JayB

It's there if you scroll through the rest of his gallery...

Just to the left of the crux pitch of Online at Static Point. 5.10a R in the guide book. Might have been scarier before the old 1/4" leepers were replaced with modern bolts. The difficulty of the climbing felt more or less on par with Online, but perhaps a bit more runout. From what I remember, there's a small ledge that you'd go sliding over if you blew the crux section below the anchors. If you do Online and feel solid it might be worth a look. Speaking of slab climbs with a reputation - anyone out there done Artie Rip?

fuck marks- let's face it! the system he designed killed more people then any other, including hitler. fuck you you pinko commie puking shit for brain bastard. Prepare for ritual denunciation and the liberal* interjection of the words "Neocon" and "strawman" into the copiuous rebukes you earn for your heresy..... *adjective. Syn "copious," "Plentiful," "abundant"

Hey there smart guy, did you even click through the link? Apparently not. So here it is again: http://www.enviromission.com.au/index1.htm Solar Tower involves no voltaic cells. 200MW . No fuel inputs. No emissions. No external moving parts to kill birds. No altering rivers. One person to operate. No moving parts aside from the turbines. Night generation available through thermal mass. Pilot will be constructed in Australia. Prototype has already been tested. Initial cost is significant, yet there are virtually no on-going costs once built. New nuke plants involves tremendous costs in security, construction, regulatory approvals, waste handling, etc. I think it's a neat idea - but I think it's much more plausible that the higher costs associated with generating power in such a manner have had more to do with limiting the adoption than a conspiratorial behavior amongst energy companies. Whatever you think of corporations, they have never shown a great reluctance to reap an easy profit, and the fact that no significant private money has gone into funding these things with an eye to running them on a for profit basis at some point in the future is telling. This notion that corporations that profit from existing technologies are both hell-bent and capable of stifling any and all innovations that threaten their profitability, if true, would have resulted in the erradication of all technological progress long ago. Candlemakers would have snuffed out the lightbulb, buggymakers would have shut down the automobile manufacturers, ship-owners would have shut down the railways, water-mill owners would have killed-off the steam engine, typewriter manufactures would have killed off the pc, slide rule manufacturers would have done away with t he calculator, broom manufacturers would have offed the vacuum cleaner, etc. If the advantages and profits associated with a new technology are both real, and significant, the odds of any competitor with a rival technology being able to stifle their adoption and the public's knowledge of their existence - both crucial elements of any good corporate conspiracy - are virtually nil. There have been cases where the risks and costs associated with developing a new technology are so high relative to the potential returns that no corporation or consortium thereof has been willing to make a significant investment in them - as was the case with space travel - but my hunch is that they do not make up a significant percentage of all innovations. I think it looks interesting and would be quite happy to see the money that currently goes to, say, farm subsidies plowed into this sort of thing instead, but I'm just not buying the wild-eyed, beard-and-foggy-glasses-on-the-street-corner "The technology is OUT THERE - RIGHT NOW, man - but the corporations don't want you to know about it..." rationale for the limited deployment of this or any other alternative energy technology.

Doesn't take much with this crowd, does it? This sort of reminds me of the response I get when I decide to forgo indulging the polite fictions that surround popular notions about what determines weight loss or weight gain, and assert that the law of conservation of energy applies to humans as well, and that an increase in one's mass is the result of consuming more calories than one expends on a persistent basis. Period. The usual result is flat out anger, denial, a plethora of anecdotes concerning overweight friends that - literally - only ate a carrot and a stick of celery a day while working in a slave labor colony in the middle of the Sahara for 10 years - and still put on hundreds of pounds of weight. Or the conspiracy theories involving the fast food industry, their cohorts in the advertising business, the agribusiness folks and their lobbyists in DC - everything but a willingness to put the responsibility where it lies and a acknowledge disagreeable reality. I don't think it's a coincidence that the same people who believe that fast-food marketing is the ultimate cause of obesity, also tend to be the one's that believe in all manner of conspiracies - such those concerning the reasons why we generate most of our power from fossil fuels - and vice versa.

