JayB

To OlyClimber. Very cool.

$87 Billion dollars is the amount of money that both houses of congress voted in favor of spending on the mission in Iraq. End of story. Yes - it would be much more progressive to spend nothing and guarantee that Iraq will descend immediately into full-on state failure and civil war, the likes of which will generate civilian casualties several orders of magnitude higher than those generated by the invasion itself. We certainly don't want to be spending any more money providing the troops serving over there with all of the supplies and equipment that they need to do their job as safely and effectively as possible. We are going to be in Iraq for the forseeable future. Even if Bush loses. This is reality. What the formerly anti-war camp is now protesting against now are efforts to provide the necessary resources for the troops deployed there and to give their efforts to rebuild the country the maximum chance to succeed. If you want the president out of office, there are plenty of ways to take shots at him without catching the troops and the Iraqi civilains in the crossfire.

Anyone remember what happened after the Mullah's took over in Iran? They made the Shah look like strawberry shortcake. Compare bodycounts - it's not even close. In one of Bernard Lewis' new books on the Middle East he claims that interviews with the hostage takers recorded long after the fact reveal that their purpose was to thwart what they feared would be a sort of rapproachment with the United States, concurrent with the rise of moderates within the revolution who would undermine their goal of establishing a retrograde theocracy. In their minds decisively severing any relationship with/antagonizing the US would better serve their ends, and keeping hostages was the best means available to do so. He also mentions that they were astonished and emboldened by America's tepid response to the seizure of the embassy, and handed over the hostages when Reagan took office because they were afraid that he would respond "like a cowboy." Not sure who's got the best sources but this is at least as plausible, if not more so, than the "underhanded" claim. Why in the hell would the Iranians want to hand a triumph to a President who made no secret of the fact that he would be a determined foe of theirs from the moment he took office?

Yes. Now get back to your ideological Gulag...

Thanks for the update. It's been a while since anyone had news about the conditions on the upper part of the mountain.

What was this thread aboot again?

Murray: This is like the geopolitical version of "Its a Wonderful Life" that we are playing here. Pretend that the US never existed and that you have a conglomeration of former colonies spawned by the Euros, the Japanese, or whoever occupying the region to your south. Pretend futher that they don't get along. Some like Canada, some don't. Some of those that don't are on your border. If such a situation existed, the odds are pretty high that you would have to: -Field an army that's actually capable of defending the territory, instead of what you have now, which is essentially an armed division of the Red Cross. -Pay for the said Army yourselves. What you have now is essentially a direct subisdy from the US. Its pretty silly for anyone to expect our neighbors to the North to acknowledge any benefit whatsoever that they derive from close proximity to the US though, as expending untold billion and hundreds of thousands of lives saving the Euros, the Koreans, et al from certain conquest and subjugation hasn't deterred them from talking shit about the US all the while. Hobbits and Rangers.

You and the Mexicans would have certainly given pause to any potential threats. I can see the Admirals in the Japaneese Navy recoiling in horror at the prospect of encountering the Mexican Armada and Canada's flotila of modified ferries on the open sea. The Swiss were bankrolling the Nazis, who would have finished them off once they secured the rest of Europe. The Swedes halted the Nazis for all of a day, and no one except other South American backwaters has ever given a shit about Peru. Had Haber not figured out a way to fix nitrogen on the eve of WWI, a European power or two may have had an interest in all of the nitrates lying in the Atacama desert, and had the Chileans not been willing to fork over every ounce they had to whoever could cut them a check, then there may have been some interest in their neighbor to the South, but certainly not them. Peru is a copper mine with a parliament, and not much more.

Canadian troops have performed valiantly in just about every conflict that they've had the misfortune to be involved in - no question about it. But let's not kid ourselves. It wasn't the dread of the mighty Canadian Navy, Army, Airforce, et al that has convinced the rest of the world to leave North America alone.

You have the luxury of utter irrelevance. You could declare war on all of humanity and no one would notice, much less care.

And the reason that no one has attacked Canada in the last XXX years may have something to do with the said nation being in close proximity to a heavily armed nation to the south and not so much to do with the mighty deterent provided by the Canadian armed forces. Maybe. Ditto for shipping lanes, etc.

And...Canada can just send us a check for the free security that they've been provided for the past 200 odd years and call it good.

BTW - If you define "Legal" as specifically authorized by a UN Security Council Resolution, all of our actions directed towards thwarting the slaughters in Bosnia/Kosovo were illegal. What if some renagade nation had actually sent troops into thwart the genocide in Rwanda without UN authorization? Oh the immorality that would have ensued... It's odd that "Sanctioned by the UN Security Council" is the functional equivalent of "moral" for some people. By that rationale our interventions in the Eastern Bloc were immoral. The ends being pursued and the tactics involved are what determines the morality or lack thereof in a millitary campaign, not the stamp of approval from the UN or any other authority. In fact, this especially true when considering the composition of the security council, being as China and Russia alone killed off something on the order of 60 million of their own citizens this past century. UN authorization - neccessary , perhaps. Moral - hardly.

Triple-Set of Cams. Just kidding. If you can provide a detailed description of the items you lost and where they were left they are yours. Contact me by post or PM.

