JayB

Have there been belay loop failures other than the late Todd Skinner's?

Aha. I forgot about Morrison and the Tub...

Thermidor...

Scrofula, copper bathtubs, and chicks with daggers come to mind much more readily than Jim Morrison so you'll have to help me out a bit on that one. I always thought that he made an interesting contrast to Franklin.

I count on cc.com to bridge the cognitive gap between any conceivable subject and bushcheneyhalliburtonrovecarlyleausdfaisygosaugakslj in record time and am seldom dissapointed.

"the boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave" - thomas jefferson sometimes them waves can build up into a damn tsunami, no? Perhaps that was "le deluge" Louis the 14th was referring to. I expect Chavez to promote liberty at least as well as Robespierre and Marat did.

Yeah - the trailhead vehicle is more of a means to protect your finances/emotions when the inevitable vandalism/theft/torching happens. If the entire rig is worth less than $500 on the market, you should be able to look upon any amount of damage with a kind of platonic detachment than would be possible with a newer, more expensive rig.

Explain how this is possible.... "Carlyle Group Shores Up Listed Fund Holding Mortgage Loans LONDON (AP) -- Washington-based private-equity firm Carlyle Group has been forced to lend money to Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd., a highly leveraged fund listed in Amsterdam that invests in residential mortgage-backed securities, to meet margin calls. In a statement Tuesday, Carlyle Capital said Carlyle Group has extended a $100 million one-year loan to help it fund itself, and that it has already tapped the loan for $10 million." These people manipulate the levers of the global power structure by merely blinking at them, we are all mere pawns in their mighty chessboard etc - it hardly needs to be said - cetera. Something as humble as levered mortgage-based securities could puncture the facade of omnipotence and invincibility, a bunch of working stiff's that got carried away after watching one too Carlton Sheets infomercials have inflicted a flesh wound on the *Carlyle Group* with their little defaulting I/O, neg-am, payment option 2/28s that they took out to purchase income properties yielding rents that cover less than half of the post-reset payments? I...think...not Perhaps this but a small part of their vaunted "false-flag" strategy - feigning a small measure of weakness before once again employing "sovereign" governments to enrich them by doing their bidding. Hmmm...

Hopefully it never got this bad...

The "trailhead vehicle" with torn upholstery, no stereo, rusted out body panels and.... a fully restored and very reliable engine/drivetrain/suspension/etc is definitely part of the long-term plan. After another winter driving between Boston and parts north on some of the most intensely salted roadways in the US, the "rust" part of the plan should be pretty well in place...

The only problem for me is that even after denuding the truck of anything that would make it easy for them to gain access to my house or credit - there's still a bunch of stuff that I keep in my truck that I'd rather not have anyone steal. I've got a basic set of tools, a big flashlight, a headlamp, a shovel, come-along, tow-strap, one of those portable jump-start deals, light-sleeping bag, therma-rests, etc - basically the stuff I need to fix the more common stuff that can hose you if you are 20 miles from the last fork on the logging road, or if I need to crash overnight someplace - and while none of it is particularly valuable - I have a hard time with the "unlocked door" idea for some reason, even though I know that the kind of person who is jacking cars at trailheads wouldn't be the least bit reluctant to smash every single window if it stood between them and something they wanted, and/or provided some momentary amusement. What's everyone else do? Locked or unlocked? Anyone ever have a vehicle stolen from a trailhead, or know someone who this has happened to?

Bullshit. Mahar Arar was charged with and/or convicted of absolutely nothing prior to being shipped off to Syria to be imprisoned and tortured. Similar treatment has been meted out by the US to who knows how many other totally innocent individuals in the years since 9/11 "changed everything". Same goes for all those nameless souls you've got locked up in Guantanamo Bay - what charges, trials, convictions have any of them been through? I agree Karl Rove should be allowed the sort of habeus corpus rights you espouse, but I also believe those same rights should be extended to everyone who is subject to US "justice". Here's a much more timely question - will fellow Canadian Georges St. Pierre be subject to another round of US justice at the hands of Josh Koschek, or will the multi-lateral offense that GSP brings to the match carry the day as it has in the past?

