JayB

I had the opportunity to experience sucking in a couple of wind-pipe loads full of snow along with a bit of limb immobilization and (very) partial burial a couple of days ago, and man - is that ever unpleasant. Feels like suffocating and drowning at the same time. Landed, had the tips dive, and augured headfirst into some super-deep light snow. Legs were fully locked in (big powder skis are work very well as deadmen), arms were partially trapped, and my head was partially buried. By the time the first snow-plug in the windpipe melted out I was super-desperate to get a breath and took in another lungful. No fun. The whole thing probably lasted all of about 40 seconds, but man was that unpleasant. Spent the rest of the day just basically using the avalung as a snorkel in the deep stuff. Might start using that sucker when I'm skiing deep pow in the trees even when I'm not all that concerned about avy risk cuz the suffo-drowning feeling sucks big-time.

Totally agree that you have to limit what you take on day trips for practical and aesthetic reasons (no fun to lug around tons of extra gear on your day trip). Having said that, I do try to take enough to survive at least one night out. Or at least delude myself into thinking that I'll be able to survive the night with what I've got. It might just be me, but sometimes the line between casual daytrip and full-bore epic seems to be way finer in the winter-time, particularly when the days are short. In addition to some extra food and the other usual stuff like a lighter/matches that includes a super-compressed FF Vireo half bag, a superlight bivy sack, a trimmed-down piece of blue pad that I line my pack with, a pocket rocket, a small can of fuel, and a 1L aluminum pot. I also always carry a shovel, but since I'm normally on skis or rigged up for travel in avy-land I don't really consider that an extra. Not sure what it all weighs but it doesn't seem prohibitively heavy. At least in my head I can picture being able to dig in, brew-up, get insulated, and stay alive (but not necessarily warm) for at least one night in most conditions. I'm sure it's overkill compared to what most folks bring along for the day, but I'd be curious to hear what, if anything, folks toss in their packs for daytrips in the winter.

Real deal. [video:youtube]

Evidently it was their idea of enjoying life, and all things being equal I doubt they'd trade place with the folks' who's heads they were stacking in pyramids. I'd say on net the following is a negative for mankind, but in evolutionary terms lots of these dudes "won" big-time: In 2003 a groundbreaking historical genetics paper reported results which indicated that a substantial proportion of men in the world are direct line descendants of Genghis Khan. By direct line, I mean that they carry Y chromosomes which seem to have come down from an individual who lived approximately 1,000 years ago. As Y chromosomes are only passed from father to son, that would mean that the Y is a record of one’s patrilineage. Genghis Khan died ~750 years ago, so assuming 25 years per generation, you get about 30 men between the present and that period. In more quantitative terms, ~10% of the men who reside within the borders of the Mongol Empire as it was at the death of Genghis Khan may carry his Y chromosome, and so ~0.5% of men in the world, about 16 million individuals alive today, do so. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan/

I doubt that "inheriting the earth" has ever made becoming a butcher worthwhile to anybody. Anybody but folks ranging from Ghengis Khan to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc, etc, etc, etc? Is that the reason that the average human has 2-3X more female than male ancestors?

no, i'm not saying that. obviously our soldiers are good at killing people and have been for a long time. the sick fucks at sand creek in 1864 oughta be a fine example of that. more like saying that it's not the military so much as society in general that prepares people to kill. obviously the military builds on that burgeoning skill, and for good reasons - soldiers who won't shoot straight are just as useless as ones who can't, no? Can't help but speculate that the Cultural selection process wouldn't have favored these traits at most points from pre-history onwards. Whether it's a rampaging band of frustrated beta-males that that the big alpha monkeys kicked out of the neighboring stand of trees coming over to make off with your fruit and your primate lady-folk, or Ghenghis and co hell-bent on far worse... In 1219 he turned his force of 700,000 west and quickly devastated Bokhara, Samarkand, Balkh, Merv (all in what is now the Soviet Union), and Neyshabur (in present-day Iran), where he slaughtered every living thing. Before his death in 1227, Chinnggis Khan, pillaging and burning cities along the way, had reached western Azarbaijan in Iran. After Chinggis's death, the area enjoyed a brief respite that ended with the arrival of Hulagu Khan (1217-65), Chinggis's grandson. In 1258 he seized Baghdad and killed the last Abbasid caliph. While in Baghdad, Hulagu made a pyramid of the skulls of Baghdad's scholars, religious leaders, and poets, and he deliberately destroyed what remained of Iraq's canal headworks. The material and artistic production of centuries was swept away. Iraq became a neglected frontier province ruled from the Mongol capital of Tabriz in Iran. ...meekness doesn't necessarily seem to have been a trait that would lead to inheriting the earth.

