JayB

Fascist? FOAD. Quite the collection of random stalker/groupies that you've accumulated there. Must be kind of flattering, in a bizzare and disturbing way, to realize that there are folks who are glued to their monitors, fingers perched above their keyboards, waiting for a post of yours to respond to.

Might be a good place for folks to chime in with the mods they've used to make skiing in mountaineering boots suck less. I've heard of folks: -Using ski-boot liners in their mountaineering boots. -Using powerstraps with their mountaineering boots. -Sticking plastic calf-support thingies in their mountain boots. -inserting an eye-bolt into the front of their skis and attaching a calf-strap to the said eye-bolt. -Using some combination of the above. I've never done any of these mods, and if I was going to ski down a volcano, I'd just use AT-Boots on the way up, but I'd be interested in hearing which, if any of these mods folks have found to be effective.

Kind of makes me wonder how many officers are on the Bathroom Stall, uh...beat these days. Wouldn't necessarily be my first law-enforcement priority in a city with one of the highest murder rates per capita in the country, if not the world.

Probably South Boston. If you're in the U-District there's always the Knarr. Right next to PMS. Seemed like there was at least one slightly less-divey-but-not-fancy bar a couple of blocks south of The Knarr as well.

Word. Was hoping to ski the South Face in the spring after the snowpack consolidated, but I was always hungry for rock around that time and never got around to it. Did start up the Inwood Arete on the north side in the summer, but had to bail on account of lightning. That (the lightning) is the one thing that I kind of hated about the Rockies. Seems like at least half the time I got on anything more than a couple of pitches long it turned into a nerve-wracking race against the wrath-o-zeus.

North Ridge of Spearhead is indeed dope. Only quibble with the recs is I think you meant the East Ridge of Quandary for a ski descent, no?

The infinity of uncrowded granite in the South Platte and warm, south-facing limestone on Shelf Road both warrant an occasional trip south of I-70 as well. I also found that cross-referencing the hot-springs guide with the Roach/Dawson guidebooks was a worthwhile endeavor. Looking forward to the TR's.

JFK cCrovnNGdSg

Yup. I think I could give up all the rest of it pretty easily, as long as I had the right company.

Perhaps the artist responsible for the cartoon above is a bit closer to the mark with his take on the story of Lot... 8Gpy4Y2OdzY

Ski vacations.

Cool. Brings back some good memories from the high country out there. If you're in the mood for non-technical-but-interesting routes to the top of some of the higher peaks that you can do in a standard-length day from most Front-Range cities, check these out. -The West Ridge of Quandary Peak. -The Kelso Ridge Route on Torrey's Peak. -The Sawtooth Ridge Traverse between Mt. Evans and Mt. Bierstadt. The Great Sand Dunes/Sierra Blanca make for a great weekend if you've got some more time.

PsymvcqVc1s

Haven't seen anything that I'd take over the 360s.

All-season/winter tire-comparison Thread-Of-Doom here: http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ee9539b/531

Mmmm. Hiking through fresh snow atop bare talus. The only thing that can surpass the experience and transport it into the realm of pure alpine perfection would be adding a bit of verglass to the talus prior to the snowfall and a few pounds to the packs.

Good as a scholar, bad as a politician.... "On both sides, however, there are double standards and the kind of contradiction evident in Khomeini's violation of the essential principles of his mentor, Mulla Sadra. For Muslims to protest against the Danish cartoonists' depiction of the prophet as a terrorist, while carrying placards that threatened another 7/7 atrocity on London, represented a nihilistic failure of integrity. But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others[W.T.F?]. Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as any other form of prejudice. When 255,000 members of the so-called "Christian community" signed a petition to prevent the building of a large mosque in Abbey Mills, east London, they sent a grim message to the Muslim world: western freedom of worship did not, apparently, apply to Islam. There were similar protests by some in the Jewish community, who, as Seth Freedman pointed out in his Commentisfree piece, should be the first to protest against discrimination. Gallup found there was as yet no blind hatred of the west in Muslim countries; only 8% of respondents condoned the 9/11 atrocities. But this could change if the extremists persuade the young that the west is bent on the destruction of their religion. When Gallup asked what the west could do to improve relations, most Muslims replied unhesitatingly that western countries must show greater respect for Islam, placing this ahead of economic aid and non-interference in their domestic affairs. Our inability to tolerate Islam not only contradicts our western values; it could also become a major security risk." http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2131444,00.html

Maybe when Dru is taking a break from his FOREX trading he'll take on the argument that a trade-deficit is indistinguishable from a capital surplus...

Deciding which currency to price their oil in is the least of Mexico's worries with regards to PEMEX. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/business/worldbusiness/09pemex.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Sounds like someone has the opportunity to make a fortune in currency trading. FOREX, here Dru comes...

Just check the terrain/average-snowfall/lift-capacity/vert to ticket-price ratio for any Eastern resort of your choosing and WB looks like a bargain at full-price, much less with the 1/2 price gas-station ticket deal. Hopefully they continue the promo in 07/08

Sweeeeeeeeeeet. Time to start donating plasma for another Whistler trip. Someone start a letter writing campaign to get those gas-station tickets going again....