Sorry this happened, but thanks for sharing your experience so that other folks can learn from it. At the moment if anyone were to break into my car, they'd get their hands on at least as much personal information as these guys stole. Definitely need to do a bit of cleaning, and re-think what I leave in the car and where I leave it.

I think my last trip out there was in 2004 or thereabouts, but by that time I think that pretty much all of the bolts on the routes that start at Tombstone Ledge had been replaced, American Pie had been replaced, and there were 3/8" bolts of more recent vintage either adjacent to old Leeper hardware, or placed in holes once occupied by old Leeper hardware, in place near the harder climbing on Online/Offline - and I think there's been some work done since then. The rock quality is incredible, the crowds are well nigh non-existent, the setting is incredible, and the few routes that I've done out there were enjoyable and memorable. Anyone who lives within a couple hours of Static should be thankful for what they've got - Leeper hardware and all. I look forward to checking out more of that crag when the exile is over...

...and right. You are also welcome to read the paper and dispute the arguments, data, and conclusions.

Now we're getting silly. You could rephrase it - but that's not what the article said. I did read several of the articles linked to the Wickapedia site - as I stated. If you going to base your argument on "scholarly" works, and not just your opinion, then don't get caught trying to bend the words to match your opinion and then accuse others providing some solid examples that contradict your opinion as non-scholarly. Cheers. Wasn't claiming that the articles in question weren't "scholarly," but that they didn't specifically address the question under discussion. I've provided a paper which does specifically address these claims, which I invite you to read, if you wish to base your objection to my argument on the contention that it has no support in the literature. Just because you didn't read a paper that contains the argument or the data to support my claim, doesn't mean that such papers don't exist. If you're going to play that game, at least play it fairly. Again: http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/ross/doesoil.pdf

And another: http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/ross/doesoil.pdf If you are going to respond to data and arguments presented in the paper, you'll need to...actually read the paper.

I went back and looked at the Wickipedia reference you posted and the linked article. I didn't see anything related to "single resource" vs "multiple resource" economies, only a distinction between contries "rich in natural resources" and those that "lack natural resources". And while there was one paper that addressed the increased likelyhood that a country "rich in natural resources" would have more issues with corruption - I saw no mention of a correlation with "repressive regimes". Seems to me you're stretching this analogy. In addition - the US is quite resource rich and a democratic country (sort of). I don't think you thesis is holding much water here - and not backed up by what you have cited. One of the countries cited in the summary (your link) is South Korea. The summary goes on to say lacking natural resources South Korea has concentrated on investments in education and that has lead to a more diverse economy. My oh, my though - a step across the border and we have a similar country, similar lack of natural resources, and quite a repressive regime. I could easily rephrase the said statement to something like "There is a strong tendency towards an inverse relationship between resource wealth and democratic rule in countries which lack strong democratic institutions and traditions." and it would indeed be more accurate. I don't think that such modifications would undermine the claim that on the whole, the presence of vast oil reserves and the revenues that they generate have been a factor that has tended to undermine, rather than advance democratic reform in the middle east. This is one of many variables that has done so, but it's important, often overlooked, and is not easily addressed by changes in public policy. You are welcome to argue the contrary case if you wish. If you broaden the scope of your reading beyond the wikipedia entry, I think you'll find that my claims that there is a connection between resource wealth and authoritarianism are supported elsewhere in the literature. http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/publications/research_reports/art2635.html/OA-Extractive_Sectors_and_the_Poor.pdf

Flip 1: China. I hear their free elections are real potboilers. I suppose that they're single commodity producers...if you define "all the cheap shit we buy" as a single commodity. Flip 2: Norway, the world's tax haven. Flip 3: 'third world'? A bit of bait and switch, no? Is Saudi Arabia 'third world', or are you talking about someplace like Nigeria? I'd say 'third world' has much more to do with repression than 'single resource'. Non-specific/multiple criteria: Naughty statistician! Flip 4: I've racked up 4 national examples that refute your argument to your none. So far, I'm winning by infinity percent. Flip 5: Costa Rica. A classic commodity (coffee and palm oil) producing central American country which is not repressive. Why? Because they choose not to be. You don't actually seem to understand how these things work. If I claim that the scholarship and the data support the conclusion that smokers have a greater tendency to contract lung cancer, and you cite the names of five people who smoke who have not contracted lung cancer, you have not refuted the data or the scholarship. The fact that you believe otherwise is telling.

