JayB

Question: “What Color is the sky” Answer: “Blue.” j_b’s answer: “yu cant anser the question without first considering the manner in which the wests epistemic colonialism subjugatd and devalued the diverse and heterodox notions of color in the indigenous peoples who had their own distinct notions of the physical world and the phenomena they observed within ti. the very question assumes a normative uniformity in visual perception that shows how the subtle bias of the dominant cultural hegemons has crept into the standard discourse concerning even the most elemental phenomena. legitimizing such a question in the absence of a preliminary discourse concerning responsibility for the cognitive holocaust which the west inflicted upon the subjugated peoples and their pre-colonical standards of optical norms would represent a wholesale capitulation before and abasement to the interest of the pigmento-industrial complex which chomsky has so deftly indicted in his works outlining their efforts to manufacture a false, consumerist consensus regarding the normative standards that underlie the conventional notions and definitions of what constitutes 'Color' "etc, etc, etc....

What points? All you said was "In a world run by me this never would have happened" That's not an argument - it's a self-indulgent fantasy. The actual historical facts are that Hussein was in power in 2002, and for the previous decade the US and its allies used an economic embargo to contain the regime. What would you have done if you were given both the responsibility for formulating policy in this arena and the power to implement it in 2002 and had to confront the situation as it existed at that time? Any policy would of necessity be centered on either continuing the embargo, discontinuing the embargo, removing Hussein by force, or some variation thereof. Which would you choose and why? Either answer the question or decline but spare me the Kumbayah inspired visions of a past that never was.

The question was not "How would you invent your own retroactive reality in order to avoid outlining the specific manner in which you would deal with Saddam Hussein and his regime?" Your evasion is answer enough. Thanks.

'people of my ilk' would never have helped him get to power, or armed him because he was beating up on iran, or ignored his treatment of the kurds because the turks were/are doing the same, or provided him with chemicals and helicopters to use against ethnic minorities, or encouraged people to rebel against his rule then let them be butchered, or let him strengthen his grip on the country to imprecedented level via the embargo. and 'people of my ilk' would for sure not repeat the same doomed policies of supporting anti-democratic regimes over and over again all over the globe. it's easy to create/condone the problem in the first place, then say that we have again to move in to supposedly fix it. That's nice - very moving - but what is your answer to the original question?

How would you and your ilk dealt with Saddam? Potlucks? Candlelight vigils? By playing head-in-the-sand games and pretending that he wouldn't rebuild his arsenals once the pressure for ending the embargo reached a crescendo and the pressure on his regime abated? Mind you, these are rhetorical questions as the answer is an unequivocal yes on all three.

Like who? Skipping clips on 11's wearing flip-flops deserves photographic documentation like the old Sherman 40oz photo! And when are you going to start putting that V6 strength to use on some cracks homie? You should be tearing that shite up!

Large audience = advertising dollars. Are there any popular conservative commentators who rely on corporate donations to stay on the air? Seems like most of them built up a grassroots following that they subsequently capilalized on for $$$.

Where is the "Challenge Thread?" Someone should post some of photos of unclimbed winter lines in the Cascades and see who throws down this season... And I think that Polish Bob is right on. Say what you want but he walks the talk.

Dru and Polish Bob could probably name the routes (I can't), but I think that a number of guys that have been accused or engaging in little more than roadside antics have put up some wicked new mixed routes in the mountains, sans bolts - and relied upon the strength and technique that they developed on bolted routes to do so. If I am not mistaken there is even an article on this phenomenon in this year's AAJ.

Thanks for the suggestions. Keep them coming!

Could someone define the precise manner in which the Patriot Act is undermining our freedoms? I have heard the hyperbole, but haven't seen much evidence to back it up. If it is in fact degrading the freedoms outlined in the Constitution then it is by definition unconstitutional and will be overturned in the courts eventually if it is not taken out with legislative action first. This is not without precedent, as there are a number of laws enacted in WWI and WWII (and earlier, e.g. the Alien and Sedition Acts) that gave the government power to stifle dissent that Congress ultimately revoked or allowed to expire. I'm not for complacency in these matters - but is the target here really the threats represented by this legislation or the Bush administration?

I'd be interested in hearing you explain exactly how a terrorist organization would go about undermining the economy in such a fashion - especially the part about no one knowing about it. Another massive terrorist attack would probably do the trick, but such a deed would hardly go unnoticed.

JayB, take a flying flip. You're just another turd in the bowl. That is the essence of both you and your contribution to this site. You were making progress, learning (ever so slowly) how to be a cool guy. Now, you're flushing it down in one enormous, commodial spiral. You know what, you are right. It was very inconsiderate of me to omit the reference to the Tom Stoppard pics in my earlier post. Make sure the program imports lots of random Tom Stoppard pictures as well as the Patch Adams and Taco Bell menu item jpegs if you want a simulation that does justice to the original.

Maybe someone could write a program (javascript?) that would periodically bring any of his many posts containing a variation on the "Sport Climbing is Gay" theme back to the top of the forum, and/or occaisionally import new jpegs of Patch Adams and Taco Bell menu items into the said posts. That would capture the essence of his contributions to the site, and in so doing keep the folks who miss his input happy while maintaining the ban.

