JayB

General Ochoa is unavailable for comment.

Hey - read through the original thread and found a photo that someone posted from April '04 (I think): The snow ramp ends at the same height as the first belay, which was pretty much a full 60M lead in early season. Pretty amazing accumulation up there.

I think the Hourglass is to the left of that route, which is between Hell's Highway and The Hourglass. Route photo below. I suspect that most of the exposed rock at the base of the route gets buried pretty early, and it turns into a WI2ish snow-ramp by this time of year.

beastforum link? The question concerning the bunny-eggs made me think of a particular thread for some reason or another. Interesting stuff about the corrupt judges that I missed when the story broke. Probably explains why the individual in question got out in a couple of years, despite the quantities involved.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/233793_bust23.html

"So far we've got jazz, advertising, bourbon, truck nutz, and the ability to consume endless amounts of cheap plastic crap without regard for anything, provided we can pay for it. I'm not so sure 2, 4, or 5 actually belong in the "good things" category, but we'll let them stand to enlarge the sample. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of social life in 21st century America. Even Kojak lays on the hates when given the opportunity. Why wouldn't someone just seek a better life elsewhere, like the immigrants crossing our borders?" Doubtless, some do this very thing. I think that for you, losing the entrenched and assiduously cultivated sense of grievance and contempt for the society that you inhabit would be like depriving a plant of its soil and sunshine. What would be left of you, what would sustain you if you were deprived of the psychosocial niche that you inhabit in this society? I think that this factor alone will keep you here for the remainder of your life. BTW - was reading the passage from Schumpeter an experience eerily like being agent Sparrow being read by Hannibal Lector? Once you finish Aron, continue with Schumpeter. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Edited to add that I will also chip in for your voluntary and permanent exile from this country. Let us know where you end up, and I will gladly chip in once the paperwork needs to be filed. This will of course have to include the permanent revocation of your citizenship. Right now I put my pledge at $50, but may increase it if necessary. I think that if you include a profile of yourself, your beliefs, and a sample of your writings on a website, and troll conservative blogs soliciting donations for the funds required to seek another life in a country of your choosing, you may well find yourself astounded by the generosity of your fellow countrymen. Another voluntary win-win interaction, brought to you by the free-market.

Do you really believe that statement? The best statement of the liberal moral code is that nothing that transpires between consenting mentally competent adults, or that adults who meet the same qualifications do to themselves can properly be called immoral. Protecting individuals from being forcibly deprived of their rights or liberties by the actions of others is thus the prime end of the state in a liberal society. This is not moral? Using force to compel people who are not harming anyone else to abide by a particular standard of conduct defined by a particular moral code represents a higher moral standard? tell that to the conservative party. you know the party of the moral majority? by the way, i didn't say "The liberal society doesn't have a sound moral basis?". I'm not sure what you mean by the term "liberal" here since it has been perverted into a negative meaning by a certain segment of society. i think there is a basis, i'm also surprised at times how narrow it can be. Classical liberalism. Quite a bit different than the modern set of beliefs that has the same name. See above.

it does beg the question: how does morality fit in with your undying commitment to the open market? does it have a price like everything else? It's derived from the same principles that define personal morality in a liberal society. "When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends. It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal. In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others." From Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative." I think that this is one of the more elegant and concise defenses of (classical) liberalism out there. Read it and you will have a substantial answer to your question. http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

my problem with this statement is that the claim that "nobody else is harmed" by a certain behavior is often completely false, but posited as incontrovertibly true. True. It's often more complicated. This is why the legislature drafts laws rather than maxims.

