Fairweather

To lend some context to your assertion: Newsweek and Isikoff were the team that sat on the Monica Lewinski story for over a week while they waited for 'corroboration'. Drudge stole the scoop out from under their then-puritan noses. Why was 'getting it right' so important in one instance and not another? I see only one variable.

Fucking Newsweek. The reporters who wrote the Guantanomo Koran-in-the-toilet story....which now appears to be a lie...should face trial and be held accountable for the lives lost. Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, now Newsweek/Isikoff....these guys can't just keep making this shit up with impunity. Someone's gotta pay for this. No anti-military, anti America bias in the print press? C'mon. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7864705/

Divide Camp trail is a better approach to AG anyway.

I assume your Nikon uses the EN EL-1 Nikon lithium rechargable. You can BUY one-time use lithium batteries for back up! Duracell makes the "245" and I've used it in my Nikon Coolpix5400. It lasts a long time; much longer, in fact, than the rechargable. Costs about $9 each, and I would think 4 or 5 of them would last an entire West Buttress trip.

The Kautz has usually been a good all-season route, but the chute might be getting icy by August. Don't camp at Hazard...the climb is still a reasonable day from 9600 feet at the base of The Turtle. The NP climbing rangers often fix a rope in the chute if it gets too icy, but I wouldn't count on this in your plans. Also, I wouldn't get too bogged down with hardware. Maybe an extra tool for the leader (which you most likely won't use), a couple screws and a picket for the team. Also, move fast in the debris gully below Hazard on the way back. Honestly, I've never been inspired by the Kautz climb. I think the Emmons route is much more scenic/spectacular and the crowds aren't all that bad midweek. What can you tell me about climbing Tupungato?

Read the original post. Then the 44 replies. I think Cj is the only one who stayed on topic! The rest of you were distracted by that transvestite over there. Right there! I shit-you-not! I'm totally serious!...

We're talking cliches here, sultana. I posted the definition. Use that great scientific mind you're always bragging about...and try to stay focused.

Gotta give you this one! I recently visited one of my brothers in Wenatchee. The valley was a pall of smoke and my brother was lamenting the fact that this was a result of apple orchards being bull-dozed and burned to make way for new housing. He and his wife were truly heart-broken.... ...he moved to Wenatchee last year...and lives in a new sub-division.

"We're loving nature to death." "That road stabs into the heart of The _______ range." "let nature take over" "death of a thousand cuts" "Take only memories, leave only footprints." "wilderness management plan"....isn't that one an oxymoron?

Hmmmm. Can a cliche assume the form of a question? BTW: The answer is now you. Main Entry: cli·ché Variant(s): also cli·che /klE-'shA, 'klE-", kli-'/ Function: noun Etymology: French, literally, printer's stereotype, from past participle of clicher to stereotype, of imitative origin 1 : a trite phrase or expression; also : the idea expressed by it 2 : a hackneyed theme, characterization, or situation 3 : something (as a menu item) that has become overly familiar or commonplace - cliché adjective

...and the tired'est of em all.... "No one died when Clinton lied."

"I gotta go, dude. I'm crowning."

I am convinced that these two brought about Kerry's defeat last year.... "Would that it were, Dave. Would that it were." "Tonight we will break bread together..."

"I'm very concerned about the direction this administration is taking our nation....."

Sick trip report dood! Balls to the wall!

Whaahappen? The 7th, 9th, and 17th will pass too.

Buy TOPO! It's worth every penny and you can load your routes/waypoints directly into your handheld unit. You can also look at the UTM northing/easting grid on a newer USGS map. Buy one of those cheap plastic UTM grid-readers for a more precise sub-1000meter read. Then, hand-key the waypoint into your device. (be sure your map datum matches) ...or you can just mark waypoints as you climb, or leave the track mode turned on if you head into poor visibility. You may not get where you're going, but at least you'll find your way back. ...or, you can just follow the boot path. If you want specific info and know the waypoints/physical features you're looking for, let me know.

...the re-write continues.