Does the fact that the people committing the acts of terrorism make explicit and repeated reference to the motivations and sanction for their actions in their religion - which is Islam - mean that acknowledging these facts in public statements is indicative of an intention to undertake a wholesale condemnation of the said religion, especially when coupled with repeated mosque visits, multiple and repeated statements in which the president, the secretary of state, etc take pains to make positive comments about Islam and differentiate the extremists form the rest of the faithful? Would inciting "fear and hatred" of Islam as a policy goal really jive with the broader policy objectives that the administration has been trying to achieve, and that has maintained relationships with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, etc, etc, etc? I think that unreasoning fear and hatred in question here is more appropriately consigned to the folks making these assertions rather than the administration, with the target in question being the president and his administration. I thought that the black helicopter survivalists who were railed against Clinton would never have their paranoid vitriol exceeded by any other portion of the electorate in my lifetime, but clearly I was mistaken.

"If you look around the world, it's clear that in states around the world - not just the Middle East - in which the economy is driven by a single resource, authoritarianism is the rule rather than the exception. In states in which a wide range of industries and business - which cannot easily be seized or capably administered by a single entity - generate the tax revenues that the state depends upon for its existence, some degree of public involvement in and acceptance of the political system is a necessary condition for the state's survival, and taxation guarantees some degree of representation. In states where the control of a single resource generates all of the revenues that the state needs to function, there's no need for taxation and no impetus for representation. Moreover - in this scenario, the state, rather than independent economic activity - determines who eats and who starves, who prospers and who suffers, and this is not a state of affairs that provides the autonomy or material security necessary for sustained dissent." My example is the set of all third world countries that rely on the sale of a single commodity or set of commodities to drive their economies, and I'll cite the historical records and scholarly consensus. This is like debating a guy who flips a coin five times, gets heads five times in a row, and proclaims the law of averages null and void. Do you honestly believe that if I don't take the time to compile all of the data scholarship that supports this theory in this particular thread, that all of this evidence and scholarship have been nullified? Interesting.

The entry is just a means of acquainting you with a brief overview of the scholarship, which you are clearly both unfamilar with and unwilling to address. If I had linked the wikipedia entry for "Evolution," could I expect a trite dismissal of the scholarship which that particular theory is based upon on the same grounds? And..my argument is contained in previous posts, and unless your refutation is contained within a treatise in which the various economists and other experts who work in the field accept as such, then you can congratulate yourself on accepting your own argument, but nothing else.

This assertion evaporates under historical scrutiny. First of all, there are very few nations around the world that are 'single resource' based. Too few to draw any kind of simplistic conclusion regarding the relationship of that key resource and the oppressiveness of their regime. When one examines these few nations, no clear patterns emerge. Repressive Saudi Arabia is oil based, but then, so is the very democratic and socially liberal Norway. New Zealand's primary export is sheep. Repressive? Not very. For a more local example, visit Kuwait, another oil based nation, sometime. Pretty liberal and modern. One thing Jay's arguments all have in common: they are in love with the 'Big Idea': a one size fits all, formula based, and thus centralized, solution for the world's problems. Unfortunately for this philosophy, which has failed spectacularly of late, successful foreign policy requires a more case by case approach and a great deal of local knowledge and dependence on in country relationships. Using Saudi Arabia as an example, I would argue that their cultural and colonial history had much more to do with their present level of repression than the fact that they are a single resource producer. Islam, which was at its inception was a liberalizing force in what was a brutal nomadic culture, has morphed over the centuries into its present intolerant forms, the most intolerant of which reside in Saudi Arabia. No surprise; it is the birthplace of the religion. What we see today is a young, tenuous Kingdom, established under the auspices the colonial powers long before oil became a primary world resource, trying to maintain an uneasy peace with a fundamentalist population following a religion established, again, long before oil became a primary world resource. There's actually a substantial body of research and empirical evidence to support my arguments and claims about the connection between economies driven by single-commodity or set of commodities and authoritarianism. When you have a strong set of democratic or cultural traditions at work, this tendency will be less pronounced. When a society that lacks these elements, or in which these factors are weaker, the tendency towards authoritarianism will be more pronounced. In the case of the Middle East, I suppose one could claim that there are and have always been strong institutional and cultural tendencies that have manifested themself in a longstanding history of democratric rule throughout the region - whether the time period under discussion involves the Umayyads, the Abbassids, or the present - but that would be a rather difficult claim to reconcile with the historical record. When can we expect the publication of your refutation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