What scares you so much? I'm not trying to compel you to do anything, Jay. We're just talking here. I don't pretend to know what any "ideal" society looks like. But I think it's fair to attempt to observe what it does not look like. And again, why do you insist that merely talking about such things equates to a desire by the speaker to see government impose the solution? I see government, and our relationship to it, as one of our many problems . Discussion, dialogue, observations, questions...what else is there? There you go again- assuming an external entity (i.e. government, etc.) must be the speaker's solution! Beyond a suggestion- through dialogue- that our human problems are largely borne from a lack of self understanding and that an earnest effort by each individual to undertake that in themselves- if they so choose- may have far more value than creating new systems and organizations or GOVERNMENTS to solve our problems for us. In short: Personal initiative and responsibility, if that wasn't clear. Ditch the ideals and utopias or assumptions of such. They have no basis in reality. Okay. I see where you are coming from. I agree with the proposed treatment if not the diagnosis of the supposed ills. Foster-Wallace and Hayek's essay should still make it onto your reading list. Now I am off to order a set of Trucknutz.

That's what my wife and I wondered after listening to a Bill Maher book on tape when he said something along the lines of: "Fraternities aren't about friendship. They're about binge-drinking, paddling, and tea-bagging." A quick consultation with Dr. Google cleared that matter up and horrified my wife.

The liberal society doesn't have a sound moral basis? Do you really believe that statement? The best statement of the liberal moral code is that nothing that transpires between consenting mentally competent adults, or that adults who meet the same qualifications do to themselves can properly be called immoral. Protecting individuals from being forcibly deprived of their rights or liberties by the actions of others is thus the prime end of the state in a liberal society. This is not moral? Using force to compel people who are not harming anyone else to abide by a particular standard of conduct defined by a particular moral code represents a higher moral standard?

Consider the above critique in context with one of the most lucrative industries in this country, arguably in the world: Porn. Substantial energy from religious and social conservatives worldwide goes into fighting this industry on the basis of "morality". One could further apply some personal version of morality to, say, alcohol...cigarettes...appliances...music...cars (Amish for example)...anything that intrudes on someone's version of simplicity, morality, what have you. So it seems that marketing is a big business because IT WORKS. It's a business of persuasion, of convincing people they need something, of altering their perspectives and values. When someone overindulges we blame the person who was persuaded for not being responsible. Unless, of course, the marketing was for something deemed "immoral" or unnecessary- but the latter qualities are more often than not matters of personal opinion. Comments? What's wrong with porn so long as the participants and the observers are all consenting adults? Ditto for gambling, prostitution, tea-bagging, sodomy, stamp-collecting, hang-gliding, rock-climbing, etc, etc, etc? You should really read Von Hayek's "Why I am Not a Conservative" for a strong defense of the liberal order if these questions are troubling you.

Morality as defined by whom? Imposed by what authority?

now there's an oxymoron! Have you gone over to the darkside?

One of the more frightening notions I've heard voiced on this site in quite some time. Boundless compulsion in an effort to contrive utopias has also been tried with widely noted downsides that seem to exceed a general policy of making the protection of personal liberty the prime end of government. What do you have in mind? What kind of entity should constrain the deplorable excess of personal liberty that we are suffering from, and what vision of a perfect society should its revocation be be in service of? Or is this just a misreading of your point?

Pretty concise summary of the angst-laden voices on this thread...,

Wanting a comfortable home, a reliable car, a nice toaster, to spend less of your time doing dishes or laundry, to spend less of your total income on food and clothing, etc are "base desires?" Certainly not representative of mankind's highest aspirations, but that indictment includes virtually every human that's ever lived, and is far from a defect that's unique to any particular subset of humanity. Moreover, whether someone's desires are base or not per anyone else's standards is a moot point so long as they don't directly harm anyone else. It's also worth noting that highbrow and lowbrow pursuits are hardly mutually exclusive. There's plenty of profs in the stands with brews in their hands at the average Husky home game. And finally, how would anything that I've said in either this thread or this post qualify as a contradiction of liberal ideals?