Communism. At least 100 million dead over an unworkable idea. The twentieth century. What a fucking mess. Here's to a better 21st.

True. You sound like a conservative now.

Let's not forget the TEN MILLION Ukrainians who were starved to death when they refused to give up their farms to collectivization. I would bet that less than 1 in 500 American highschool seniors could cite this horrible history. Our national education machine seems suspiciously selective when it comes to leftist crimes. Teach your children.

If it wasn't for their goofy drug beliefs and their isolationist policy, I too might consider Libertarian. I think multi-party elections are fine... as long as there is a 50% or run-off rule. Gotta keep the majority happy.

The problem, foraker, is that while screaming almost hysterically about the 'conservative menace' to our freedoms you are apparently willing to give a pass to leftists. Only when this logic-fault is pointed out do you grudgingly convict your side of the political spectrum. From my perspective, I can't wholly disagree that there is danger from both sides...or that one day the political pendulum will swing too far to one side. But I do consider the left side of politics more insidious...eliminating personal responsibility/shame, installing moral relevancy, defining new law via a 'living, breathing' constitution, creeping incrementalism. The right wing seems more overt....and, frankly, a lot clumsier.

Last campfires never die. And you and I On seperate ways to life's December, Will always dream by this last fire And have this mountain to remember. Clark E Schurman