"I wonder what evolutionary biologists would say about the phenomenon you describe. If we are merely trained chimps how is it that we are not actively out killing each other in streets in this bad economy?" I think that argument is that cultural forces (or cultural evolution)has been increasingly keeping our violent tendencies in check over time despite the fact that we're still saddled with a stone age brain that takes at least half of it's marching orders from the reptillian bits. One of the more interesting bits of Keeley's book is his estimate that if you expanded the mortality that occurs in the intermittent skirmishes that characterizes most violent conflicts amongst primitive peoples across the entire globe the the number of KIA's in the 20th century would have been ~800 million.

What dross! Countless studies have shown that through ww2 ~80% of soldiers refused to kill the enemy. Only after thoroughly dehumanizing desensitization training programs were introduced has this ratio changed. manufacturing contempt Have there really been "countless studies" confirming that even people being shot at won't return fire? Isn't it more like there's a controversial statistical claim made by a single author? http://warchronicle.com/us/combat_historians_wwii/marshallfire.htm It'd be good news for humanity if his claims about the extreme reluctance of humans to kill other humans, even when someone else is actively trying to kill them happen to be true. The entire record of humanity from pre-history onwards seems to suggest that people are reluctant to kill under some cirumstances, and far less so in others. http://www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126 I'm skeptical of the claim that "when other people are actively trying to kill them" is one of the situations where people are generally reluctant to use lethal force. There is actually good evidence that violence has actually been trending erratically downwards for at least a few centuries, and that things like rising prosperity, communication, travel, trade, the spread of liberal values, etc - rather than an inborn extreme reluctance to use violence under any circumstances - are behind the trend.

Be sure and explain that to the nervous Marines who are just arrived or deploying for a tour in the Helmand Province which, by the way, was actually calming down before these crackers got all GoPro. The only thing we know for sure is it won't be them dying because of their video. I think it was the romans that said "Offenses against the Gods are the business of the Gods." The Marines you speak of have every right to be outraged on their own behalf anytime one of their own - or someone ten thousand miles away - makes choices that needlessly increase the risk to them. If they've nominated you to be outraged on their behalf for the risks that they, and not you, will have to endure as a consequence of their fellow marines' action then let me know. Otherwise feel free to criticise what I've said for your own reasons, but spare me the presumption that you're entitled to criticise something I've written on their behalf.

a fine illustration of clemenceau's observation that "war is too serious a matter to leave to soldiers." Hume put it best when he said "The rules of our morals aren't the conclusions of our reason," but I have to admit that I find it somewhat curious that it's generally regarded as okay to kill folks like the Taliban with whatever ballistic weaponry we can conjure up but peeing on them after the fact is a seen as graver sin against the rules of civilized conduct. I'm glad we come from a civilization that expects people to abide by the best standards of conduct even when fighting enemies who lack these scruples, but I can't help but notice how far apart the conclusions of reason and the rules of our morals are on this one. Ditto for waterboarding vs execution by drone.

