JayB

This of course explains why the "the people who don't want us there" are detonating car-bombs amidst crowded markets, executing members of the ING, staging assaults on police stations, bombing non-sunni churches and mosques, attacking the infrastructure that all Iraqis rely upon to survive, etc. They are really just frustrated Iraqi patriots who would have been content, docile participants in the new order had there been WMD stockpiles at the time of an invasion conducted with full UN approval. Good thing there's no Sunni ex-Baathists attempting to either destroy a new order that they'll have no priveleged standing in, or foreign jihadis attempting to foment sectarian warfare and erect an islamic state from the ruins once the civil war is under-way, or worse yet - a situation where these two elements are actively collaborating with one another! Thanks for clearing that up.

Or maybe you can simply "practice" your grammatical notations, thereby becoming a more "efficient" reactionary, able to make your points and convert others through your superior "argument structures". <-------- Punctuation marks belong inside quotation marks, like "so." Seriously though - I asked a straightforward question that could have been addressed with a concrete answer. Simple enough. Thanks for the continued interest in the tire chains - I will be sure to let you know how they work out after I've had a chance to use them.

I just want to give SC a big high five for his unrivalled determination to put scare quotes around 40% of the "nouns" he's been "using" in his "posts" "today." Great stuff. While we are on the scare quote issue, SC - here's a question for you. Has there ever been a single event in the past thirty years that you would acknowledge as an act of terrorism, or is it all just "terrorism."? I am fully expecting to hear you reply that terrorism per se doesn't actually exist, and that every deliberate slaughter of civilians is a morally legitimate means of redressing some political grievance, no matter how trivial, and no matter how incongruous the ends are with the means employed. Exhibit A, should you need a place to begin, might be the deliberate slaughter of hundreds of Russian schoolkids by Chechen "terrorists."

It's months like this that induced me to take up paddling. The Sky was in great shape last week...

The ice and mixed lines should be coming in right now in the Rockies. Dreamweaver on Meeker, Notch Couloir on Longs, Cables Route on Longs, and tons and tons of others in RMNP should be good to go. There's also the Y-Couloir and a few mixed lines by the Corinthian Column on the north face of Pikes. If you do head up to Greys and Tories, there's a cool ridge on the climber's right that is way, way more interesting than the standard route - fun ridge running with a very brief 4th class section in summer - might be more intersting in early season conditions. There's also some couloirs that lead almost directly to the summit on the face to the left of the ridge that I was talking about - which would also make for some more interesting climbing than the standard route. Check Dawson's book for deets. If you are looking for local stuff the on the I-70 corridor, a linkup of Bierstadt-Evans via the Sawtooth Ridge would probably be pretty cool as well if you get the right weather window, and if you were really wanting to speed things up the descent back to the main parking area is usually pretty quick with skis - but can be rocky - and watch out for the willows.. The Inwood Arete plus a descent down the east ridge of Quandary would also make for a good day, and Quandary's West Ridge is a long, long 4th class traverse at high altitude that would also be pretty interesting in winter. There's also some very reliable and fat ice flows just over Hoosier Pass if you are in the vicinity. I like the Cascades better too, but the Rockies are hardly a bad place to be in the winter.

I think that if you are buying a setup that is primarily or exclusively for backcountry use then there's really no need to debate the issue - get the Dynafit. After seeing Bronco crack off the plastic climbing "bar" on one side of his Dynafit setup, and break the mounting plate on the other while skinning in, and seeing other people futz around with the binding endlessly while trying to get their boots on in deep, wet snow - my only advice would be to keep their limitations in mind. They have many advantages, especially when it comes to weight, but IMO you sacrifice some of the convenience and durability in the process. But again - if you are looking at the set-up for touring purposes, I think that the pro's outweight the cons in a big way. If you are doing a limited amount of touring, a considerable amount of which involves yo-yoing rather than touring, or you are spending a reasonable amount of time inbounds, then the Freerides start to look pretty good. I use them inbounds with DH boots, and the principal drawback to using them in this setting is their "flatness" vis-a-vis a full-on downhill binding, which is something that I actually notice on the slopes. I was not all that happy when I discovered the play in the heel-piece, but I honestly haven't noticed it affecting my skiing in a tangible way - although I am sure that is has some effect. I have used them in the moguls, abused them in the terrain park, etc, and they are still in one piece, so in my mind they score pretty highly in the durability department. Just plan on doing some extra training if you plan on keeping up with folks on the Dynafits on long tours.