Here is a good read with some basic information on the subject: http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste%20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm Nuclear Waste and Breeder Reactors - Myth and Promise In my earlier articles on nuclear power, I reviewed how fissile Uranium-235 drives a nuclear reactor, and how Uranium-238 participates in the process by transforming into Plutonium-239, which is fissile like Uranium-235. This phenomenon of nuclear physics lies at the heart of a conceptual blueprint by which the United States once and for all can end its energy dependence on fossil fuels and the unstable Third World nations who export petroleum. Two significant obstacles stand in the way of an energy-independent United States: (1) Finding a solution to the immense amounts of dangerous and highly-radioactive spent reactor fuel already on hand, and (2) Implementing reactor designs that generate electricity while creating more useful nuclear fuel. In order to see how this can be done, it's first necessary to review some basic physics: Plutonium-239 produces significantly more energy than Uranium-235. And the process continues to produce the additional isotopes Plutonium-240 and 241 and 242. This raises an interesting question. Can we take these fuel rods that contain all this Plutonium, separate out the Plutonium and whatever Uranium was not used, and make more fuel rods? You bet. In fact, we actually end up with more fuel after the process than what we started with. Why is this not being done? Plutonium is used in atomic bombs - the fact that it's pure Plutonium-239 that makes an atomic bomb work, and not the other three isotopes, apparently didn't matter, because in 1977 President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order that banned the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the United States. The rationale was that the Plutonium could possibly be stolen, and terrorists might be able to use it to make atomic bombs. Never mind that in the real world, it is essentially impossible to separate out the Plutonium-239 from the other isotopes in sufficient purity to use it for bomb making. The British tried it, the Russians tried it, the French tried it, and we tried it, but nobody did it very well, even though we had the best scientists and all the money in the world to throw at it. If you try to make a bomb with such a mixture of Plutonium isotopes, forget about it - it won't work, ever. We're talking about the laws of physics, Greenpeace notwithstanding. Unless you have pure Plutonium-239, your bomb will fizzle. So throwing away all that valuable nuclear fuel to prevent terrorists from making a bomb that won't work anyway is just plain dumb. How do we get the Plutonium-239 for our atomic bombs? We built reactors fueled with Uranium-238 whose only job is to create Plutonium-239. These systems are some of the best-guarded plants in the world. Our weapons grade Plutonium is safe. And we use the stuff over and over and over, as necessary, to keep our supply of weapons grade Plutonium up to date and available. Can we do the same thing to produce nuclear fuel? The answer is a resounding Yes! This type of reactor, called a Breeder Reactor, actually produces more fuel than it consumes. A reactor designed to use a mixed Plutonium fuel is basically the same as the Uranium reactor we have already discussed. However, the neutrons that sustain the reaction contain more energy - they are commonly known as "fast" neutrons. In order to regulate the internal neutron flux, the primary coolant typically is one of the light metals like Sodium. Since Uranium-238 is one of the more abundant elements in the Earth's crust, Breeder Reactors make it possible to have an essentially unlimited source of fuel for nuclear reactors - which means an unlimited supply of electricity. At its best, the Breeder Reactor system produces no nuclear waste whatever - literally everything eventually gets used. In the real world, there actually may be some residual material that could be considered waste, but its half-life - the period of time it takes for half the radioactivity to dissipate - is on the order of thirty to forty years. By contrast, the half-life for the stuff we presently consider nuclear waste is over 25,000 years! Imagine a transformed energy landscape, where there is no nuclear waste problem, no power shortages, a safe and inexhaustible supply of inexpensive electricity. France has constructed and used Breeder Reactors like this for many years. So have the British and the Japanese. So why not the United States? We invented the technology but then made a political decision back in 1977 that has accomplished nothing but to create immense piles of long-lived, highly radioactive material that we cannot use for anything, and worse - we must safely store for more than its half-life of 25,000 years. The first thing we need is to identify the location and related technology that can safely isolate thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel for 25,000 years - which is a longer time than all of recorded human history. Will our descendents 25,000 years from now even be able to read a sign that says: "Keep Out!" The scientists - not the ones who made the stupid 1977 decision - but the ones who have to carry it out, have solved part of the problem. Researchers have developed a glass strengthened with a boron complex that appears able to withstand at least 10,000 years of abrasion with little erosion. For now, they encase the nuclear "waste" in borated glass beads, and then embed these in hardened concrete inside steel drums, and store them in pools of water. The United States has several thousand of these drums just waiting for the politicians to decide into which hole in the ground they will eventually be moved. It is tempting to believe that our society will progress sufficiently that one day it will finally decide to make practical use of this valuable resource. Unfortunately, our scientists did a pretty good job with the borated glass and concrete encapsulation. It may turn out to be cheaper to refine new nuclear fuel than to undo what we have created. The final irony is that there is a much better way to dispose of spent nuclear fuel if we really don't want to keep it around. We tend to think of the solid earth as just that, although anybody San Francisco or Los Angeles can tell you that it just isn't so. Our planet's crust consists of a multitude of individual large pieces called tectonic plates. These plates are constantly moving around the surface of the planet, jostling and rubbing one another, and sliding over and under each other. For example, when the plate upon which the Indian sub-continent rests bumped into the Asian plate, the resultant crumpling formed the Himalayan mountain chain. The Western Pacific plate slides under the Asian plate, forming the Marianas Trench, the deepest spot in the ocean. These forces are enormous, surpassing by orders of magnitude anything else on this planet. As one plate subducts under another, the entire plate edge is forced deep into the bowels of the Earth where it, and everything on and in it, is totally transformed into the stuff that makes up the Earth's mantle. This transformation results from tremendous pressure and from heat, caused in part by the pressure and by radioactive substances contained within the Earth. The Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench in the Pacific is nearly 36,000 feet deep, over seven miles of water. If we were to drop the thousands of borated glass encased drums of so-called nuclear waste into the Challenger Deep or some other fast-moving subduction zone, within a few hundreds or thousands of years the material would be pulled deep within the Earth's interior where it would be completely and utterly dissipated and destroyed. If there is one long-term "lesson learned" from the recent span of history that includes the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and Operation Desert Storm, and our current war against terrorists, it is that the United States must become energy independent. We have a staggering nuclear waste problem created by a political decision that we could solve simply by reversing that original decision. We also have a perfectly viable way or resurrecting clean and safe nuclear power simply by making the political decision to develop it. There is no compelling reason to delay shifting our dependence from fossil to nuclear fuel, and redirecting our nuclear focus to Breeder Reactors. We have the ability to control our own energy destiny if we only have the courage to renounce past executive errors and to embrace viable new technologies.