Jim

Contentment, beer, climbing, skiing, and a goofy web site. Who could ask for more. "Don't make the mistake of confusing "having a career" vs "having a life""

Just curious dude. I thought I wasted enough time popping in and out of this thing. Don't get your shorts twisted.

I agree, and agree with you. I was a slow typer.

Trask, do you have a job? Dang you have almost three times the # of posts than even DFA. And he's all over the place.

Immediately invalid. NPR is commie propaganda.

PP does make a point. I don't know it that specific study does look at the NYT. But there are other works such as "Through the Looking Glass" which does a good criticial analysis of our media including the NYT. On a broader note you might consider how may "liberal" columnists are employed by the Wall Street Journal for the editorial page - that's easy - none. VS how many "conservative columnists are in the NYT - some big guns such as William Safire and Thomas Friedman. So at least there is a mix of opinion in the NYT. I would still argure that our media is so lame that the NYT is a left rag only in comparision with the typical righty media of the US. Even Israel has a wider range of press than we do.

Complicated subject but don't confuse popular literature and scientific literature.

Das is vi it is good to take a critical eye to "popular" literature, and look a the information presented in the "scientific" literature.

Kinda shows the limited range of new coverage we have out there when NPR is considered liberal. Anytime they interview an administration figure (any administration current or past) they throw softballs over the plate every time. They play the same game. They know if they question too much the will be denied access, so their polite. There is no liberal media in the US.

Sorry Trask, this is what happens when I'm trying to work and keep an eye on the discussion. My response was to peter. But can be summed up this way; American press way conservative and lacks opposing views when compared to larger discussion going on in the world. Thus most Americian's views are limited and very provincial. As far as the goat's preference for the Drudge report and others like it, they don't rise to the level for consideration as journalism.

I understand your point but still believe that the differences among the big media outlets (all sources) is small when compared with the small prisim through which their world is viewed. The differences only look large when viewed between the provincial sideboards that have been set up.

"(1) Shown how the NYT has in headlines presented 3.1% economic growth as a negative when others haven't." I think concentrating on the trivial difference among the headlines is a minor point - I think the more critical question to ask is why is the headline in all three papers the same topic for crying out loud. Because we have a lock-step press. Droning out the same spoon-fed topics.

I still haven't seen a specific example of media left bias, compared to the specific examples matt provided. If you have a specific example of how some event or policy was spinned I would also be curious to see it. Just saying "gun control" isn't specific. I'll provide an example for your comment. When Clinton was president the previously Telecommunication Bill was passed. There was very little critical analysis in the news (surprise), and very little debate in Congress. There was some response by editorial columnists, but never critical analysis on the front page. The overwhelming response has been a growth of white-bread media coverage. So even with a so-called liberal president, the media coverage was just mouthing whatever press release they got.

Actually you could still be blind and listen to the radio ok.

What I’m saying is that for papers with a major circulation, there is only the normal establishment bylines (functionally rightist), or papers with a specific right agenda, such as the Washington Times or the Wall Street Journal. While all papers have a business section, why isn’t there a worker/labor section? Oh that’s right they’re responsibly covered in the business section.

Ah the liberal media ploy. This is an ingenious strategy despite the evidence. Newspapers are businesses; they live via their advertisers who buy space in the paper. When you look at the examples matt provided, you have to ask why is mainstream press always just mouthing what is put out by the establishment. If you’re a cub reporter you quickly learn where the boundaries are in reporting. You go off to the left and the leash is quickly pulled back. It’s so much easier to just regurgitate the latest press release from the White House than conduct some investigative reporting. If you do, you had better watch whose toes you step on. Remember when 60 minutes had filmed a piece on nuclear power in the US? It was scheduled to air and then GE came knocking at the door – show canceled. If a pretty high-powered group like this can get free press, who can. While there is a thin voice of the left in editorials, the big syndicated voices are way right – William Safire and Thomas Freedman of the NYT for instance, George Will of the Washington Post. On the air waves you have Rush and his ilk. Funny you never see Noam Chomsky on Meet the Press. The liberal media chant would be funny, if it were not so sad. There is little diversity in news reporting in the US, and it’s getting worse with the consolidation from the Telecommunications Bill that was pass a couple of years ago (and Billy boy signed it). You can get a more diverse world view with Canadian or even British news, or the few magazines with low circulation in the US that offer an alternative view. How else do you explain the specific examples provided by matt?

Great link Matt. Thanks. Having led Arch, Son of Easy O, and Frustration Sydrome (with some suffocating rope work) I could see the advantage. I'll be at the Gunks this summer for a week and may try the double rope set up. This has been an informative discussion - thanks.

Hmmm. I could become a convert here.

Thanks. Shows my limted experience with two ropes on long routes. I've done two small ropes on steep water ice back east when I was a young buck, but not since. And I guess I never quite thought through the physics of the smaller diameter rope and shock load. It was just what all my friends were using at the time.

Ok. I'm a little slow on the pickup today, so humor me. So the primary benefit (aside from tricky rope mgmt) is for the possibility of a rope being cut - nothing more?

I think the point being made is that the system is not redundant unless both ropes are always clipped through all protection points. And if you're taking a leader fall on one small rope, and that's ok, why are larger single ropes necessary? I've used double ropes and understand the need in zig-zag routes, but this discussion brings up an interesting point.

Sure. That could be possible tomorrow after I get the details.

A good friend of mine had her rental house broken into over the weekend. They emptied the garage of her mountain bike and all her climbing gear. She's a teacher and unfortunately had no renter's insurance. I know that bike shops will not purchase a used bike without some proof of ownership but they could always dump it on a pawn shop for a few dollars. But the climbing stuff is so specialized it seems the only place to get money for it would be a used gear shop. I was going to suggest she drop a list of the stolen gear at Second Ascent and have them keep an eye out. Any other suggestions?

Well if you're using the economics of the market place then the one thing you're ignoring is that the true cost is not accounted for. Timber sales lose money. The USFS subsidizes the timber industry. If it's a true free market then private interests should carry the true cost of the timber and the cost of clean up of the mess. That doesn't happen. The cost of the sale are generalized to the public through the USFS and the cost of to public land, yours and mine, is distributed to all of us, not the generator of the problem.

Huh?