More conceit, snobbery, and scarcely concealed disgust masquerading as a sincere concern for your the people that you've dedicated your life to fetishizing some idealized version of. To claim that the average person is so dim-witted that they've effectively been hypnotized by marketing and are no longer capable of defining their own *authentic* wants and needs, or that the choices that they make and the way that they actually live are contemptible and shameful, and that they need some coddled intellectuals to take control of their lives to save them from themselves represents a more optimistic view of human nature than the contrary is quite an assertion. This is nothing more than aristocratic contempt for the everything about the average person repackaged in a "progressive" wrapper. The funny thing about you is that I'd wager that the average working stiff with even a modestly skilled trade would find your concern as bizzare as your contempt is annoying, given that high probability that he's probably making substantially more money and profoundly happier with his lot in life than you are. However, I *strongly* encourage you to put your precepts to the test. Spend a couple of thousand hours on the factory floor or your choosing, take a dozen especially hapless victims of the consumer society under your wing. Pull them aside and - in as loud a voice as you can muster - subject their beliefs, their choices, and every other aspect of their lives to as withering a critique as you deem necessary to bring about the desired changes. A parlor-marxist version of Pygmalion played out on the assembly line, if you will. Let us know how it goes.

and of course you exclude yourself from this milieu, having transcended it with you revelations and awareness? Exactly where did I exclude myself? I assume, then, by your tone, that you completely disagree with what was stated above? Or it disturbed you, so you choose to attack the speaker instead of addressing the points? I should also add that you will probably enjoy David Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest," which is a long and hilarious meditation on the anxieties that you expressed in your post. I read the book 10 years ago, and it seems kind of prophetic in hindsight.

and of course you exclude yourself from this milieu, having transcended it with you revelations and awareness? Exactly where did I exclude myself? I assume, then, by your tone, that you completely disagree with what was stated above? Or it disturbed you, so you choose to attack the speaker instead of addressing the points? You must have read DeTocqueville's "Democracy in America," correct? The aristocratic critiques and anxieties that he articulated (along with the positive comments) when surveying America in the mid-nineteenth century are more or less exactly in line with your comments, or at least substantially similar to them.

Again - who gets the blame for this? There are only so many capitalist titans in our society, their wants are limited, and their aggregate demand for goods and services are quite limited relative to that generated by the sum of the average workers. To cap the irony, most of them have made their fortunes by catering to the wants and desires of the NASCAR or McMansion sets more efficiently than any other participant in the marketplace. You can blame them for the gaudy fixtures in their Hamptons beach retreat, but not the Velvet Elvis poster above the Lazy-Boy recliner anchored in front of the flat-screen showing the latest UFC fight.

And who is to blame for this, kemosabe? See above. Wasn't a problem when the landed aristocracy provided the only effective demand for many goods and services, was it?

Rather odd to hear such a lament from the "one true friend of the working man on cc.com." The overwhelming majority of the resources and effort expended in a market economy are dedicated to providing the average citizen the goods and services that they want at the lowest possible price. The culture that you disdain and the purchases that occur within it are the product of choices that reflect the true motivations, wants, and desires of the average worker. The irony here is that your critiques resemble nothing more closely than those first articulated by the European artistocrats sneering at the mass-society growing across the Atlantic in the 19th century. Where there are exceptions to the tendency of the masses to shape our society, they are primarily due to the efforts and patronage of an elite that owes its position to capitalism rather than hereditary rule. How much time have you ever spent on a shop floor, production line, or job-site, btw? I'd estimate that I spent at least 3,000 hours working landscaping, production, and light assembly jobs between the start of high-school and the end of college. If there'd been a vote between watching NASCAR on the big screen while chugging down Bud-lights over a bowl of hot-wings at Hooters, and sipping chardonay while contemplating late 19th century American portraiture at a seminar hosted by a local art-museum -I hate to break this to you...but - Rembrandt Peale would have lost out to Dale Earnhardt every_single_time.

"There are no doubt some things available to the modern workman that Louis XIV himself would have been delighted to have—modern dentistry for instance. On the whole, however, a budget on that level had little that really mattered to gain from capitalist achievement. Even speed of traveling may be assumed to have been a minor consideration for so very dignified a gentleman. Electric lighting is no great boon to anyone who has enough money to buy a sufficient number of candles and to pay servants to attend them. It is the cheap cloth, the cheap cotton and rayon fabric, boots, motorcars and so on that are the typical achievements of capitalist production, and not as rule improvements that would mean much to the rich man. Queen Elizabeth owned silk stockings. The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within reach of factory girls in return for steadily decreasing amounts of effort." Same as above.