Dave: It was nice to have met you, and I'm glad you scored a job in Utah instead of Texas! Here's to hoping you hit the mountains hard and post an update once in a while.

The case of the Tibetans, and the Chechens, illustrates the reality that the use of violence as a means of achieving one's political can only work in a limited set of conditions - and one essential condition is a rough parity of forces or a set of local advantages that even the odds in favor of the weaker party. When you are facing certain death no matter what - as the Jews were, there's nothing to be lost by fighting unless one can flee to safety elsewhere. In the case of the Tibetans and the Chechens, where ceding political autonomy - rather than one's life - is the cost of nonviolence then the situation is more complicated, and there are choices to be made. Is it better to secure whatever concessions and advantages that can be had within the system and withstand the costs and indignities that come along with such a strategy - and live, or risk the total anhiliation of everything that one is attempting to preserve on a doomed offensive? In most cases like this there are very few non-tragic outcomes IMO.

I think this case illustrates quite clearly the hazards of elevating a human - no matter who - to the status of a demi-god and uncritically accepting his or her every utterance. The viability of nonviolence as a political strategy depends upon the nature of the cause one is promoting, and the constitution of people and the political system that one is confronting an effort to advance the said cause. Conducting a campaign that relies upon nonviolent persuasion of an entire population that has a long-established set of principles and sympathies that you can appeal to in an effort to convince them to persuade their democratically elected leaders to grant your wishes is a logical and moral strategy. Attempting to do the same when confronting a ruthless totalitarian regime is futile idiocy, and the notion that this approach represents a superior morality is dubious as well, unless those immolated on behalf of the cause are volunteering for the duty. Once the immolated include those too young to consent to such a thing, too old or frail to defend themselves against such a fate if they wanted to, then the situation becomes very different. Thank god Churchill, and not Ghandi, was the one in a position to confront the Germans and rally what was left of the free world against them.

Arafat's leadership has proven to be a monumental disaster for the cause that he was ostensibly dedicated to advancing. He could have had nearly everything he claimed to have been fighting for when Clinton tabled the final deal, yet Arafat refused and chose to renew an armed conflict against a superior force. Great strategy. His passing may have been the best thing to happen to the Palestians in decades.

As long as he/you apply this logic to the "Girl Blog" as well then - great - at least there's a consistent, if slightly paranoid, streak of logic running through the argument. However - if it's only the bloggers who are posting content that is counter to his/your perceptions of what is going on there, then it's easy to see what's driving the doubts. If you have been reading the "Have Your Say" column on BBC news, where they frequently post translations from BBC Arabic - or care to try to decipher the messages on BBC Arabic using a machine translator - you will find that the Iraqis posting there often take a different line on matters pertaining to the goings on in Iraq than their fellow Arabs. This was especially evident during the Sadr lead uprising in Najaf and has continued with the situation in Fallujah.

Not sure what evidence you have to support that assertion other than you presumably dislike what they have to say, and want to discredit the messengers. The guys that run "Iraq the Model" are starting their own political party in Iraq, have had numerous reporters meeting with them in Baghdad and disclosed their identities despite the risks this entails, etc - but whatever. Same deal for most of the other bloggers out there. But - I can see how after applying occam's razor to this one it must be more logical to assume that anyone who is in favor of what the coalition is doing in Iraq must be posting from an air conditioned cubical in Langley.

There's about a dozen other Iraqi bloggers out there, most of whom take a very different stance with respect to the war. This is a subset of a subset of the population we are talking about here - English speakers with reliable internet access - so there's neither side is reperesentative of the broad swath of Iraqi opinion, but "Riverbend" is hardly the only voice available to those looking for insights into the situation from Iraqi's themselves. Some others: http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/ http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/ http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/ Plenty of others linked to these blogs if you visit them.

