JayB

So the partial derivative of some vector quantity with respect to time plus the dot product of the same vector quantity x whatever the delta stands equals....takes me back to the days of vector calc and taylor series solutions to equations describing damped spring mass thingies. Can't say I miss those days. I remember staring at an exam question on the final in one of those classes and writing "Go Huskies!" for the solution. I think the prof gave me at lest a point for my answer..

The main shortcoming of your response, and Trudeau's and Jim's is that it ignores the fact that people in Europe who crticize the more retrograde and millitant elements within the Islamic community increasingly do so at their own peril. Those who choose to mock or criticize Christianity labor under no such threat, so the context is entirely different. It's also interesting to observe this newfound sense highminded sensitivity towards religious beliefs emerge at the same moment that failing to do so would entail some personal risk. With regards to the religious beliefs in question, and the cartoons, I think that they were primarily directed at those who use Islam to foment violence and murder, rather than at the religion itself, which is an important distinction. You will also recall from the WSJ article which you read that the cartoons in question aroused no outrage until certain Danish Imams forged a number of cartoons which were actually calculated to generate outrage, included them in a pamphlet which contained the original cartoons, flew to the Middle East, and claimed that all of the cartoons had actually been published in Europe. The fact that this unrest didn't really take off until a number of Arab governments who were keen to demonstrate their Islamic credentials to increasingly restive populations made pains to loudly condemn them is also worth noting. The last thing I'd take issue with is the notion that remaining silent and refusing to criticize and condemn the Islamists will actually benefit Muslims in Europe or anywhere else. IMO if they see entire Western societies cowed by a determined band of fanatics, they'll rightly conclude that raising their own voices in protest would be both futile and suicidal. How such a state of affairs would be beneficial to anyone is beyond me.

I would start with the following background info on our esteemed Theo: A rather nasty fellow, in my eyes. Worthy of assasination? Of course not (I tend not to support assasination (or murder) in any form, whether capital "punishment" or organized war). I make no apologies for his killer, but when one actually sees that Theo was no saint martyred for his principles, but rather a rabble-rouser vindictively crucifying any and all with his pen, one begins to see that the murder didn't occur in a vacuum. And yes, his murder was a rather macabre affair. It seems his 26 year old killer was rather upset, pumping 8 bullets into his body, then stabbing away with a knife, and finally leaving a note pinned to his body with the same knife. And what is your point? That Muslims are out of control? I'd counter that both "sides" are out of control, with your implicit and explicit position only adding to this current state of affairs, hardening the polarization when some form of softening is what is needed (imo). Not the most savory fellow, but he's not the only one in the crosshairs at the moment, comrade. Should we all shrug and abandon Hirsan Ali to the same fate? Moderation can be an effective tool when one's adversary is convinced that one is dealing from a position of strength, and that they too have something to gain from excercising a bit of moderation, but the softening of Petain and Chamberlain did rather little to encourage either moderation or softening in their Teutonic Brethren. I'd certainly be interested in hearing what would such moderation and softening constitute in this context. I also wonder if it's a mere coincidence that the prevalance of death threats and intimidation seem to escalate in direct proportion to the levels of sympathy, understanding, and tolerance that the societies that they are directed against offer-up to the parties responsible for making the threats. How can we account for the relative quiescence of the Islamists in, and against, say - Poland?

