JayB

If I had argued for making every climb as safe as possible there would indeed be a disconnect. I've argued against certain critiques that are commonly directed against sportclimbing, but I have never argued for adding bolts to existing lines, bolting cracks, etc - about the closest I've come to advocating that argument is that I think it's a good idea to replace dangerous bolts/fixed hardware, and that I am not going to lose any sleep over bolts near cracks at places like Shelf Road, where they've been established for years but that's about it. What I have said is that I think it's ridiculous for someone to claim that the mere existence of heavily bolted lines or people who limit their climbing to such routes is going to somehow eliminate, imperil, or imperil anyone's ability to climb dangerous routes if they want to. If we were talking about adding bolts to existing lines, then that would be a different discussion. Maybe I'm misreading the "I hate bolts because they take the adventure out of climbing" argument on some profound level, but to me that assertion seems as ludicrous as the guys in the said video making the argument that paved bike paths and the people who ride them are somehow going to lead to the wholesale elimination of risk from cycling, and make it impossible for them to huck 360's off of two or three story drops if they want to. Even in the profoundly unlikely event that every existing line were bolted every two feet - anyone who wanted to do so could get their gnarl on by strolling up to the base of a new line, sans bolts/pins/hammers/etc and having at it.

Insane MTB video: http://www.freeride-entertainment.com/unchained_teaser.mov

As the title of this thread suggests, it is indeed a pity when partisan considerations triumph over principles. Speaking of which, where was argument that the use of force to stop the slaughter in Bosnia/Yugoslavian was both immoral and illegal on account of it not being authorized by the UN? You will recall that the action there was not sanctioned by that particular body, as vetos on the Security Council rendered that impossible. What about the sanctity of International Law? Etc, etc, etc. Right clickage from the internet below.... "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002 "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002 "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002 "Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002 "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002 "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002 "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002 "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002 "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Good articles here on some of the limitations of the technique: http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8746.0.html http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7245.0.html

I agree that this is an imaginary phenomenon, but I think that the complaints about this are just as apt as the frequent lamentations concerning the all of those guys who, seconds after passing the belay test at vertical world, sprint off to the local masonry supply store to buy the cordless-rotohammer and 8lb bucket o' bolts as part of a hell-bent quest to neuter the proud trad routes and runout face-climbs of yore. "It's time to bring indoor climbing to the outdoors, and I'm just the man to do it!!!!!. Time to meet your maker, death routes!!!!!" The other funny thing that often gets brought up is the purported shortage of death-routes to test one's mettle on. Are they really that hard to find? Even at a sport mecca like Smith a quick perusal of the guidebook will reveal scores of X-rated routes available to anyone with an interest in climbing them. Ditto for the dozens of Robbins routes at Vantage, etc, etc. Speaking of imaginary phenomema, one of my personal favorites is that of the platoon full of newbies lining up at the base hatching plots to bolt - say Remorse on SCW -into submission.... Well, these do sound like silly things to say. Can't say I've heard people saying these things, and I don't think they've been mentioned in this thread. However, it could be that your trademark flowery hyperbole is obscuring what I'm supposed to be looking for. I have heard tales of at least two NW underqualifieds armed with Bosch going at it without much restraint at Smith and Vantage. Maybe that's what you're referring to in paragraph 1. That's an interesting anecdote. Care to: 1. Name the people. 2. Name the routes. 3. Define underqualified. 4. Identify the existing routes which were damaged by their actions. 5. Explain how any of the above inhibits anyone's ability to climb bold routes anywhere? "Can't say I've heard people saying these things, and I don't think they've been mentioned in this thread." Right. No one has ever voiced such opinions in this thread, this forum, or anywhere else. I invented them. "Now climbers think that they have a right to climb anything and if it is too scary then they think they should add a bolt. Bullshit. Sack up or keep off. Pretty simple huh? Do you want your generation of climbing to take the risk away? Wow, what a proud concept, to stand up and say, "My generation of climberrs took the gym outside and wee retrobolted old routes to make them safer" Proud indeed...." With respect to prose styles obsuring one's points - what exactly is yours? I am honestly not sure why you bothered to post anything to this thread at all, but for the chance to chime in with the - cough - trademark - cough- snarky/passive agressive one-liner, usually some variant on the "strawman" standby, and to provide a vague bit rhetorical applause for anyone who articulates positions that you seem to agree with but never manage to state directly some reason. To be clear - what I am talking about is statements/arguments where the central claims are that bolts/sport-routes/sport-climbing are for pussies and/or have lead to a progressive degredation of a sport once reserved for a select few. I've always taken issue with these arguments for a variety of reasons, but at least guys like Pope and others will actually come out and say what they think instead of giggling in the backround and playing rhetorical towel-boy for those that do. I hope my flowery hyperbole in this post did not impair your ability to comprehend what I wrote.

