to contrive bolt placements in order to force the crux to be freed. But if you can do it, say by placing a bolt at a nice stance three feet lower, and the crux is not a one-move wonder that will have outmatched parties winging on the bolt year after year, why not force the move? I think it's interesting to be faced with such a challenge. That's what I mean by being "honorable" -- facing up to a challenge that forces you to be bold. But I can see that there are more questions to consider when bolting a route, since the effects of your choices last as long as the bolts in the rock.

Bah, shows how much I know!

Interesting point, Matt. I guess I was thinking of honor in terms of the rock itself, asking climbers to meet the route on its own terms and not aid past the hard part. Of course, I've pulled on gear before, but if the route is set up so that you can't aid the crux, there seems to be a certain aesthetic value in that. I agree that safety is of more concern than aesthetic perfection, but there may be times when you can trade a little safety for greater aesthetic value. Again, I haven't done any FAs, so I'm just theorizing here. It doesn't seem right to claim a free ascent if you haven't ever redpointed the whole route (and thus gained the ground-up leading experience even if you bolted the route on rap). There's some degree of pre-inspection, rehearsal, and cleaning with putting up a new route from above, right? So how can the FA's overall experience not be different than that of those who climb the cleaned, bolted route later? Is the FA's experience less honorable since he/she has studied the route in detail from above, while others will have to onsight it? Or are you arguing that FAs from the ground up are more honorable than those done on rappel? Might not ground-up bolted routes suffer from less-than-ideal placements or unsafe runouts? There was some discussion a while back about retrobolted or rap-bolted routes providing more thoughtfully-protected climbing.

Yeah, I wouldn't have placed a bolt ladder on the Grand Wall if the rest of the route can be reached at 10d. I've never climbed the Grand Wall, and I'm not trying to be Dwayner , but bypassing some 10d climbing with a bolt ladder seems like poor style. All I know about Lovin' Arms is that it's at Index and I haven't climbed it. Come to think of it, a pendulum is not great, but one or two bolts is less displeasing than a bolt ladder.

I agree with Ryland (in theory, as I've never placed a bolt). It seems more honorable to make the crux un-aidable when possible, safe always. As to bolt ladders: even if the "majorly hard" section is utterly unprotectable with natural gear, I wouldn't place a bolt ladder just to link features in the most aesthetic way. Is there no other way to get between the interesting features in question? A pendulum, perhaps, or an less appealing traverse? How hard is majorly hard? Totally blank and overhanging, or just 5.13d? If it's climbable, but beyond your ability, then I'd say leave it to someone who can free it. Just my thoughts, I've never done an FA.

No, like he said, the passenger threw a drink at one of the cyclists, which is assault, and the driver tried to run them off the road, which has to be a crime, as well (reckless driving? attempted murder?). Beating some dude up because of all this is not a great idea, but you can't say the driver and passenger don't deserve lawful punishment for that kind of bullshit. The fact is, cars (and larger vehicles) are much more dangerous to bikes than they are to other cars, so drivers have the responsibility to avoid them just like they do pedestrians. I'm all for special licensing requirements for RV drivers, too, especially since so many old people drive them. I drove my dad's 40-footer this summer, and it was fucking scary.

The WA Driver Guide (the guide you get when you go to get your license in WA, published by the state) takes into account the relevant state laws and summarizes them in a readable form. So bikes have the same rights and responsibilities as cars when on the roadway. What's so hard to understand about that? Bikes have a right to the whole lane they're in, but cyclists ride close to the edge of the lane when they can to let cars pass them more easily. Cyclists are doing a courtesy to other drivers by taking up as little space as they can, but we have the right to ride right down the middle of the lane if it's too narrow or dangerous for passing or if there are too many sketchy parked cars (getting car-doored sucks!).

'round about the same time that PBR became the hipster's beverage of choice.

Bring a small stopper (#6?) if you want to ease the runout to the first bolt.

Didja fill the Nalgene up with water first?

Well, if you read the description that REI gives, you'll note that they're prone to pulling out (!) and "not intended for leading". So if you only plan on retreating from ice climbs you can't build a V-thread on, then buy a dozen. Or maybe they'd be good for running belays on low-angle late-season snow slogs. Either way, they don't seem versatile.

I was there this past Sunday (could only stop for one day ) and lamented the fact that I had only brought one 60m rope. You need gear anchors for many climbs and there are few intermediate rap anchors to let you use a single rope for the longer descents, so it's a good idea to bring two ropes. It's an amazing place.

Huh? Does having a blog reveal something insidious an unpresidential about Howard Dean that I'm not aware of? That's a great speech, by the way.

I hear ya, ehmmic. Sometimes I'll get over to let someone by and they'll take their sweet time passing, even though I want to pass the same RV whose blind spot they're happily sitting in. If someone wants to pass me because they want to go 90, then I'll just move over, unless I'm in the middle of passing someone myself, in which case I'll speed up a bit so I can get over sooner. It's all about the flow of traffic. People seem to focus only on the ten feet around their car (often only the ten feet in front of them), not the larger traffic picture. You can avoid all these squabbles by driving only in southern Idaho, where there are three or four cars, er, pickup trucks, total on the interstate.

I think it's a passive-aggressive combination of the two. They don't pay attention enough to know they should get over, but then get all pissy when you remind them of their idiocy and respond by refusing to move.

Nice job, Cracked. Sounds like you've got some cool parents, too.

I just got to Seattle after driving from Kansas, where I picked up my new ride. Out of boredom, I had been giving my girlfriend shit about hanging out in the left lane on the highway, as people pass her on the right. She doesn't believe me when I say that it ties up traffic and is discouraged (if not illegal and indicated by signs) most everywhere. After 2000 miles of pleasant open country, mountain scenery, and relatively few drivers, I find myself in the Mercer Island tunnel on I-90. There's a car (WA plates) in the leftmost lane in front of me going under the speed limit. I predict that no matter what I do, she will not move over to let me pass. Sure enough, after approaching quickly, flashing my brights, and signalling, she doesn't budge. A passenger looks back at me. More flashing and signalling, I even wait to do so until I can see a clear path for her to move to the right. She speeds up once onto the bridge, but I need to exit soon, so I move right. I pass her a few lanes over and she's slowed down again to 60. I used to just go with the flow and pass slow idiots on the right, but now I've been reminded about just how exceptional Washington drivers are. I'm flashing my lights at all you left-lane hangers now.

Folks interested in helping produce this thing should get together in person to talk about it. How about Pub Club tonight? If Lowell can be there (since he started the thread), we should try to have some discussion about it tonight.