"I'd ignore your condscension and onanistic bloviating to try and focus on your rather feeble point, but all my retorts will be interpreted as relativistic since you've so conveniently staked out an absurdly absolute coordinate system based solely on your skewed frame of reference. Instead I'll use a Peter Fleming quote, and let you draw your own inferences: "Public opinion in England is sharply divided on the subject of Russia. On the one hand you have the crusty majority, who believe it to be a hell on earth; on the other you have the half-baked minority who believe it to be a terrestrial paradise in the making. Both cling to their opinions with the tenacity, respectively, of the die-hard and the fanatic. Both are hoplessly wrong." I do say your efforts to reframe arguments at your pleasure is almost Rovian." It must be "Oblique Retort Theme Day" amongst the usual crew of antagonists. Or is maybe its "Inapt Analogy Theme Day." I'd certainly be interested in learning what, exactly, a middle-ground between preserving secular freedoms and acquiescing to the perogatives Islamists would constitute - in concrete terms. While you are mapping out the Islamo-Western equivalent of the malaise-laden Carter-Brezhneve detente, you might also elaborate on the proper channels for such a negotiation. Who should Westerners consult to determine whether or not their behavior is permissible? If there's no single authority that they can submit the matter to for approval, how should they conduct themselves in the event of a disagreement? It'd also be interesting to learn what assurances the average politician, editor, filmmaker, author, etc would have that the initial round of concessions would be sufficient to assure their safety indefinitely. If there's nothing more than more daunting than their own goodwill preventing the Islamists from pressing their advantage to the fullest, it seems rather unlikely that the first round of concessions the interest of securing this vaunted middle-ground would be the last. With respect to the Pete Fleming quote, I don't think that the historical consensus will be terribly kind to his sort of high-minded-impartiality-from-afar, as this sentiment is rather difficult to reconcile with the fact that the population which survived the famines and purges was detained within the said country at gunpoint. But if we're swapping these things, I'll leave you with my own Arab proverb which is rather apropos at the moment - "A falling camel draws many knives."

Awesome. The Crazy Mozungo strikes again.

Care to aquaint the readers of this website with the particulars of Theo Van Gogh's demise? You've got even greater delay in protesting than the islamic wack jobs! I should keep my audience in mind when employing subtety, but the point was not to protest his death - which did indeed garner remarkably little interest or comment in certain quarters - but to point out that despite the trite mockery of freedoms that SC treated us to, there are people who have been killed for exercising them recently, and many others who are in hiding and afraid for their lives. I have a hunch that this kind of ironic detatchment would evaporate rather quickly if anyone here found themselves on the wrong end of a credible death threat for criticizing someone's religion, but since that's blessedly unlikely to happen, I suspect we'll all be free to indulge in more sophomoric relativizing at no peril to ourselves. Don't think the young women in Les Cites' will enjoy the same luxury, but I can understand why that's a minor concern next to denouncing Karl Rove et al.

Apples and oranges. If people in Europe had been murdered for espousing sentiments that were critical of Christianity, and several politicians and media figures were in hiding and fearing for their lives as a result of death threats that they'd received on account of their criticisms of Christianity - then we'd be talking about the same thing. If, as a result of publishing the "Cartoon lampooning Jesus" masses of fanatics had been attacking embassies and threatening to engage in suicide bombings in order to frighten their non-Christian critics into silence, and to restricting the scope of their secular freedoms so that they'd be consistent with the most strident and dogmatic interpretations of the Bible, then we'd be talking about the same thing. There was a time, not so long ago, when all of these things would have been possible in the West. The fact that they are well-nigh unthinkable is the end result of centuries of blood and sacrifice in order to secure these freedoms, and I for one am thankful that there are still people in the West who refuse to bend over and forfeit them to the latest batch of fanatics who'd like to see them restricted to suit their tastes. I think you just catapulted yourself into first place in the "Reflexive Western Self-Loathing Sweepstakes" with that entry, Jimbo. The Mohammed Bouyeri Trophy is yours to keep. *Not that trivialities like this should hinder the self-flagelation Jim, but the cartoon in question was actually published in an Egyptian newspaper at the height of Ramadan, and attracted little or no notice. If you did a bit of reading you might also discover the reason why there was a four month gap between the publication of these cartoons, and the - cough -spontaneous outrage that erupted in the Middle East.

Care to aquaint the readers of this website with the particulars of Theo Van Gogh's demise?

Theo Van Gogh is unavailable for comment.