The only trend that I've noticed in the past ten years is the rise of bouldering as something pursued intensively as an end in itself by large numbers of climbers. Not sure about the other trends - but I can't say that's anything that I've noticed at the rock - but then I think I've gone sport climbing an average of 2-3 times a year for the last 5 years or more, so who knows? I imagine you've spent even less time at sport-venues, so you must be basing your experience on the behavior of folks that you go climbing with in the mountains and at trad areas? I recall your disbelief at the numbers of people who rap off rather than finish the last few pitches of the standard route on Exfoliation Dome, but those pitches are so moderate and cool that it seems like bailing at the ledge may be more of a time/convenience issue than a consequence of the wholesale wussification of the climbing public.

Looks like it's time to tip a 40 for the passenger pigeon, the dodo, and the last of the death routes in the lower 48. RIP.

I agree that this is an imaginary phenomenon, but I think that the complaints about this are just as apt as the frequent lamentations concerning the all of those guys who, seconds after passing the belay test at vertical world, sprint off to the local masonry supply store to buy the cordless-rotohammer and 8lb bucket o' bolts as part of a hell-bent quest to neuter the proud trad routes and runout face-climbs of yore. "It's time to bring indoor climbing to the outdoors, and I'm just the man to do it!!!!!. Time to meet your maker, death routes!!!!!" The other funny thing that often gets brought up is the purported shortage of death-routes to test one's mettle on. Are they really that hard to find? Even at a sport mecca like Smith a quick perusal of the guidebook will reveal scores of X-rated routes available to anyone with an interest in climbing them. Ditto for the dozens of Robbins routes at Vantage, etc, etc. Speaking of imaginary phenomema, one of my personal favorites is that of the platoon full of newbies lining up at the base hatching plots to bolt - say Remorse on SCW -into submission....

Josesph: This is not a dig at you, but a serious question - if your main focus in climbing is hitting up low-traffic, old-school trad lines - then where is it that you are running into the effette gym rats who won't touch anything with more than a 6 foot gap between bolts? This seems sort of like a bearded three-pinner in wool knickers complaining about the droves of twin-tip and baggy pant sporting resort skiiers who are only into hitting terrain parks, and couldn't dig a snow cave to save their lives. Unless they're lugging rails and soundsystems into the backcountry, its hard to imagine where he'd run into them. Another point I think is worth making is that, in the end, I think that it is the sort of climber that one aspires to be and the sort of experiences that one wishes to have as a climber, rather than the specific environment that one picks up the sport in - that ultimately determine the kind of climber that one becomes.

"Now JayB, surely you've read enough history to see that the US's antiSoviet "strategy" was far from a coherent process and often resolved around supporting any and every smuch who'd sign on the dotted line great men like Mobutu Sese-Seko, Augusto Pinochet, not to mention the esteamed members of the Mujahadeen? While the past can't be altered, the argument of folks like idotic homonym j_b that perhaps the US should be a bit more circumpsect in picking its friends is quite valid." True - but I think one has to accept the fact that the pickiness will always vary with the magnitude of the perceived threat - as the case of allying ourselves with Stalin and Co during WWII makes clear. Of course, this is reality that we are talking about rather than a utopian fantasy, so this fact will continue to prove terribly distressing for some, especially those who have never and will never find themselves or their representatives - if there are actually any in office anywhere - tasked with the responsibility for making hard choices with uncertain outcomes. As for the many lesser evils that we've associated with over time, I think it's a regrettable source of potshots for retards, "Like, if your supposed to be about freedom, man, then how come like, you supported -insert tinpot dictator X-here - and shit, man..." The answer in just about every case has been that there's been bigger fish to fry, and that one doesn't decline assistance from a skunk when being threatened by a grizzly for fear of smelling bad in the event that one survives the attack. My sense in speaking with anyone alive during, say, the Cuban Missile crisis, was that the outcome of the Cold War was hardly considered a foregone conclusion at that time. It also seems safe to conclude that those entrusted with preserving the free world felt compelled to take assistance from whomever would give it, regardless of whether they were acting on principle, naked interest, or any combination thereof.