And - if this hatred of SUV's was the least bit rational, those most consumed by it would also presumably be equally engaged in the villification of folks driving luxury sedans, sports cars, conversion vans, etc - virtually all of which are sporting V8's with 250+ horsepower and fuel efficiencies that are just as dismal as your average SUV. Seeing as no such thing is happening, one can safely conclude that the source of the disdain has little or nothing to do with fuel efficiency and quite a bit more to do with the attributes of the people driving them. And finally - someone should Google the fleet efficiencies of the US and Canada. That would be interesting to look at in light of the $4.00 a gallon argument. I haven't noticed much of a difference in the looks of the vehicles on the road up there - but if there is a difference, then one could presumably use Canada as a model of the maximum fleet efficiency we'd have in the US after 15 years of expensive gas, and decide if the costs will actually bring about the benefits that the advocates of this policy are claiming.

Any of you folks looked at the price per watt and reliability of the alternatives out there? There's a reason that they haven't been widely adopted. They are more expensive and less reliable. If there was a technology out there that provided more energy, with less waste, at a lower cost - the very same energy companies that make a considerable profit selling oil and gas, would buy the rights to the technology outright or license them, and make a killing selling the power that they generated with it. Ever time you convert energy from one form to another there's going to be waste, and in most cases that waste will impact the environment where the conversion is taking place. Where there's no appreciable waste product, there's usually another impact - as is the case with dams, windpower, and photovoltaics - the production of which (photovoltaics) produces a considerable amount of toxic waste. Pick your poison. The fact of the matter is that if you want reliable, CO2 emission free, megawatt-level power generation the only option is nuclear power. If we were to suddenly apply rational standards to the processing of the waste and actually use the multibillion dollar vitrification and deep underground storage facilities that we've built the waste-handling problem associated with nuclear power would be quite manageable. Ironically enough, however, the same folks who are ostensibly most interested in protecting the environment and alarmed by the prospect of accelerated global warming are often the most vehement foes of nuclear power generation. I look forward to the day when there's other options, but for the forseeable future most power generation is going to involve burning hydrocarbons or splitting atoms.

Evil One: I knew there was a reason I liked Thatcher and Reagan so much! If only you'd state how you've always had a passionate loathing for F.A. Von Hayek you'll make my day....

It's worth noting that not all countries, even in the developed world, account for infant mortality in the same manner. CBO Report - Factors Contributing to the Infant Mortality Ranking of the United States.

Blah, blah. Good theater but little else. It would be equally accurate to paint the present neoconservative agenda with that of the Nazis and Stalin. I am, however, impressed with your ability to find obscure quotes on the web. Jim - state the name of the political philosophy that the Soviet Union was founded upon. Think hard. I know that you can do it. Consolidating the power you seized in revolution that was undertaken to implement a society founded upon Leftist ideals makes one a non-leftist? Lenin, Stalin, et al weren't communists? So, by this logic Cromwell and Robespierre were really royalists - ? And Castro has, by a similar logic, transmogrified into a Neocon? This explains the violent antipathy towards Castro - that champion of human rights and political freedoms, that has always characterized the American Left. Keep it coming. This is quite amusing. Especially the part about the quotes being obscure - as though they were either somehow uncharacteristic or out of character.