Comments from the other post: "You have got to be kidding me. That is my worst nightmare. Argh Was it only the climbing gear that they took or did they take other valuables? It strikes me as terribly odd that random burglers would steal them while leaving all of the other posessions alone. If this is indeed what happened it suggests that someone knew about your stash and targeted you accordingly, which in turn suggests that it was someone that you knew or someone that had a chance to scope out your place. Throw any parties lately? Got any friends with sketchy aquaintances that might have an addicition to feed? I am sure that you have thought of all of these possibilities already, but I am just throwing them out ther for others to consider. If you haven't already, I would also fax the list to every second-hand gear shop in the PNW. "

Steroids are rarely, if ever, beneficial to endurance atheletes.

I am pretty close to ideal. I am going to inform my girlfriend immediately.

This site is like a mini-Alaska: The odds are good but the goods are odd. Good Luck.

I like the 5.10 ascent on slab climbs. You can get them for cheap on www.sportextreme.com.

Have you convinced yourself that bolts haven't brought crowds to Vantage and I-90? It's too bad mental gymnastics is not an Olympic sport. From what I'm reading, local land managers and conservation groups have the opinion that climbers' impacts can be noticed in both the horizontal AND the vertical. Bolts are sometimes sufficient to cause increased climber traffic. They are not always necessary to cause increased climber traffic. There's a difference. There's not a hell of a lot of traffic to the base of the routes that Krakauer and Co established on that ridge in the vicinity of Index, despite the presence of a few dozen bolts in the rock. There was one bolt on all of OS the last time that I climbed it, yet the descent gully was hardly pristine. If you want to preserve access, you have to mitigate impact, and it's just not as simple as eliminating bolts from the equation. Why you chose to pretend otherwise is beyond me. If you are concerned about preserving access to the rocks, there's quite a few more constructive things you can do besides reminding the world how much you dislike bolts. I put in time and money every year to restore routes, remove trash, etc - as have many others. You'd have a lot more credibilty on this one if you walked the talk.

This notion that eliminating sport routes will eliminate crowds, and thereby eliminate or mitigate climbers' impact on the land surrounding the said climbs on its own cannot be sustained in the face of experience. Ever been to Eldo? The Gunks? The Valley? RMNP? Indian Creek?J-Tree? Hardly bastions of sport climbing, and at most of these places, the sport routes that do exist are neglected in favor of moderate trad-routes that are within the range of the average weekend climber. Climber impact tends to be greatest where - surprise - the good climbing is, be it sport, trad, bouldering or any combination thereof. The bottom line is that there are more people out there climbing today than ever before, that's not going to change - and while I am in favor of preserving routes in the manner that they were originally lead, not bolting next to cracks, etc, etc, etc - pining for a return to the days of yore and cursing the realities of the present will do nothing to limit the numbers of climbers out there. The name of the game is working together in an organized fashion so that we are an effective constituency that land managers will listen to, and working with land managers towards common goals whenever possible. That usually means taking concrete actions to mitigate our impact on the landscape surrounding the rock. And this business about the number of climbers increasing solely because bolts has lowered the bar is another tired old canard that should be put to rest. There's no denying that trad climbing is a different game, but we are deluding ourselves if we think that anyone who is reasonably fit and intelligent enough to figure out how to put blocks together couldn't make it to the top of GNS if they wanted to. It's just not that hard. I've seen it happen. For most people, the most daunting aspect of trad climbing isn't using the gear, its coughing up the dough necessary to get their hands on a reasonable rack. As such, it's hardly the preserve of the few and the bold. Another reality which undercuts the notion that the only thing driving increased climber numbers is the bolt-assisted lowering of the bar is the steady increase in the number of ice climbers. Yeah - the equipment's become better, but the essential nature of the activity hasn't changed, and if anything - the trend has been towards higher standards rather than lower ones. Direct aid was a staple of most first ascents in the 70s, but quickly fell out of favor, as have tethers, and now the climbers at the leading edge are even eschewing leashes altogether. Hardly evidence of declining boldness brought on by the hoards of soft, risk averse sods who sought out climbing because they had no appetite for risk.

I would just like to take a moment to point out that here, on cc.com, we have an issue in which Carl and I agree with one another, and Jim and Carl disagree with one another. The end is nigh. Other Observations: -Not one of the signs that the end is nigh, but I think Will was right on in his analysis of when it makes sense to buy a home and when it does not. -The housing price boom ends precisely when the Fed raises rates and takes away the punch-bowl.

"In 1983, I was confined to an eight-by-ten-foot prison cell on the border of Siberia. My Soviet jailers gave me the privilege of reading the latest copy of Pravda. Splashed across the front page was a condemnation of President Ronald Reagan for having the temerity to call the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan's "provocation" quickly spread throughout the prison. We dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth--a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us." Yes. Horrible man.

I am of the "Give them enough rope to hang themselves" school of thought with regards to folks like Moore. I can't wait to see what his next "documentary" is, and what - exactly - it will take for the guy to discredit himself in the eyes of his fan base. My guess is the guy could show footage of himself engaged in cannabilistic pedophelia and his fans would write it off as a minor character flaw so long as it was coupled with enough intemperate criticism of corporations, Bush, etc.

Did you get back in on the 25th? I waiting for my girlfriend to come through customs after her trip to Africa and saw someone that looked like a millitary type sporting an altimeter watch get off the escalator at about 5:30 or so and wondered if this was someone returning from Iraq. Looked sort of like the guy in the photo.