Harness, shoes, helmet - maybe a rope and draws. Wouldn't sweat the rack as you should have no trouble finding partners that will take care of that. Backpack and sleeping bag, appropriate clothing for alpine if that's on the menu. Crampons and ice-axe if you are thinking in terms of snowy routes.

Haven't climbed at Smith much at all, and want to make the most of my visit there during the rope-up next weekend. What are some of the classics in the 5.9-5.11 range(Tuff and Gorge)?

Actually if there were a political party that engaged in less distortion of the truth than the other I this fictional party would be the most moral, but no such party exists. As far as morality is concerned, what I was actually trying to say is that Left generates as many self-serving distortions as the Right, but as of late has failed to market them effectively. If they knew how to do so they would, but for whatever reason they do not. This does not make them any more moral than the Right, just less effective at selling in their message in the mass media. I think this is largely a result of the fact that one can sense in most Leftists a palpable disdain for and innability to connect with large sectors of the population which used to be amongst their most loyal supporters, such as blue collar workers, Southerners, etc, sectors of the population which also happen to be the most avid supporters of Rush et al. Democrats such as Clinton that actually make an effort to pitch their message to these folks tend to do be pretty popular and enjoy pretty good results at the ballot box.

The absence of any desire to distort information for one' s own end and the inability to market such distortions effectively are two very different things. The inability to do the latter effectively while being equally complicit in the former is not a hallmark of moral superiority IMO. The bottom line is that anyone person or group that stands to gain from distorting information to suit their own purposes will do so. The only thing which keeps this tendency in check is the constant strife between competing interest groups attempting to discredit the other's claims. By means of this process the the group with the most compelling arguments and the convincing evidence will prevail in the court of public opinion, but this process can take far too long to satisfy active partisans in the debate. As far as the debate about Bush vs. Clinton is concerned, it seems to me some of our esteemed posters are conflating legal terms with moral ones. Clinton lied before a grand jury and committed perjury, which is an act that is specifically forbidden by a law. Making the case for war based upon the best available intelligence, which was consistent with that issued by any nation with an intelligence service worthy of the name and consistent with the stated viewpoint of none other than your esteemed protagonist Bill Clinton constitute a moral crime in your eyes. Fair enough, but let's not confuse our private definitions of criminality with the law. Further, lets not pretend that Democrats would have been any less vehement in their denunciation of a sitting Republican president who was caught in the same act. Yes, lying about an affair with an intern his far from a heinous crime, but the same is true of pilfering documents form an appartment owned by the opposition party, but in this case at least the Republicans tended their own house.

Just curious where you heard these inspiring tales? PLU? Spire Rock? UW Rock? Surely not in the gym. I've met a few climbers that climb at a very high standard, and the most inspiring and admirable thing about most of them was their humility and their gracious demeanor amongst their less talented or accomplished brethren. Perhaps your experience with the man was different because most of your encounters with him were offline, and your impessions are based on that, as it is hard for me to believe that you would hold him in such high esteem as a result of either the content or the tone his contributions on this website - which is all that the majority of the folks that post here have to go on.

Word. My use pattern will probably be 50% inbounds, 40% 1 day, 10% ski-in and yo-yo. Went with Fischer Big Stix 750s, Freerides, and Lowa Struktura EVOs. I have pair of old-school Karhus with 404's for other stuff....

I'll admit that my perspective is limited by the fact that I lasted about 5 minutes before deciding that I was wasting my time and going back to my book. If I ever see the movie again I'll double check, but in the portion of the movie I saw he seemed to be more or less saying that since the kids have been reared in a town in which a significant percentage of the adults make their living designing and building weapons designed to kill large numbers of people, that it was only natural that they would conclude that there was nothing wrong with the two of them doing so. Seemed to me like a naked attempt to appropriate the tragedy to bludgeon his viewers with the "All Corporations are Inherently Evil" message yet again. I am not a big fan of pushy and didactic filmmakers, so this too factored into the 5 minute limit for Moore. I saw his first movie and as mighty a task as it must have been, it seems as though he has grown even less subtle and his arguments less cogent over time. The funniest thing about "Roger & Me" is that had GM taken the path advocated by Moore - that is - maintaining production of underperforming product lines, with outdated production technology, high-costs, and low-quality - the entire company would have gone bust and all of the workers in GM plants would have been out of their jobs, not just the unfortunate few in Flint. Did he address the reasons behind the bombing of Kosovo at all in his film? I can't imagine him condemning the bombings unless he is a fan of unfettered rape and slaughter - but I wouldn't put it past the guy to ignore the context in which the bombings occured, and the end to which the campaign was directed, in order to score points with an audience that does not - to put it mildly - excel at, or show a great deal of enthusiasm for, understanding complicated matters.

Hands - which, for me is.....drumroll...a #2 Camalot. #1 Camalot sized cracks are off hands/ringjam hell.

I caught about 5 minutes of BFC last night, by which time I had quite enough of his attempt to exploit the slaughter at Columbine High for his own purposes. His attempt to argue that the town of Littleton essentially brought the slaughter on itself by encouraging Raytheon to locate some of their operations there was especially nauseating.

Looks like a good deal on the Miras at sierratradingpost - $291.

The fact of the matter is that the people that run this board do so with a much lighter hand than just about any other outdoor-related BB out there, which is part of its attraction, but even they have limits. Anyone complaining about the moderation here should check the scene at rockclimbing.com...