In the case of the rhetoric in question, which you can feel free to quote rather than allude to, the blather about freedom in Western democracies constituting little more than supine fealty to the corporate state - the language is indeed similar. However, the Islamists actually have a coherent agenda and a vision of their ideal society that they can articulate without frequent recourse to the word "like" - so in that sense they have one up on the anti-globalists. In the case of supplying stinger missiles to the Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan, the goal was thwarting the designs and expediting the demise of the Soviet Union. This is the same Soviet Union (gasp!) that we supplied all manner of weapons to in WWII, when Nazi Germany clearly constituted the greater threat to mankind. This is referred to as "strategy." Its quite clear that the threat that the Soviet Union presented to the civilization that literally sustains you and the rest of the world was several orders of magnitude greater than that presented by the said Islamofascists. The argument that furnishing them with the weapons needed to inflict heavy losses on the Soviets was a strategic blunder of the highest magnitude relies upon ignoring the geopolitical context it occured within, the realization of the goal that it actually succeeded in bringing about, and on indulging in the bizarre conceit that the consequences stemming from our actions there were either predictable or predetermined. Where may one find a copy your time-stamped position paper from the late 1980's with a title along the lines of "Arming the Muslims Fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan Will Guarantee Massive Terrorists Attacks Against the West by the Same, and Must Be Reconsidered in Light of this Foregone Conclusion"?

This post reminded me of many predecessors in which various posters have bemoaned the arrival of the post-90's climbers, which in turn reminded me of a section that I read in the last "Ascent" a few years ago. "The Era of mechanically assisted rock climbs in the Eastern Alps was not without competition. Incredibly bold vertical routes were climbed without any mechanical protection at all - what we would call 'free-solo' today. Georg Winkler, a pioneer in such climbing, made a number or impressive climbs, including the first ascent in 1887 of the eastern Vajolet Tower, a year before his death at the age of 18 during a solo attempt of the Weisshorn. Many climbers in later years were to emulate Winkler and reject the use of ropes and aid, even though he himself used a grappling hook on occaision. Footwear evolved from heavy spiked boots to ligher felt-soled shoes developed by the Simond Firm, opening a new era of free climbing with leaders who morally opposed reliance on gear. Paul Preuss, a vocal and influential Austrian, vigorously denounced the use of pitons and rope manuevers as a lower standard. He wrote six climbing rules: 'First, one shoud not only be equal to any climb that one undertakes, but be more than equal to it. Second, the standard of difficultly which a climber can conquer with safety when descending, and for which he can consider himself competent with an easy conscience, should represent the limit of what he should attempt on his ascent. Third, hence the use of artificial aids only becomes justifiable in the case of sudden threatening danger. Fourth, the piton is an emergency aid and not the basis of a system of mountaineering. Fifth, the rope may be used to facillitate the matters, but never as the sole means to make a climb possible. Finally, the principle of safety is one of the highest principles. Not the spasmodic correction of one's own want of safety, obtained by the use of artificial aids, but that true safety which should result, with every climber, from a just estimate of what he is able to, and what he desires to do." I think there's little doubt about what they would think of the hard-core 80s trad climber who substituted sticky rubber, nylon ropes, cams, chalk, et al for the courage and skill necessary to tackle the routes free-solo in mountaineering boots. Which reminds me of another quote from an old timer, in this case one of the guys who managed the first winter-ascent of Mt. Ranier in the 1920's. Reflecting on his feat several decades later he wrote, "I read with amazement about the "6th Class Stuff" and other doings of the present generation of climbers. The limits of the possible have been pushed so far beyond where we thought they were during my time that I hardly recognize myself as a climber. However, I have no regrets; the challenges are greater today, but to a great extent, this is owing to the improvements in techniques and equipment. The relation of challenge against capability has probably remained constant and so has, therefore, the moral reward of the climber's experience." These are clearly the sentiments of a man who needn't derrogate the accomplishments of succeeding generations to reinforce the significance, or remind them of the importance of his own. I doubt Albert Ellingwood, were he alive today, would feel it necessary to remind anyone climbing the standard route on Lizard Head with modern gear that what they are doing is less impressive than his ascent with 3 soft pitons, hobnail boots, and hemp-rope, followed by a down-solo descent. In the end I think that the longstanding tradition of bemoaning the inadequacies of those that are following in one's footsteps, in whatever field is under consideration "Sure - you can find the cube root of Pi with a calculator, but let's see you try it with a slide rule!" are seldom justified unless one limits oneself to fixating on the worst and ignoring the best of those who came after oneself. I'm personally not aware of a rash of bold routes retrobolted into submission since the early 90's, and the notion that anyone who tied in before then was steely-eyed, nail-eating motherfucker who would sooner end up dead or disabled than hang on a piece seems just a tad far-fetched as well, unless there's been a fundamental shift in human nature that hasn't been evident elsewhere.

Damn dude - way to get after it with the linkup. Are you sure those weren't chocolate covered methampetibeans?

True enough. There are plenty of folks garrisoning themselves away from society in JesusLand, though I think that they are less preoccupied with physical threats to themselves and their loved ones and rather more concerned with what they perceive as moral threats. Seems like both camps feel threatened by different elements of modernity. I do think that class has a fair amount to do with the extent to which people preoccupy themselves with threats to their well being that have a relatively low probability of affecting them, though. Maybe that comes with being part of the "other" leisure class....

