willstrickland

Ever see a series of shots of the same subject taken throughout a day from dawn to dusk? They put these in lots of photography instructional type books, interesting how the light changes. Top one looks like shortly after sunrise maybe 30 minutes after, bottom looks like about one to two hours after the top one. I prefer the top one.

Ask and ye shall receive:

I agree, it would take a large organized nationwide campaign. In 3 years when I take my first retirement, I might be up for it. I will need the minutia details on the elections and the corporate structure, etc. I'll also need some insiders on my/our side. Need a few lawyers too. From the website: n 1938, mountain climbers Lloyd and Mary Anderson joined with 23 fellow Northwest climbers to found Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI). The group structured REI as a consumer cooperative to purchase high-quality ice axes and climbing equipment from Europe because such gear could not be purchased locally. The word quickly spread, and soon many other outdoors people joined the co-op. As REI grew, so too did the range of outdoor gear available to the co-op members. During the past six decades, REI has grown into a renowned supplier of specialty outdoor gear and clothing. We serve the needs of outdoors people through 69 retail stores in the U.S. and by direct sales via the Internet (REI.com and REI-OUTLET.com), telephone and mail. Today, REI is the nation’s largest consumer cooperative with more than 2 million members. Although the gear sold by REI looks much different now than it did in 1938, being a cooperative business remains central to REI. While non-members are welcome to shop at REI, only members enjoy special benefits, including an annual member refund on eligible purchases. REI’s business success allowed the co-op to return member refunds to its active members in 2003 totaling $41 million, and provide nearly $2 million in donations in support of the outdoors and outdoor recreation. REI’s reputation is strengthened by an employee team that is recognized both for its knowledge of the outdoors and outdoor equipment and for being a friendly resource in helping any customer, from novice to the highly accomplished, prepare for their outdoor adventures.

Ya see man, what you're missing here is that it is a CO-OP. The mission of the store was to pool buying power to get better deals on CLIMBING and outdoor gear. The mission was not to become the Wal-Mart of outdoor gear and to cater to yuppie casual clothing interest. I still think we need a grassroots revolution. Nobody fuckin' votes in the elections (have you?), we need a hostile takeover. Get our people on the board and start runnin the show. Who's with me?

I'd be pretty desperate and pissed off too if I only knew how to play three chords. People like Doolittle look for a way to transform their emotional pain into physical pain, hoping that suffering through the physical will carry the emotional away with it. Of course this is a delusion of the first order. It's called wallowing in your own misery. Calling someone else a pussy because they have the fortitude to face up to the mean old world instead of wallowing in their own despair is ridiculous. If anyone is a pussy it's the stupid fuck who sucker punches someone at a show or the 'tard in the pit who wants to be beaten. Rather than facing the world on their own terms, they wallow. Do you think you're the only one who's had a hard life? The only one who was an outsider or stuck in a desparate situation? Get real man, life isn't easy. Some of us decided to say "fuck you" to society, forge our own path, and be successful by our own measures of success. Personally, I didn't need some racist skinhead fuck to beat on me to purge my emotional pain. I chose to turn the pain into learning, the learning into action, and the action into success. The "things you've lived through"...please. Go try armed combat sometime and then come talk to us. The worst ghetto in this country is a fucking picnic compared to large parts of the world. You grew up in a no future blue collar town, BFD. Now grow up and be a man.

Brownings eh? We have a few belgium made Sweet-16s and a couple of 12s in the family. My quail/dove/pheasant weapon of choice is usually my Beretta .20ga semi or the Win 101 over/under. Both are nice, but that extra shot on the dove field is the often the difference that allows a double. Not to mention that gas-operated semis have much less recoil than a pump or double. And if you're shooting 5 to 7 boxes of shells in a day, that's real nice.

