JayB

If you're going to be there for a couple more years you should definitely take up 1-3 of the above. There's supposedly a fairly active WW kayaking club at the Uni there, and some good entry level water nearby at a WW park on one of the local rivers. Lots of paddlers in Wellington as well from what I hear, and tons of good instruction coupled with intro-water in Murchison. Might as well embrace the rain. I was in NZ from Oct-March last year and the only micro-ish beer I ran into with any consistency was Monteiths, which was pretty mediocre and was priced in the upper teens for a six-pack. There were a couple of botique brews that were over $20 for a six-pack, but I had to boycott those. Funny thing was folks in both NZ and Aus were still convinced that all American beer was weak and terrible.

I have to wonder what number you'd get if you took the total energy required to the tear down the old homes and build the new ones, and divided that by difference between the annual average energy consumption of the old and new homes. If those pads aren't your style, perhaps I can interest you in a nearby condo?

"Green Lake eco-friendly homes going for much less The ultra-green Ashworth Cottages homes near Green Lake are for sale again — with prices lopped by 25 to 45 percent from two years ago." Link

ECB - where are you at? Palmerston North? Wellington? Auckland? IMO kayaking, fly-fishing, or beach oriented activities > climbing by a long-shot in most of NZ. Also found the beer there pretty disappointing, but most of the white wines were good and relatively cheap. Having spent a bit of time there, I'd agree that heading to NZ for rock-climbing is like like heading to the North Shore for the skateboarding. Possible, but hardly the best thing the place has to offer.

Tasmania might be worth a look. Lots of cragging there, much of it right by Hobart. If you're into the alpine-suffering thing, plug "Federation Peak, Tasmania" into google and have at it. Sounds like there's lots of more moderate stuff there if you're into walking. If granite by the beach is more your style, check out the Freycinet Pinensuala on the Island's East Coast. Lots and lots of wineries, general beach activities and some decent food nearby as well. Tons of wildlife, hiking, etc to be had. Much more info here: http://www.thesarvo.com/confluence/display/thesarvo/Climbing If it all goes to hell you can cruise up north and vegetate on the white sand beaches at the Bay of Fires. Didn't have the time to do much more than look on a ten-day lap around the Island, but on balance it looked like a much more appealing destination for a longish, couples oriented climbing trip than NZ. If rock is an afterthought for you, then NZ may be the better option. Having said that, there's some reasonably good cragging around the Taupo area, and some chossy scrambling amongst beautiful scenery available in the Peaks on Tongariro National Park. We spent six months in Taupo and loved it, but I spent virtually all of my spare time kayaking and fly-fishing, despite having lugged a full rack down there, and we wound up spending the rest of our time chilling on the beach, soaking in the hot springs, hiking in the Beech forests, and general sightseeing. Lots of great info and photos here on the climbing in NZ: http://www.ericandlucie.com/New%20Zealand/New%20Zealand.htm

Ran through the self-nomination/voting scenario in my head, but couldn't imagine anyone actually going through with it. Much easier just to head to the store and buy yourself some gear as a reward for all of your own efforts. If people wanted to make non-voting donations as acts of penance for their general alpine lameness or atrocious TR's, I think that'd be a funding source worth looking into, though. I'd probably be on the hook for more than I could afford to contribute, but would chip in at least $10 on principle.

Just thought I'd get a thread going in case anyone else out there has had to think about this stuff before heading overseas for a climbing trip, or a trip that involves climbing. If you've traveled over seas for a climbing trip and have gone to the trouble over getting insured in the case of a catastrophic injury - how have you done it? I don't carry comprehensive health insurance, so I'm not sure if those policies will cover you if you have Joe Simpson style epic somewhere. I've include the stuff below the dashes in the event that it'll potentially be useful to someone, but hopefully other folks will chime in with additional info. ------------------------------------------------------------------- My wife and I were overseas for an extended period of time last year, and while preparing for the trip I looked into a few health insurance options that'd cover us in the event of a serious accident or illness. Basically I wanted catastrophic coverage for any hospital charges that we might incur while overseas, and medical evacuation coverage to fly one or both of us back to a hospital of our choosing in Seattle in the event that either of us really got messed up. We maintained our existing health insurance policy to cover us in that case. Finding a policy that'll cover overseas medical expenses isn't terribly difficult, but finding a policy that'll cover relatively dangerous activities in the outdoors can be a bit more challenging. For example, most "riders" that you can add to your travel coverage specifically exclude mountaineering, accidents that occur over a given elevation, etc. I eventually purchased coverage from "The International Medical Group" (http://www.imglobal.com). I can't remember if I got a standard policy plus an "extreme sports" rider, or went with their "Patriot Extreme" plan, but I think it was the latter of the two. In any event, I had to choose between a policy that had a high policy maximum that wouldn't cover mountaineering, or a policy with a relatively low policy maximum that'd cover us no matter what we were doing. In the end I picked up a policy for $50,000, with a $1000 deductible, and the cost was about $350 for seven months. In the end, I think I got overruled on the medical evacuation coverage, but this outfit (http://www.medjetassist.com/) looked like they had the best coverage/reputation, and it looked like it'd run just over $700 for the both of us.