Carl: Come on now - do you really believe that citizens should fear corporate power as much as state power? Even after what the world witnessed in the previous century? Both will commit abuses of the citizenry when their power is unchecked, but in one case the consequences are generally limited to consumers paying higher prices for substandard merchandise, and in the other case the result has invariably been mass liquidations, reeducation camps, etc, etc.

Dr. Crash is actually a long-haul trucker from Lubbock, Texas. He is just using the French accent as a ploy to get the chicks......

The corporations' involvement was a symptom of the illness, not the root cause of it. Amen.

I have yet to see a better illustration of Pope's epigram: "A little learning is a dangerous thing." I would suggest aquainting oneself with the history of the period prior to pontificating about it. Start with a credible survey of that period in German history, and move on from there. Of course, it is actually quite reasonable to conclude that decades of historians who have dedicated innumerable lifetimes to dissecting the history of this period, with full access to all of the requisite archival material, interviews with the primary actors, etc had yet to unearth this essential truth that Brian has placed such stock in - "Why - yes! It was...the corporations!" - based on an authority as unimpeachable as an article on the internet. I am anxious awaiting an elucidation of the present conflict as merely the latest mischief orchestrated by the Z.O.G. - substantiated by an equally impeccable source... Should be fascinating.

Lay it on me (the distinction). I have a BS in Biochem with a minor in Chemistry (which required PChem) and a BA in the History of Science, which required quite a bit of reading about the philosophical disputes that have coursed through the scientific world for the past few centuries, so there's a reasonably good chance that I will be able to follow along...

Is that something different than physical chemistry, AKA P-Chem?

We've met, and I respect you - and I have read every page of Shirers book, and thousands upon thousands more on the history of just about all of the totalitarian states that blighted the past century - and I have to say that I think that the comparison that you are making is not only false, but profoundly disrespectful to the memory of all of those who were slaughtered within them. The foundation of every totalitarian state was built upon a foundation of economic collectivism - with the state seizing all of the society's productive assets in the people's name. I defy anyone to show me an example where this hasn't been true - yet this factor seems to be absent from every analysis of the phenomenon that emerges from the mind of anyone who's politics run left of center. Wonder why?

Cool. There's enough existing classics in Tieton to keep me busy for many an outing - I just thought there must be some reason why there's no lines/development in such a conspicuous section of nice looking rock. Rest assured that after driving for three hours any time I spend in Tieton will be spent climbing, rather than cleaning. Hell -it will take me quite a while just to tap out The Bend. Did a few more lines in that area this weekend, Sugar Kicks and that one to the right of Pure Joy, and the one to the right of Tiers Roof, etc, etc, etc. I want to hit Pure joy and the other handful of lines I haven't been on yet on the right side of The Bend, then check out the other side, then move onto the next crag down the road. Sugar kicks was a fairly interesting experience, as I was looking for a kicked back line to end the day with, cast a quick glance at the topo in Smoot's book, saw the .9 on the line, and figured that he was following the normal convention of highlighting the crux. After finishing up the route and rapping to the base, I was thinking, "I knew the ratings were stiff here but Jesus Christ almighty - that has to be one of the toughest 5.9's I've ever climbed!" Then I looked in the book, saw that - despite the notation on the topo, the line was actually rated 10c, and felt a bit better. Turned out to be my hardest onsight on a gear route so far though - so I guess I should be thankful for the topo as I wouldn't have hopped on the line that afternoon otherwise.

What's the deal with the first section of nice looking columns on the left (adjacent to a few ponds) after you turn left onto the road that paralells the river? From a distance the rock quality looks pretty good, yet there seems to be relatively little information about the rocks out there. Was there an agreement with the land managers to leave that section alone? Is the rock actually not good? Did the crew that developed most of the climbing in the canyon move on before they could get to this section? I will be getting a photocopy of the out-of-print guidebook pretty soon, which may shed some light on the situation, but feel free to chime in if you know the story.

Fairly distinct when coming over Snoqualmie Pass.

I was predicting that the election results would make at least one poster come completely unglued. Looks like I was correct.

"Lead ropes at Stone Gardens - that's new since the 6 months I was up there last year; also highly unlikely and I haven't seen this in a gym but I don't exactly make the plastic rounds all that much." I was - pleasantly - surprised to see them there, but they do exist. I use them every week.