Wetlands in danger By GREG HARMAN THE SUN HERALD - Dec 01 2003 A diverse chorus of objections is being filed with the Bush Administration these days over proposed changes to the Clean Water Act that would leave 20 million acres of wetlands across the country open to development and increased levels of pollution. From duck hunters and sport fishers to bird watchers and conservationists, outdoor enthusiasts in Mississippi and elsewhere are joining forces to oppose a change to federal law that some say would decimate the nation's water fowl population and create serious water quality issues. Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Corps of Engineers have been considering loosening the Clean Water Act since January. A leaked internal document released to the Los Angeles Times earlier this month states that "ephemeral washes and streams" with no direct groundwater source would lose all protection under the recommendation. This concerns hunters because most of the critical breeding areas for waterfowl takes place in this type of "isolated" wetland habitat in other states. Chuck Manlove, a Jackson-based biologist with Ducks Unlimited, said the shift would be a "serious blow" to sportsmen and wildlife in Mississippi. "You could almost think of it as a death blow to waterfowl," Manlove said. Don Young, Ducks Unlimited vice president, said scientists "estimate that 96 percent of the habitat most important to ducks could lose federal protection" from the proposed change. The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the American Sportfishing Association and the National Shooting Sports Association joined Ducks Unlimited in July in a letter of protest. And the sporting groups have been joined by a broad array of environmental groups, too, such as the Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation and Audubon, who say that more than hunters and wildlife will suffer if the rule is passed. "There are a lot of human values with wetlands that are not often recognized," said Bruce Reid, deputy director of Audubon Mississippi. Wetlands are credited for reducing flooding, cleaning water supplies, as well as the habitat it offers a variety of plants and animals. "We think the Clean Water Act needs to be as strong as it can be for a lot of reasons, for wildlife habitat, for clean water, and not be weakened in any way." Reid said that already half of the wetlands in the nation have been lost to development because of a "lack of controls." "We're really just trying to hold on to the little we have left." Though the current federal and state goal is for "no net loss" of wetlands, the ecosystem is still taking a punishment. Between 1973 and 1999, wetland loss in Mississippi was about 112 acres per year, according to DMR's report Mississippi's Coastal Wetlands. Overall, wetland acreage in the state declined from 66,931 in 1973 to 64,000 in 1999. The push to change the act dates back to a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that found that "nonnavigable, isolated, intrastate" wetlands were not protected by the Clean Water Act though they had been regulated that way for decades. More than 200 members of Congress got the message last week, signing off on an objection to the Administration's plan. Chris LaGarde, special assistant on natural resources to U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Mississippi, said the changes would have less of an effect in Mississippi than in other states. "Down here it's extremely difficult to find something that doesn't have a connection to a body of water," said LaGarde. But all agreed there would be some impact on the amount of land in Mississippi that would qualify as protected wetlands should the act be amended. "The best thing waterfowlers can do is get connected about this issue," said Manlove. "It is very, very serious. "We won't have a duck season. That's how important this is."

Holy shit! I don't believe it...it's a virtual tie in the Dem v. Rep by the numbers of donors. I expected 80-20 Bush. Must be the university. A $1600 Kucinich donor!!! Over 80% of the Dem money went to Dean.

But BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND...HOTTIE GOPs

It's called a Federal Firearms license. Same dealio that most dealers already posses. There is a firing range in Atlanta where you can rent fully auto weapons to use at the range. Mac10s, Uzis, .50cal,AK-47, etc. I gotta say, firing a full auto Mac10 was a load of fun. Another tidbit: Most lever action weapons like the venerable Winchester 94 or the Marlin Model 336 chambered in small bore hold around 10 shots in their tubular magazines. That's more than most bottom feeding clip magazines in either bolt-action or semi-auto. And these levers are cheap and light. The Marlin 336 is a side-ejector allowing for scope mounts and is chambered in 30-30 win or .35 rem. The 30-30 is an old cal but time tested. The .35 rem packs more of a punch. Of course they also make larger bore versions of these firearms up to .444 or so but they typically hold less rounds and that was my point...a lever action was the original assualt weapon. The "gun that won the west" was a Winchester 1873 carbine - an early lever action.

Farkin ropes on a 30 degree snowfield, HighPlains Drifter the "best boulder problem in the world", a 19 year old hottie flashing ass on a brick wall but no peek-a-boo thong action, and crackbaby cluttering up an otherwise pretty picture... Why do I read this shit?