Chuck: Read the editorials in The Guardian, The Nation, and LeMonde from the years 1917 - 1989 for starters. Or Eric Hobsbawm: "Not long ago, on a popular television show, Hobsbawm explained that the fact of Soviet mass-murdering made no difference to his Communist commitment. In astonishment, his interviewer asked, “What that comes down to is saying that had the radiant tomorrow actually been created, the loss of fifteen, twenty million people might have been justified?” Without hesitation Hobsbawm replied, “Yes.” Or Bernard Shaw: Shaw visited Stalin in Moscow, in 1931, and found nothing disconcerting about Stalin's mass murders: "Our question is not to kill or not to kill, but to select the right people to kill ... [T]he essential difference between the Russian liquidator with his pistol (or whatever his humane killer may be) and the British hangman is that they do not operate on the same sort of person." The playwright famous for inventing Shavian irony would, without irony, recommend Joseph Stalin for the Nobel Peace Prize. And I could go on and belabor the obvious but since I am dealing with the ideological equivalent of the OJ Jury there's really no point, is there? Are you really going to deny that the stated goals of Leftism - using the machinery of the state to redistribute wealth extensively enough to completely eliminate class differences, hostility to and/or private property and enterprise, central regulation of the economy - did not serve as the basis of the ideology upon which the regimes I have named were founded, and from which the leaders of the said regimes derived their popular appeal and authority? It's quite disengenuous to pretend that the excesses carried out under the states headed by these men, in an effort to implement the vision that their regimes were founded upon, must not be considered in a moral evaluation of the ideals themselves. Or to pretend that no one knew what was going on. The extent of the carnage was widely known, as was the nature of the everyday political repression in these societies in which Leftist ideals served as the sole basis for the structure of the society. Everyone knew these things were going on, and very few on the Left reconsidered their enthusiasm for these regimes or the ideals that they were putting into practice in light of this knowledge. The few that did went on to found the neoconservative movement.

Jason: "And in the 20th century luminaries like Samuel Beckett, Bertold Brecht, and Fredrico Garcia Lorca fought war mongers, dictators, and anyone else who was opposed to human rights..." Does this include Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Guevarra, et al? There were - cough, cough - some moderate human rights abuses in these countries, none of which seems to have done much to persuade their fan base in the US and elsewhere to re-examine their support for them or the ideals that they were putting into practice. Would you call the leaders of the left wing revolutions in Europe, China, and Indochina "progressives," and do you really think that they changed their societies for the better? Their stated objectives were the same as their counterparts here in the United States and in the rest of the western world. The only difference was that here the restraints imposed by the constitution kept them in check.

I wish the word "liberal" was still used in its traditional, 18th and 19th century sense, as the principles espoused by many who consider themselves liberals would be anethema to men who coined the term. If we are debating this question, it would be more accurate to use the terms "Left" and "Right." In the eyes of the classical liberal, both the contemporary left and the contemporary right share the same defects, in that they are both far too willing to use the machinery of the state to enforce their particular vision of society on others, and bring about the ends that they desire. For those on the contemporary left, that mostly means forcible redistribution of material weath and regulation of productive assets/the marketplace according to their vision of what is fair. For those on the right, it means using the apparatus of the state to enforce a particular vision of morality and to restrict social change out of a veneration for tradition and a desire to enshrine a social class that embodies the values that they esteem most highly at the top of the social order. Liberals, in the true sense, are interested in preserving liberty, and as such tend to be more aligned with the conservatives on the right in the United States, as our founding documents were conceived with that end in mind. Another trait of true liberals which tends to align them with conservatives in this country is is a recognition that much of what we have received as tradition is the result of processes that were neither completely ordered nor can be perfectly understood by human beings - and thus when embarking on efforts to reshape society a bit of humility with respect to our ability to reshape both human nature and the society that evolved from it are in order if we wish to make changes that are constructive rather than destructive. I have thought about the question of the correlation between education and leftism quite a bit, and I think that F.A. von Hayek had it right when he posited that people who are educated in fields in which the central hypothesis is that all phenomena are ultimately reducible to simplified models and thereby amenable to human control. People trained in such a manner are naturally prone to the temptation to apply this mode of thinking to the manner in which societies function, and to wish to reshape it along lines that seem rational and fair to them, by whatever means that they have at their disposal. This also explains the reluctance to trust forces that work, but were not part of any rational plan for society, and cannot be centrally controlled, such as the law of supply and demand.

Or Janet Reno. Budump-chink...

Just gotta say - Jesus - enough with the NOLSe bashing. I ran into the guy in person at the last Smithfest and thought he was a good guy. I suspect most of the bashers would feel the same way if they met him in person instead of online. NOLSe.

Next to the Utilikilt, there's nothing as manly as a sprayskirt. Ooooooh! Manly! Fat-Ass-and-Stick-Legs-as-ballast.... Uber-Manly-Sprayskirt-Wearing-NoFear!-Facial-Expression....