They Published the Satanic Cartoons It would definitely have sounded a bit off-key if they would have declined to publish the cartoons on they grounds that they would offend religious sensibilities. I think they join The Western Standard and The New York Post as the only two publications in North America to publish the cartoons. Kudos to whoever is responsible for this decision.

I'd be cool with it as long as they make the terms of the deal plain. "Give us a subsidy or we leave." Maybe we can negotiate a deal where we cut out the middleman, and the Seattle taxpayers assume the burden for Shawn Kemp's overdue child support directly...

I guess the site outgrew it's name, but I thought it was somehow appropriate given Boulder's self image as the epicenter of all things climbing. You hit McCurdy Park Tower yet? Worth spending a three-day weekend there once the monsoon/lightning season starts to ease-up somewhat. But I guess I should really be posting this in the new Hijack Fern's Threads Forum

There's plenty of free-beta available on www.climbingboulder.com. Shelf will be beautiful and sunny then. Cool place to hang out even if the climbing is not your cup-o-tea.

Can't help it if he's right every now and then. I think that there was also some overlap there on the Great Cartoon Jihad as well, hence his negative score in "The Reflexive Western Self-Loathing" sweepstakes. The thing that I like about Dave's perspective, despite the fact that it often differs from my own, is that it seems to be logical and internally consistent.

Sarcasm or a gaping hole in the Dr.s acronyminome...

I'm with Dave on this one. It's a private business. If they can't operate effectively with the income that the business generates, then perhaps they should invest in new management or seek greener pastures elsewhere. There are plenty of sentimental arguments to be made for keeping a long-time sports franchise in a city, but I wish they'd just be frank when asking for handouts instead of coming up with economic arguments that would leave even Marx and Engels guffawing in their graves.

Wow - single digits in Seattle. Can't remember the last time things got that cold there. Maybe it's the Eve Dearborn Memorialesque window that people have been waiting for forever.