Z x C (where you add a C to the pull end of the Z by threading a sling or cord through the locking prussik and then run the pull-end of the rope through that) is a 5:1, not 6:1. I say, don't fall in. If you do, prussik out. If you can't prussik out, use a 5:1 with garda. If that's not enough, use a 7:1 which is actually a pretty simple set-up. Wilderness Search and Rescue by Setnicka has tons of this shizzle in it and a look at the physics involved in the systems. It's a fun read if you're interested in the technical/scientific end of it.

Personally, I feel that once you understand footwork stuff like drop knees, toe hooks, etc, the gym won't do much for you in the way of footwork other than keeping your feet strong. Footwork on plastic and on rock seem very different to me. I would concentrate on working your core muscles; abs, mid/lower back, obliques, etc in a concentrated way that mimics climbing movements. Hanging leg raises, for example. Also, work on flexibility in your hips both for turnout and highstepping. A buildering traverse might let you keep the feet strong. Being able to transfer weight to your feet through a strong core is very important. I would also work on strength in your calves and quads at extended ranges of motion (e.g. standing smoothly from a high step). You can do strength training without adding mass. Another thing that will help overall abililty is to concentrate on cardiovascular conditioning while you're in the flatlands. For climbing I personally feel that slack lining is useless (although a fun diversion).

Sweet! 'Bout time for some battlecage death match action. Did skyclimb say something about a FA? I thought he was insinuating that they'd made a silly mistake and were possibly the only ones silly enough to make that mistake. Either way, you should sell some Pay-per-view of the next whatdafuckeva bbq you were talking about so you two can duel. Ice tools at dawn? And point me to the free beer.

Watched a fox hunting along the river from my balcony while having morning tea, eagle cruising by while I was on my run, and a moose eating the tree tips on the library's lawn.

In the regulatory field, "heavy metals" typically refers to a few specific commonly occuring substances: Copper, lead, chromium, cadmium, mercury, nickel, and arsenic (actually a metaloid), and several other less frequently occuring ones: selenium, beryllium, antimony, thallium, barium. While in lab science circles it may not be a commonly used term, in environmental pollutant regulation (as in at the EPA) the term is used frequently and understood to mean these substances which are commonly monitored under NPDES permit regulations.

I've said many times j_b, I don't think any of the numbers accurately reflect the situation, I'm just stirring the pot. The CBO includes the employers contributions as taxes paid by the individual (if you are self-employed you are well aware of this)...so the break would be 12.4% by their standards. That said, consider this: the average historical annual return from the stock market is right around 10.5%, call it 7% accounting for inflation. The maximum an individual would pay into the SS system in 2003 would be 12.4% of the first $87,000, or $10,788. Using a 7% rate of return, it would take just over 10 years to double the principal. The maximum one could receive in SS payments 2003 was $20,892. Given the lag time between when you start paying in and when you start receiving we are being robbed blind by SS. Let's say you start working at age 25, and retire at 65. The money you've put in on an annual basis could have multiplied 4x. You could be drawing out 4x what you paid in and then some if you take life expectancy into account. Everyone is getting ripped off, but who's really getting screwed? I say the rich. Consider these social security stat: If you were to turn 65 in 2003 and you’ve hit the maximum amount subject to Social Security for your full life, you would receive $1,721 per month in benefits. A low-earning worker, on the other hand, at age 65 could expect to receive $701 per month in Social Security benefits and an average worker approximately $1,158 per month. If you are self-employed, you are paying 15.3 percent on your total income up to $87,000. The Medicare portion (1.45 percent or 2.90 percent if you are self-employed) has no limit as long as it is earned income. Source: Desert Sun Now how many rich folks do you know who use medicare? FWIW, I'm a flat tax proponent. I think the money used to administer our current ridiculously complicated tax system is a waste of funds. I wonder how much we could cut taxes if we simplified the tax structure enough to cut the IRS down to 1/10 it's present budget. I haven't looked at the numbers to see if this is even feasible and I know the Tax Attorneys/CPA/HR Block lobby would never let this happen, but it sounds good and sounds fair. Actually, I'd prefer to do away with ALL income taxes and go to a Federal sales tax with food exemptions. Of course this would fuel a huge black market and problems of it's own. There's no real answer...that's why I support the "less govt" stance, spend less and tax less.