For what its worth the main solider involved in those incidents is at the brig I work at. Honestly if I didnt know the story or his charges I wouldnt have guessed he could do anything like that. Think it just goes to show you what war can bring out in a person. This is all arm-chair analysis from my end, but I have to wonder how the average person posting from the comfort of their chaise-lounges would hold-up after months and months of foot patrols in Afghanistan while folks as ruthless, barbaric, and merciless as the Taliban try to kill them every day. The times I've really been afraid for my life have been the results of my own misjudgments and the only thing doing me in was the serene indifference of natural law, but even that felt personal at the time. Thankfully I've never had anyone out to kill me, but even feeling persistently threatened by someone in ways that seem credible can bring out some fairly primitive feelings mighty fast. I'd like to think that I'd behave as honorably as the hundreds of thousands of troops who have rotated through the Iraq and Afghanistan and behaved with restraint and scruples when fighting an enemy with neither. I'm glad that we're part of a civilization that expects the corpses of even the most loathesome adversaries to be treated with a certain amount of dignity, and I don't expect people not to criticize people who violate that expectation, but I do wish that people who haven't had to walk the walk would incorporate a bit of self-reflection and humility into their outrage. I suppose it reminds me of the folks who criticize the failings of various people involved in high-altitude tragedies, who have never personally been exhausted, hypoxic, borderlined hypothermic and terrified while nature unloads on them with all barrells. I think the fact that we expect everyone to uphold the highest values in the most dire circumstances is a good thing, but I can't help but get mildly annoyed when folks who have never been in the mountains, much less in dire straits let fly without injecting at least a mild dose of humility or honest self reflection into the mix when they're evaluating the guy who couldn't summon the will to head back into the storm, etc.

Time to queue up the perennial classic... "Subie comin in HOT!" [video:youtube]

[video:youtube]

Not from me. It is something I believe we've all wrestled with and I was just kind of curious about "le crap". I don't doubt the info Mr. Frieh posted but it seems a little subjective for my pea brain to relate to. Here's some fun facts: Say a 175lb guy drinks one half bottle (two six oz glasses) of red wine each night which is moderate by most standards. That's about 250 calories which takes approximately 25 minutes of running at 5mph for that guy to burn off. Seems counterproductive for most athletes. Say that guy spends $10/bottle for the wine. That's $1,825.00 per year or $152/month. If that guy's spouse consumes the same amount, it's $3,650/year. What else could one do with that money? A week in Maui right now sounds pretty nice. One doesn’t have to be a heavy drinker for it to negatively impact the quality of life. Yet, most of us (myself included) chug away regardless of the outcome. Kind of strange. Like having 1000 channels of stuff on TV with nothing compelling to watch but continuing to channel surf. I'm as guilty as anyone. That's the "crap" that ruminates around my middle-aged head (and gut). Am I going to do anything about it besides anonymously complaining on the internet? With my 40th birthday around the corner, I just might. I take the savings I've realized from foregoing haircuts, cutting back to one bottle of shampoo every two years, and all hair-styling products into micros.

"A British analysis of 12,000 male physicians found that moderate drinkers had the lowest risk of death from all causes during the 13 year study." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2541157/ Interesting in that it seems to weed out the income, education, and access to care as confounding variables but still falls short of causation. Could be causal, but I don't think that we have enough data to connect the dots yet and I'm still skeptical.

- Really not addressing you other than agreeing with your skepticism about the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption. -Different strokes for different folks. I'm all for the total legalization of all drugs and couldn't care less what people outside of my family and friends do to their own bodies so long as they don't hurt anyone else. While I certainly don't consider you an enemy, you're neither family nor a friend so what you chose to partake in or not is no business of mine.

-Agree that the association between moderate alcohol consumption is likely to be debunked over time, since it's basically a marker for impulse control, eduction, income, etc. Swap the delivery vehicle from wine, micros, and scotch to 8-Ball, Mad-Dog 20/20, or Pruno and the correlation between any level of alchol consumption and health turns negative mighty fast. -For me it's all part of a balance between indulging in one of the quotidian pleasures that makes life more enjoyable and interesting despite the ill health effects, and the knowledge that I could easily find myself amongst the folks who die long before reaching the three-score and ten milestone, at which point abstaining from moderate alcohol consumption to preserve my health would seem mighty silly. -IMO anyone who engages in alpine climbing or other similarly risky pursuits shouldn't bother worrying about what downing a couple of beers a day is likely to do to their longevity. If you're into base jumping you can pretty much indulge in any vice known to man, or invent some new ones, in any quantity and not worry about it affecting your longevity one iota.

What amount is required for all these effects to occur? 1 drink a day? 2? More? Exactly - the least the original author could do is post a titration curve that shows how much exercise is required to negate each unit of alcohol.