I'm personally just thankful that at least we haven't become paranoid and prone to constructing conspiracy theories to justify our political beliefs as a result of the epidemic of fear that's afflicting our national psyche.

I think that some of this is regional and specific to certain locales and socio-economic brackets. While this mentality may be endemic to the Volvo-driving, latte-swilling, bed-bath-and beyond flocking, "OHHHHMYGODLITTLEJOEYLEFTTHEHOUSEWITHOUTTHEGPSIMPLANT!!!!!!!!!" folks in the Seattle, I suspect that it's rather less common amongst the crowd that's cracking a PBR while driving the '86 F-150 to the Skynyrd Reunion Concert. I just spent a couple of weeks driving from the Gulf Coast to central Illinois, and excessive anxiety or nervous energy about anything, much less everyday hazards, still less terrorism - didn't seem to be exerting a significant influence on their lives.

Tim Hortons is owned by Wendy's.

Wow - nice photos.

Killer. Is your line the left-most couloir in the photo? Looks like it validated bringing the ice-tools to Africa!

Coleman glacier in the summertime. Possibly some stuff on Blackcomb in the winter? The skiing's always been too good for me to even think about climbing while I'm there, but supposedly there's an area with some farmed lines that's readily accessed via skis in the winter. I'm sure that other folks can fill you in with more info.

Killer report and photos. Thanks for taking the time to post them here.

Sweet. Post some photos if you get a chance....

Damn guys - quite a summer you're having. The most significant objective hazard that I've faced this far has been from the pile of crack-vials and soiled pampers at the base of an "urban boulder" that I was checking out in a vacant lot near Roxbury. The descent sounds like a classic example of an element in climbing that reminds me of the plot in "Carlito's Way." You have made it through the worst of the dangers, it looks like all may be clear and you're on your way to some hard-earned peace and serenity away from all of the hazards you've navigated your way through - but then the alpine equivalent of Billy Blanco emerges and tries to bust a cap in yo' ass. Nice effort, best regards, and consider dedicating the rest of your summer to crochet and bouldering. Seriously. I'd write more, but I've developed quite the hankering for a luna bar all of a sudden....

It's no secret where the state gets its money - not to me, at least. One of the primary benefits of private enterprise is that the accumulation of material wealth it produces generates the tax revenues necessary for funding for activities that, while sustained by profits elsewhere, could never be profitable in their own right. Three cheers for the Laffer Curve.

With the exception of the "must be silenced" bit, I'd have to agree with you if it weren't for the fundamental distortion of the actual positions that we are talking about. Yes, the Islamists, bless their hearts, are indeed terribly upset about the commodification of women's bodies - as evinced by the honor killings, the stoning of pregnant women to death, the forced circumcission, the handy "I divorce thee" x3 precedent in the sharia that leaves women destitute and pennyless, the absence of the right to vote, to drive, etc - so it is completely natural and sensible for those who are horrified by the commodification of women's bodies here in the West to simultaneously hold their tongues with respect to the condition of women in the Muslim world, blather on about the moral equivalence of the two civilizations and the condition of women within them, and redirect their focus to the equally dreadful outcomes that ensue when women who choose to make their living by taking their clothes off are free to do so. It's just a shame that England's cultural sensitivities weren't refined by these fine sentiments in the days of the suttee. Sadly that gem of cultural diversity is already all but lost to the world. Ditto for the "degradations of mind, body, and spirit, the environment wreaked by the globalization of capitalism," which are certainly in striking contrast to the splendid condition of all of the above under the various totalitarianisms or squalid paleosocialist kleptocracies that adorn or have adorned the globe at one time or another. Many things are uncertain in this world, but I am absolutely convinced that all of the citizens of the aforementioned countries take a profound measure of solace in the fact that their illiteracy, poverty, subjugation, and starvation are at least keeping the menace of being a slave to corporate interests at bay. That certainly explains the patterns of immigration we've witnessed for the past 100 years, the condition of the environment in England relative to anywhere in an equally populous region of China or the Soviet Union, and the fact that it has generally required nothing short of turning every socialist wonderland into a literal penitentiary in order to prevent the entire population from fleeing en masse. Anyhow - back to me. I regret to admit that I actually don't even own a functioning TV, and will spend the next three years working on ways to rapidly identify and characterize compounds that disable a recently characterized protein that's critical for the progression of a disease that's killing off several million people a year. What is it that you do with your time? And finally, you mentioned something about being serious, and on that note I have a serious senior/thesis project for you: Demonstrate that both economic calculation and the coordination of supply and demand are possible in the absence of market prices. Once you have demonstrated that those who presented this as an insurmountable difficulty confronting anyone looking to actually implement socialism, were in fact incorrect, I will gladly join you in your quest to jettison the present social, poltical, and economic order in favor of a superior alternative. Ta,