I deal with these issues in my profession and spent five years doing Section 401 Clean Water Act enforcement. Depending on the area and what they were mining, the pollutants of concern could be any of a number of things..all of them nasty. Arsenic is one common pollutant in mine tailings. Others are various heavy metals, and the mine drainage tends to be very acidic. Some extraction techniques used in gold mining use a cyanide solution which is perc'ed through the discarded tailings, and collected...naturally not all of it is collected. Nasty shit to say the least. Filtering with a common backpacking filter isn't going to do you much good. Better to move on to another water source.

j_b, you want to play with rates instead of revenue percent...fine, there is some merit in that view so let's investigate: The Total RATE for the Top 1% declined by 4% vs. 2.6% for the lowest quintile. A discrepancy in the rate decrease between the bottom and the top equal to 1.4% That is the essence of your argument, but let's go farther - A particularly telling set numbers is the Effective Excise Tax Rates. While the Top 1%'s rate decreased by 0.2%, the lowest quintile increased by 0.8%. This yields a net difference of 1%. Let's keep in mind that excise taxes are largely voluntary (alcohol & tobacco). So we're down to a 0.4% advantage for the Top 1% in the decline of rate. Let's continue: 1.4% of the discrepancy in rate change between the Top 1% and the lowest quintile can be attributed to the Social Insurance rate changes. Considering that the Top 1% are capped on what they receive in payout from SS and, as far as I know, are not capped on what they pay in....one might argue that the difference is greater than the 0.4% remaining. Your argument is not holding up very well. If you look purely at Individual Income Tax rate changes the Top 1% rate INCREASED by 2.3% while the bottom quintile DECREASED by 5.6%. Enlighten me please j_b.

Ok j_b, let's look at the Top 1%...you seem to love to focus on this group. You claim that "the upper one percent earned 1/3 of all income in america in 2001" From PPs link for 2001: Share of Pretax Income Top 1%: 14.8% Share of Total Federal Federal Tax Liabilities Top 1%: 22.7% Kinda sinks your argument j_b. On the other hand, the share of income of the Top 1% has increased more or less steadily from 1979 to 2001 from 9.1% to 14.8%. If you want to approach it from a trends perspective, the Share of Fed Tax Liabilities (top 1%) has increased from 15.4 to 22.7, or 7.3% on an income share increase of 5.7%. Easy conclusions: Fewer people are earning a big chunk of the pie, but they are paying a greater share of taxes as well. Again, I don't buy that they are carrying more than their share of the burden(due to sheltering), but your arguments don't hold water either.

I think you both argue from a set-point of view and are unwilling to accept any evidence to the contrary. j_b, I provided the marginal table because it APPEARS to show that the wealthy are paying much less in taxes. However, this is certainly debatable and marginal rates on income are only a part of the burden. PPs original link supports the assertion that the burden in the top earners has increased since 1979, and further information at the site I linked supports that is is higher since 1955 as well...although the 1955 data is lacking in breadth. However, although I think PPs data is sound, I believe it misrepresents the situation. I've said before and I reiterate: The wealthy are extremely savy (or hire people who are) with respect to tax shelters and avoiding taxes in general. In that respect, the data such as that he provided will never present a true picture of the tax burden. So I think you're both taking untenable positions. But if you didn't, we'd have nothing to argue about eh?

Don't lump me in with j_b Pete. I think you're both being disingenous

Move up here gorty. I skied xc yesterday at <600ft elev. Rivers and lakes are still frozen, no leaves on the trees. But it's going fast, I put the skis in the closet for good last night. The Arctic Man race is this weekend: Check it...Downhill skiers start atop a run at 5200ft for a 1700ft approx 2 mile ski run, ski to the bottom, grab a tow rope on the fly and are towed to the top of another hill by snowmachines at speeds exceeding 80mph, and ski down the second hill (approx 1200ft drop) to the finish line. The course record is under 5 minutes. Marinate on that. Draws a crowd of >10,000 peeps, and becomes the 4th largest city in the state for the weekend.