The reason that organized interests are willing to invest large amounts of money to influence politicians is that the returns on their investment can be very high. The less power politicians have to distort the tax, regulatory, and appropriations environment in ways that benefit particular interests, the less money organized interests will spend doing so. The more power congress has to tax and regulate, the more money organized interests will spend. It's a symbiotic, rather than an adversarial relationship.

Isn't the authors's point that organized financial interests, far from fighting Federal regulation, actually sought it out in order to secure commercial advantages for themselves? That's a pretty vague statement (of course corporations act toward their commercial interests!). Corporations eventually joined the chorus for federal regulations because a) federal regulations gave uniform guidelines for operation instead of a state by state (city by city) patchwork of often incompatible rules and b) because it enhanced the credibility of their products by getting rid of the rotten apples in the barrel (every brand is hurt when the public distrust industry following scandals). The context of the period being that of a wave of popular support for safety and fairness in the workplace as well as for reining in dishonest business interests who misrepresented their products. For example, Sinclair's The Jungle that described conditions in the meat packing industry was published in 1906 and although Sinclair was making a case against the horrible plight of workers, the public response was horror at the unsanitary conditions prevalent in meat packing. Business interests having a major say in the shape of regulations isn't disputed but painting it as a desire to create monopolies rather than address public perception of their products as well as fitting within a broader context of reining abuses and creating a predictable business environment is rather simplistic (and self serving for the free marketeering crowd). It's just one more example of the fact that the "businesses hate regulation" meme is itself a gross oversimplification that doesn't jive with reality. Business love regulation that creates barriers to entry, creates a vritual monopoly, etc. [video:youtube]

Isn't the authors's point that organized financial interests, far from fighting Federal regulation, actually sought it out in order to secure commercial advantages for themselves?

Nobody claimed that regulations pushed by enemies of the social contract and by pols who sell out to private interests were in the public interest, but your current tune is a far cry from your usual all encompassing "regulations are strangling free enterprise" "The estimated annual benefits of major Federal regulations reviewed by OMB [Office of Management and Budget] from October 1, 2000, to September 30, 2010, for which agencies estimated and monetized both benefits and costs, are in the aggregate between $132 billion and $655 billion, while the estimated annual costs are in the aggregate between $44 billion and $62 billion. These ranges reflect uncertainty in the benefits and costs of each rule at the time that it was evaluated." http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2011_cb/2011_cba_report.pdf http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conservatism-Gabriel-Kolko/dp/0029166500

More strawmwen from the regulations-are-bad neoliberal corner. Of course, regulations have to account for the public interest, which demands that we elect politicians that will select competent bureaucrats and not enemies of the social contract like regressives have been promoting for as long as I have been alive. -Prohibition -War on Drugs -Farm Subsidies -Three Strikes Laws The point isn't that all regulations are bad but that an uncritical acceptance of the nostrum that everyone passing laws is always on the side of the angels doesn't withstand even the slightest critical scrutiny. Good intentions don't guarantee good outcomes.

And that's assuming he could do all those things. You know, like all the things Barry promised to do. The FTC and the EPA are in the executive branch. True, he couldn't change the regulations, but he could get rid of the enforcers. I guess congress could bypass him and set up their own? I'm not a constitutional expert. If this happened then it necessarily follows that all states would nullify all of their environmental regulations, etc?

Ron Paul is the most pro-corporate candidate out there, is that a joke? Explain please. he doesn't think the federal government should regulate business (or the stock market, for that matter). He opposes virtually all "market interference" by the federal government, and he was one of the original plaintiffs on the lawsuit that became the Citizen's United decision. His libertarian beliefs are obviously anti-regulation, which is obviously pro-corporation. Jeez, don't you even research the guy? The major unstated premise here is that corporations and other organized financial interests don’t use legislation and/or regulation to secure an advantage for themselves, insulate themselves from competition, impose costs on their competitors, limit consumer choice, etc, etc, under the guise of some happy sounding label like “green energy,” etc. How someone can live in the real world, live beyond the age of 17, see things like the Farm Bill, much less Prohibition, come out of the sausage factory and believe that all regulation automatically promotes the public interest is beyond me.