Thus US policy on what? Narrow it down a bit and I'll answer. The reality is that any serious attempt on your part to address any of the questions would be impossible to reconcile with your viewpoints, and your posts are a tacit admission of as much. And - to address a minor sub-point of your hystrionics: "We should NOT be making speeches about how Islam is the root of all evil." Can you find me a single example of a case in which a single official associated with the executive branch hasn't taken pains to distinguish jihadists from the average Muslim. If you look at Bush's actions - like visiting multiple Mosques on multiple occaisions - or the content of his speeches, you will not find blanket condemnations of Islam, but repeated assertions that our conflict is restricted to those who invoke Islam to justify the intentional murder of civilians. From the tone of your comments, it seems as though you consider statements such as these have played a significant role in alienating moderate Muslims. If you are correct in this assertion, then it's difficult to determine what statements concerning Islamists could be uttered by any public official without inflaming Muslim sentiment, in which case one has to ask whether it's US rhetoric that's caused a significant portion of the Muslim world to extend their sympathies to radical Islamists, or if there are other forces that might warrant consideration.

How is this statement: "I would also argue that many, myself included, believe our Middle Eastern polices have been flawed not because of some simplistic belief that our involvement per se leads to repression, but that the US does not consider the repressiveness of a regime as a primary determinant for lending support. Rather, alignment with US interests (Israel) and a willingness to sell oil on favorable terms (Saudi Arabia) have determined who we favor in the Middle East. Social justice has had little to do with it. As a result, we are now reaping a huge debt, decreased security, and a less stable and less democratic Middle East for our decades of massive investment in the region." Materially Different than this one, that no one holds, and gives credence to, and is not widely referred to as "Blowback": "I think the argument I've seen is that political repression in Arab countries has been dramatically higher as a consequence of US support - explicit or tacit - for the regimes doing the repressing, and that attacks by persons inhabiting these countries on the US and other Western powers are an outgrowth of and reaction to that repression." The central argument in both variants is that our involvement there - whatever the motives - has resulted in a net increase in repression over and above that which would have resulted from any endogenous forces in the region, and the net result has been a set of political conditions which has given rise to the terrorist attacks against the US. If alignment with our interests, especially during the Cold War, and a willingness to sell oil on favorable terms (how the term "favorable" jives with the creation of a cartel created for the express purpose of restricting supply and thereby artificially elevating prices, or pondering for a moment what the Saudis would do with their oil if they weren't selling it on the open market, in which case it invariably winds up in the hands of whomever is willing and able to pay the most for it would make an interesting discussion in its own right), or containing Islamists that would institute a set of laws that would result in more repression than the existing regimes have exerted and have a decidedly more hostile stance towards the US....are not legitimate policy interests for the US to consider when considering how to play it's cards in the Middle East - what are? If you have a complex set of conflicting perogatives at play in an extremely consequential region - are you confident that calculating our moves on the basis of a single variable at all times will necessarily result in a set of outcomes that's to our liking and which advances our interests, and improves the lives of the people living in the region? I'm not sure that a single-variable policy in which we lend our support to whatever political outcomes are consistent with whatever manifestations of the popular will that happen to prevail at any given moment would have resulted in a Middle East that's any more peaceful or free than the one that we've arrived at via our consideration of the multitude of other variables that have driven our policy in the region for decades. I also think that this kind of analysis gives far too much significance to the role that external forces have played in the region, and pays far too little attention to the endogenous forces at work there. Pretend what you want, there are precious few circumstances in which the cultural and economic forces at work in the region would yield a political situation in which the Middle East had transmuted into an equatorial Holland. Sorry.