And this wasn't true of volleys of arrows sent over fortified walls, sieges, catapults, cannonballs, artillery, fire, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc?

I believe this is because with Viagra you are attempting to correct something that doesn't work. With birth control you are trying to stop something that is natural. Similar to the fact that insurance generally doesn't, for instance, cover Rogaine to stop balding. I would really like to believe that, but it just isn't true. First of all, most ED is a natural side effect of aging. Second of all, birth control is a normal activity that most countries like ours follow. (And that's good--it'd be tough to support 8 kids for every family). I think if you read a little on the incredible battle that it took for women to get birth control pills covered, you'll see that there is more than just your theory at work here. There have also been amazing battles that women fought just to get something back to normal again. For example, the legal fights over getting an implant after having a breast removed due to cancer were bitter. Isn't this simply returning something back to normal? I wish I could remember the name of the book I read that researched the battles fought over different coverages. Issues that only affected women were far more common and took much much longer to win than issues that only affected men. I am happy to see that trend starting to change. You mean like the current disparity between the funding available for breast and prostate cancer research? Prostate cancer is a slow growing cancer that usually affects men in their geriatric years. Breast cancer affects younger women and is often deadly at a faster rate. It makes more sense to put more money into the second group. (as a side note: my father has prostate cancer, my mother has breast cancer. I can say that emotionally they are both devastating. I don't wish to dismiss the problem in one group; but if we don't have money to fix everything, it makes sense to help the group that will benefit the most. In this case, getting another 40 yrs of life is worth more than another 10.) I agree that this is the reason why we spend more on breast cancer research than prostate cancer research, and this rationale makes sense to me - but it doesn't support the contention that the claim that women's health issues have been the subject of an intentional, wide-ranging, and systematic neglect because no one cares about women, we value women's lives less and always have, the self-serving medico-patriarchy can't look beyond it's own interests, etc. I think in most cases men simply made better "animal models" for most medical research because no one had to worry about their drug candidate turning into the next thalidomide if they included women of child bearing age in the drug study, hormonal fluctations that might complicate the analysis, etc. Sins of omission versus sins of commission. Well, it really is a gender issue. And it works both ways. For example, I think it is absolutely unacceptable that men often have to sue the companies they work for in order to get paternity leave. This is a gender disparity issue that exists in the world of our "benefits package" due to cultural norms that have been allowed to live long past their time. The genders get treated differently and unfairly in many situations--and that is a sin of commission in my opinion. Is treating men and women differently always unfair in every situation?

I believe this is because with Viagra you are attempting to correct something that doesn't work. With birth control you are trying to stop something that is natural. Similar to the fact that insurance generally doesn't, for instance, cover Rogaine to stop balding. I would really like to believe that, but it just isn't true. First of all, most ED is a natural side effect of aging. Second of all, birth control is a normal activity that most countries like ours follow. (And that's good--it'd be tough to support 8 kids for every family). I think if you read a little on the incredible battle that it took for women to get birth control pills covered, you'll see that there is more than just your theory at work here. There have also been amazing battles that women fought just to get something back to normal again. For example, the legal fights over getting an implant after having a breast removed due to cancer were bitter. Isn't this simply returning something back to normal? I wish I could remember the name of the book I read that researched the battles fought over different coverages. Issues that only affected women were far more common and took much much longer to win than issues that only affected men. I am happy to see that trend starting to change. You mean like the current disparity between the funding available for breast and prostate cancer research? Prostate cancer is a slow growing cancer that usually affects men in their geriatric years. Breast cancer affects younger women and is often deadly at a faster rate. It makes more sense to put more money into the second group. (as a side note: my father has prostate cancer, my mother has breast cancer. I can say that emotionally they are both devastating. I don't wish to dismiss the problem in one group; but if we don't have money to fix everything, it makes sense to help the group that will benefit the most. In this case, getting another 40 yrs of life is worth more than another 10.) I agree that this is the reason why we spend more on breast cancer research than prostate cancer research, and this rationale makes sense to me - but it doesn't support the contention that the claim that women's health issues have been the subject of an intentional, wide-ranging, and systematic neglect because no one cares about women, we value women's lives less and always have, the self-serving medico-patriarchy can't look beyond it's own interests, etc. I think in most cases men simply made better "animal models" for most medical research because no one had to worry about their drug candidate turning into the next thalidomide if they included women of child bearing age in the drug study, hormonal fluctations that might complicate the analysis, etc. Sins of omission versus sins of commission. Well, it really is a gender issue. And it works both ways. For example, I think it is absolutely unacceptable that men often have to sue the companies they work for in order to get paternity leave. This is a gender disparity issue that exists in the world of our "benefits package" due to cultural norms that have been allowed to live long past their time. The genders get treated differently and unfairly in many situations--and that is a sin of commission in my opinion. I was addressing the reasons for the historical disparity. The guidelines were updated 15-20 years ago, and any basis for the victim-of-medical-neglect narrative has long since passed. Example: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/rph/7-2.html