Article in Powder Mag "EW IMPROVED ALPENTAL? Big changes are coming to Washington's perennial Little Area that Rocks By Kristopher Kaiyala It snowed 14 inches last night (on top of 16 from the day before) and the race is on from both sides of the Cascades to get first tracks at Alpental. You roll into the newly paved Lot 4-no more slushy potholes!-and score the final parking spot. All around you skiers and snowboarders dress quickly and eye you with nervous energy as you remove your skis from the roof rack and sprint past them onto the snow. Scott Rickenberger airing this out a bit. Alpental backcountry, WA Decisions, decisions. You survey the busy flow of humans heading toward the Armstrong Express (Chair 1). You're too late-the backup is at least 20 chairs deep. Undaunted, you skate downhill toward the base of the Pulse Gondola, only a few seconds away adjacent to the brand-new Visitor Service lodge. Your midweek pass is no good today, so you quickly purchase a ticket at the fancy kiosk and entertain ordering a cup of steaming black coffee for the ride up, and that's when you notice the sign board: Wind Hold. The gondola's on stand-by. Must be howling on top of Denny Mountain. You eye Armstrong Express again and can't stomach the wait, so you pursue the only logical option left: hop on Sessel (Chair 3). The new bullwheel is spinning quietly and no one's in line yet. You scamper onto one of the cushy new quad seats and in six minutes you're darting down the short access run to the Internationale detachable quad. You're third in line. The liftie nods knowingly beneath his snow-covered hood. You beat the crowd and the weather. Since the Internationale quad unloads on the steep, snow-filled slope just below the summit ridge, the wind isn't an issue. Ding! You've got freshies. To those who know Alpental well, the above scenario is pure fantasy. Or is it? Big changes are coming to Washington's perennial Little Area that Rocks, and it seems few people know about them. Even long-time locals may be surprised to discover just how different their revered and rugged mountain may look and operate in coming seasons. NEW IMPROVED ALPENTAL? Big changes are coming to Washington's perennial Little Area that Rocks In Dec. 2005, the Forest Service issued a lengthy Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for proposed upgrades to The Summit at Snoqualmie, the sprawling resort on Interstate 90 to which Alpental belongs. The DEIS was created in response to The Summit at Snoqualmie's master development plan, which the resort first drafted in 1998 and submitted to the Forest Service with slight modifications in 2001. Within the numerous DEIS documents, the Forest Service examines in great detail The Summit's expansion proposal (labeled Alternative 2 in the DEIS). The agency also offers four alternatives to the proposal, ranging from No Action (Alternative 1) to the Forest Service's at-present Preferred Alternative (Alternative 5) to two middle-ground alternatives (3, 4) that would grant some upgrades but not others. As per normal operations, the Forest Service is required to solicit feedback from the public. The comment period for The Summit at Snoqualmie DEIS ends Feb. 6, 2006. (Comments must be sent in writing to: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/projects/summit-at-snoqualmie/index.shtml.) Once each comment is reviewed and/or addressed-an arduous process which can take a year or more-the Forest Service will issue its Final Environmental Impact Statement and a Record of Decision. Barring any appeals, The Summit can then move forward with the upgrades that the Forest Service deems reasonable and necessary. Many of the upgrades The Summit has proposed are minor, or involve the beginner or intermediate slopes at Summit East, Central, and West. However it is Alpental that stands to receive the most intense changes. - advertisement - If the scenario envisioned in this article's opening paragraphs sounds far-fetched, consider this: everything mentioned-the Pulse Gondola; the new Internationale fixed quad; a repositioned, lengthened, and broadened Sessel (Chair 3); the new Visitor Service lodge at the base; paved roads and parking lots-plus other goodies like a repositioned St. Bernard (Chair 4); a new Magic Carpet to replace the rope tow; night skiing on Internationale and parts of Snake Dance; and a four-season mountaintop restaurant attached to the gondola station near the top of Chair 2-are all part of The Summit's proposal AND the Forest Service's presently preferred alternative. Of course, preferences are bound to fluctuate following the public comment period. But the fact that the Forest Service is already in line with significant upgrades at Alpental-a ski area beloved by many for its bare-bones facilities and no-frills attitude-means it's nearly a given that radical changes, for better or for worse, are well on their way."

Might be worth checking the bulletin board at Stone Gardens if you haven't already taken a look at it. Haven't been there in a while but there were normally 1-2 printouts advertising housing situations just like the one you've described. REI/FF bulletin boards might also be worth a look.

"Strategery" is still my favorite.

"snowclimber" is number 10,000.

