Fairweather

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x0dM7fR1WQ

Nice to meet you all too! I've got a couple of good pictures of you guys coming up. PM me if you're interested. Did any of you get a picture of that critter that was crossing the basin to the south?

Trip: Lane Peak - The Zipper Date: 6/26/2010 Trip Report: Pope, Raindawg, and I climbed this route today. Still in condition, but the moat beneath the chock stone is deep and wide and must be passed on rock to climber's right. Firm cramponing in the morning. The summit gully is bare rock and the views from the top were nice. Gear Notes: Crampons, ice axes, slings, and a picket.

Timberline Lodge @ about 2:00 this afternoon:

(just in case he again edits his handiwork) for those who haven't done it yet, it's in the bottom of the first box in his profile No.

That's some funny shit. Looks like even Joe Biden has it right this time. Hope this interview doesn't upset the 'Bamster: [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuKwBddoyUY

Well, since this is a climbing website, I do try to post content here in the form of trip reports from time to time--in a futile effort to mitigate the time I spend in Spray with morons like you. (A sort of altruism?) If only you would reciprocate. Hell, I'm not even sure you climb at all. The fact is, you and j_b have no credentials regarding climbing or any of the drivel you post here during all hours of the day. Between the university of Google and your all-too-frequent anti-Semitic posts, maybe it would behoove you to take a class, actually climb something--or get a job.

Apparently you didn't bother to watch your own video. See where Dawkins discusses bees and "degrees of relatedness" in his somewhat dated piece. But if you wish, feel free to continue believing your misinterpretation of a Youtube video stands above my classroom/lab experience. Then, try to get out and learn something.

Altruism is, in fact, coded for. The problem is that political agendas corrupt the science. This is how you get idealists like j_b or TTK who wrongly believe a concept like altruism lends legitimacy to their collectivist belief system, when, in fact, the opposite is true.

Meanwhile, I truly believe you and j_b should go and get yourselves tested for the DRD47R gene. It might even explain some of TTK's "issues".

I'll bet FW can come up with more credentials than that. Actually, we've been studying this in a class I've been taking @ UW Tacoma campus: Evolutionary Analysis. It turns out that altruism outside of kinship is highly controversial and completely unproven. A simple formula known as Hamilton's Rule: Br-C>0-- where B is the benefit to the recipient, C is the cost to the actor, and r is the degree of relatedness--can properly explain observations regarding altruism. Since natural selection only rewards individuals and NOT groups, there is no reason to believe altruism is anything more than a mechanism to ensure genetic fitness within a closely related group. See also; Green Beard hypothesis. There are ongoing studies regarding reciprocal altruism which may exist outside x degrees of relatedness and, in any event, simply represent tit for tat.

You can tell by T's posts when he's on or off his meds...

Chopper Jim knows more about the traffic jam than the poor schmoe who's stuck in it.

But, talking about running cyclists over with your SUV is kosher? Pffff, don't even TRY to take the moral highground and sound all indignant and shit. lolz

You're posting from one of those pathetic little netbooks again, aren't you.

The view from above vs the view a herd member enjoys. No matter how they vote, Catholics are a fucked up lot.

From your support for mass killing to copyright anecdote. Zero points on the segway meter. Can't blame you for wanting to move on.

Not necessarily. I'm just trying to show you that Catholics--like farmers--are difficult to pigeonhole. Your fire just seemed a bit misdirected.

Don't you really mean "fucking Democrats" Rob? Well Rob?

Will you guys be playing classical music?

So when's the big event?

Yes. When leftists talk about piling up and burning my fellow citizens, I tend to get upset.

1 million tea-bag(er)s and a nuke in the gulf would make one awful big cup'o'tea - might be a littly salty though... Of course. This would be the trademark cleansing that all of you otherwise peace and freedom loving leftists are famous for, no? Bring it, baby! I can't fucking wait.

So, basically, what you're trying to say is that your earlier rant about holding employers accountable was just a smoke screen to somehow make your radical ideology seem more reflective? That, my aging professor, is not only hypocrisy--it's downright Machiavellian. Time to reexamine your belief system.

Well, Joseph, it looks like Obama doesn't want states to crack down on employers either: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/03/justice-dept-challenges-arizona-immigration-law-targeting-employers/ The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court decision that upheld Arizona's right to punish employers for hiring illegal immigrants. The Arizona law gives the state the right to suspend or terminate business licenses. "If you hire a person in this country illegally knowingly, you'll lose your license. First offense, 10 days. Second offense, revocation, never to do business in the state of Arizona again," said Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican who helped draft the new controversial Arizona law that cracks down on illegal immigrants. The Obama administration apparently worries letting that law stand would leave in place a precedent that states have a legitimate role in enforcing immigration laws – a notion the administration fiercely opposes. "The argument that the Justice Department is making here, is you know, the fundamental question, which is where does state authority begin and end when it comes to federal immigration law?" said Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Council. The Arizona statue relies on a law passed by the U.S. Congress in 1986, which made clear federal law preempts the states on immigration – but left one exception: "The provisions of this section preempt any state or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ unauthorized aliens." "Congress said very clearly that licensing and similar laws can be used to impose consequences on employers who hire unauthorized aliens at the state level," said Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. "And that's exactly what Arizona did." Oddly enough, the law in question was signed in 2007 by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, now Obama's Homeland Security secretary. Not only that, but the law was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. "And bear in mind that 9th Circuit is generally regarded as one of the more liberal circuits in the United States – and so the Obama administration, evidently, believes that the 9th Circuit views on this question is too conservative for this administration," Kobach said. And this is yet another issue in the ongoing tug of war between Washington and the states, especially Arizona. "The idea that states can't be involved in immigration law in any way is wrong," Johnson said. "The states have always had a role to play in immigration enforcement. The tricky part is defining where that authority begins and ends."