Jesus. Where in the hell did all of this talent come from? I'm not sure whether to be inspired or depressed by this discussion. I guess I can take solace in the fact that I can get just as gripped on a WI3+/IV- 4 as you guys can get on this stuff. Sketched on WI3! - Woohooo !

Also - boating has thus far been a great compliment to skiing and climbing, rather than something that has taken me away from those activities. I got into it because I was looking for something to do when the conditions sucked for everything else, and it has served me pretty well in that role. When it's drizzling up to 9,000 feet all over the state you'll still have something fun to do...

Craig's List has had some pretty good scores recently. There's also the Washington Kayak Club bulletin board, and a relatively new local site that should see increasing traffic - www.professorpaddle.com. If you know what you are looking for you will probably have decent luck by posting the sort of boat that you are looking for and your price range. I went for the cheapest boats I could find in both cases, but if you are looking for an all around "river play" sort of boat, the Pyranha Inazone series is a pretty sweet all-rounder with a modern planing hull. There's someone selling an Inazone 240 at the professorpaddle.com site for $375.

I have done most of my boating in a giant old-school Perception Overflow that I bought off of Bug a couple of years ago. I will probably hang onto that boat for big water and/or the overnight trip, but I recently picked up a Riot Glide, which was a cutting edge playboat at one time, but has as much volume as most new creekboats. It's been good to me so far though....

Yipes - I was in the middle of a similar situation at the base of Pitkin falls at Vail a few years back. Hopefully the injured party will heal quickly.

Stealing Shuldt's fire here... Saturday: half-day of season-pass holder vindication at Alpental. Tipped a 40 for the soul of a lost season after returning home. Sunday: Middle Middle fork of the Snoqualmie with every other boater in Western Washington. First run in the new boat. Fantastic outing. Summary: Here's to the PNW

I'm actually marrying an ex-Peace Corps volunteer ER doc in training that has to leave the room anytime W is on TV, and gets the hives whenever she hears Limbaugh's voice after growing up in a home where he and the Focus on the Family guys were revered figures. However - our politics aren't actually that far apart, and after her stint overseas in the midst of real desperation and poverty, she has way less patience than I do for the rhetoric issuing forth from the boutique revolutionary set.

Why not trade the pretend anarchist identity/gig for something more convincing and authentic like medieval-warrior-renaissance-festival-attendee or rain-forest-shaman channeler or something? It's gotta be rough parking the subie with the anarchy sticker on the back in the company lot every day. Then - the ignominy of seeing the kids in the mall rolling out of the "Hot Topix" store looking just like you when you whip out the black-hooded sweater and all for those rallies on the weekends.... Rage against The Gap...

Ah yes. Still raising the clenched fist of the proletariat in one hand while holding the soy-machiato in the stainless Che'-Gear logo mug in the other. Precious. "So you've been to school for a year or two And you know you've seen it all. In Daddy's car thinking you'll go far Back east your type don't crawl. Playing ethnicky jazz to parade your snazz On your five grand stereo. Braggin' that you know how the niggers feel cold And the slum's got so much soul. It's time to taste what you most fear Right Guard will not help you here. Brace yourself, my dear... Brace yourself, my dear... For a Holiday in Cambodia It's tough, kid, but it's life. It's a Holiday in Cambodia Don't forget to pack a wife. You're a star-belly sneech You suck like a leech You want everyone to act like you. Kiss ass while you bitch So you can get rich While your boss gets richer off you. Well, you'll work harder with a gun in your back For a bowl of rice a day. Slave for soldiers 'Til you starve Then your head is skewered on a stake. Now you can go, where the people are one. Now you can go where they get things done. What you need, my son... What you need, my son... Is a Holiday in Cambodia Where people are dressed in black. A Holiday in Cambodia Where you'll kiss ass or crack (instrumental break) (chanting) Pol Pot, Pol Pot, Pol Pot, Pol Pot, etc.,... It's a Holiday in Cambodia Where you'll do what you're told. It's a Holiday in Cambodia Where the slums got so much soul Pol Pot." Couldn't resist.