From The Economist: Free speech should override religious sensitivities. And it is not just the property of the West AFP“I DISAGREE with what you say and even if you are threatened with death I will not defend very strongly your right to say it.” That, with apologies to Voltaire, seems to have been the initial pathetic response of some western governments to the republication by many European newspapers of several cartoons of Muhammad first published in a Danish newspaper in September. When the republished cartoons stirred Muslim violence across the world, Britain and America took fright. It was “unacceptable” to incite religious hatred by publishing such pictures, said America's State Department. Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, called their publication unnecessary, insensitive, disrespectful and wrong. Really? There is no question that these cartoons are offensive to many Muslims (see article). They offend against a convention in Islam that the Prophet should not be depicted. And they offend because they can be read as equating Islam with terrorism: one cartoon has Muhammad with a bomb for his headgear. It is not a good idea for newspapers to insult people's religious or any other beliefs just for the sake of it. But that is and should be their own decision, not a decision for governments, clerics or other self-appointed arbiters of taste and responsibility. In a free country people should be free to publish whatever they want within the limits set by law. No country permits completely free speech. Typically, it is limited by prohibitions against libel, defamation, obscenity, judicial or parliamentary privilege and what have you. In seven European countries it is illegal to say that Hitler did not murder millions of Jews. Britain still has a pretty dormant blasphemy law (the Christian God only) on its statute books. Drawing the line requires fine judgements by both lawmakers and juries. Britain, for example, has just jailed a notorious imam, Abu Hamza of London's Finsbury Park mosque, for using language a jury construed as solicitation to murder (see article). Last week, however, another British jury acquitted Nick Griffin, a notorious bigot who calls Islam “vicious and wicked”, on charges of stirring racial hatred. Drawing the line In this newspaper's view, the fewer constraints that are placed on free speech the better. Limits designed to protect people (from libel and murder, for example) are easier to justify than those that aim in some way to control thinking (such as laws on blasphemy, obscenity and Holocaust-denial). Denying the Holocaust should certainly not be outlawed: far better to let those who deny well-documented facts expose themselves to ridicule than pose as martyrs. But the Muhammad cartoons were lawful in all the European countries where they were published. And when western newspapers lawfully publish words or pictures that cause offence—be they ever so unnecessary, insensitive or disrespectful—western governments should think very carefully before denouncing them. Freedom of expression, including the freedom to poke fun at religion, is not just a hard-won human right but the defining freedom of liberal societies. When such a freedom comes under threat of violence, the job of governments should be to defend it without reservation. To their credit, many politicians in continental Europe have done just that. France's interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said rather magnificently that he preferred “an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship”—though President Jacques Chirac later spoiled the effect by condemning the cartoons as a “manifest provocation”. Shouldn't the right to free speech be tempered by a sense of responsibility? Of course. Most people do not go about insulting their fellows just because they have a right to. The media ought to show special sensitivity when the things they say might stir up hatred or hurt the feelings of vulnerable minorities. But sensitivity cannot always ordain silence. Protecting free expression will often require hurting the feelings of individuals or groups, even if this damages social harmony. The Muhammad cartoons may be such a case. In Britain and America, few newspapers feel that their freedoms are at risk. But on the European mainland, some of the papers that published the cartoons say they did so precisely because their right to publish was being called into question. In the Netherlands two years ago a film maker was murdered for daring to criticise Islam. Danish journalists have received death threats. In a climate in which political correctness has morphed into fear of physical attack, showing solidarity may well be the responsible thing for a free press to do. And the decision, of course, must lie with the press, not governments. It's good to talk It is no coincidence that the feeblest response to the outpouring of Muslim rage has come from Britain and America. Having sent their armies rampaging into the Muslim heartland, planting their flags in Afghanistan and Iraq and putting Saddam Hussein on trial, George Bush and Tony Blair have some making up to do with Muslims. Long before making a drama out of the Danish cartoons, a great many Muslims had come to equate the war on terrorism with a war against Islam. This is an equation Osama bin Laden and other enemies of the West would like very much to encourage and exploit. In circumstances in which embassies are being torched, isn't denouncing the cartoons the least the West can do to show its respect for Islam, and to stave off a much-feared clash of civilisations? No. There are many things western countries could usefully say and do to ease relations with Islam, but shutting up their own newspapers is not one of them. People who feel that they are not free to give voice to their worries about terrorism, globalisation or the encroachment of new cultures or religions will not love their neighbours any better. If anything, the opposite is the case: people need to let off steam. And freedom of expression, remember, is not just a pillar of western democracy, as sacred in its own way as Muhammad is to pious Muslims. It is also a freedom that millions of Muslims have come to enjoy or to aspire to themselves. Ultimately, spreading and strengthening it may be one of the best hopes for avoiding the incomprehension that can lead civilisations into conflict.

Not quite on-topic, but the skiing on Easter usually kicks ass. I think something like 5 out of the last 10 Easter Sundays on the mountain have been powder days, and there's been noooooooooooo ooooooooooooonnnnnnne out there. One Easter at Crystal was especially incredible. Probably the only time in my life that I'll double-over because of dual quad-cramps and still be smiling. Jesus really was my personal savior that day.

Looks like I forgot to punch in the zero. Too funny. I wonder who the big one-to-the-fourth was though. Guessing Timm@y.

I think deleted and or-banned users must account for the difference.