I'd also nominate Polish Bob for MC at the Golden Sheep awards.

More than happy to leave it to the folks who are actually writing the checks to determine who and what it is or isn't in their interests to sponsor, dispense as a pro-deal, give away as swag, spend on logo-chotcke's to give away at trade shows, spend on glossy catalogs, or whatever. In the end it's their money, ergo they ultimately get to make the call whether a given climber "deserves" their sponsorship or not. ----------------------------------------------------------------- As an aside, I've always thought that it'd be kind of fun to use the paypal function here to generate a mini-pool of money that could be used as a kind of retrospective sponsorship. Something like: -Only people that pay into the fund get to vote($10/vote). -One pool for the "best" effort in the alpine. Very low-end version of the Piolet D'or. Call it the "Golden Sheep." Worth discussing whether it'd best be for routes anywhere in the world or limited to efforts in the Cascades. -One pool for the best TR. -Each awarded once per yer with the prize announcements/distribtutions at one of the annual get-togethers. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kind of fun to think about, especially in the context of this discussion about the politics and effects of sponsorship, but not something that I actually expect to happen.

i don't actually know jay's take on afghanistan but i'd like to hear it - he's obviously a very logical guy pat (speaking of "pat answers" ), but as you say, mcnamara was able to give voice to the problems of logic vs emotion near the end of his life - afghanistan certainly feels wrong to me - how does it feel to you jay? I supported the invasion and our efforts to kill all members of Al Queda present there, displace the Taliban, and establish a civil framework that the population could at the very least have a chance to use to construct a government upon that was substantially less primitive, backwards, and barbarous than the Taliban. I don't think that it will be possible to turn Afghanistan into anything remotely resembling a modern, prosperous, stable democracy so we'll probably have to settle for something far less than that, call it good, and disengage while retaining the capacity to attack and kill Al-Queda or whoever else shares their goals and tactics when the opportunity to do so arises. Something more ambitious might have been possible in other circumstances, and with less feckless and uncommitted allies and more partners like Canada and the UK, but that's clearly not in the cards at this point unless the Afghans themselves make it so.

Not at all. I am clearly defering to your superior expertise on these matters, and am hoping that you'll use it to expand on the claims and expand on the themes that you introduced in that post. Take your time.

Who was arguing? I thought that last post of yours was fascinating, and hope that you'll expand on it. Particularly possibilities that arise from incorporating the level of unwavering commitment, remorselessness, ruthlessness, and uncritical zeal that the average jihadi brings to bear on a typical suicide bombing mission into our personal and civic lives.* Just imagine the implications for the self-help industry. It'd blow most self-help programs right out of the water. One can easily imagine Robert Fulghum enviously eyeing the sales stats for "All I Really Know I Learned from Osama" in that sector of the publishing market. Do carry on. *Haven't your typical abortion clinic bombers, abortion doctor murderers, etc already done so?

Given that there's no religious motives or sanctions in play here whatsoever, and that tactical/secular imperatives are the only thing that matters, it stands to reason that the representation of Arab Christians, Jews, and secularists of all stripes amongst the folks detonating themselves in order to advance a particular goal or agenda must be commensurate with their representation in the various societies that generate suicide bombers. I'm sure that there are statistics out there that reflect that. It's also strange that they've so often chosen to detonate themselves amongst fellow Arabs and Muslims with such regularity, much less that the overwhelming military superiority enjoyed by civilians in markets, on passenger trains, in civilian aircraft, in Mosques, pre-schools, etc would compel them to employ this tactic in those locales. Unarmed civilians going about their business clearly present a threat of sufficient magnitude that all bets are off. I think that you are off the mark in condemning Americans for entirely lacking this level of commitment and "heart." Timothy McVeigh, for example, had at least 50% or more of the "sacrifice and heart that these people demonstrate," so if you're going to praise suicide bombers for the many virtues that they embody, you're remiss in sparing him an equal measure of praise. So, when you have a spare moment I hope that you'll employ the same logic, and fire up the keyboard on his behalf.

What's the official word on whether or not they get their 72 virgins? i truly feel sorry for you. Glad to hear it. That was a serious question, though. I'm genuinely curious as to what the official doctrine specifies concerning the nature and the extent of the cosmic rewards that one accrues when one kills oneself while attempting to wage jihad in some fashion or another, but doesn't actually manage to slay any infidels in the process. There's presumably a very well developed and precise jihad/martyrdom literature out there, so it's quite likely that there's a real answer to this question in the relevant texts.

What's the official word on whether or not they get their 72 virgins?

"There's an enormous amount of economic analysis out there right now that is quite clear as to why this recession is persisting. The difference with yours is that it is essentially political in nature, it has a clear scapegoat and a clear white knight." Who or what distinct, concrete entity is the scapegoat, and the knight, in my analysis?

The wrong signals being that we're not going to continue to let out of control deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, rampant militarism, etc. run the country off the cliff and that instead we're going to start seeing what we can do to provide some health care for folks, work together with allies, and use some of the wealth that people are generating to improve the country instead of sending frat-boy pricks off on a coke binge? Those signals? Thanks for trying to forge a "new" message here, Jay, but no thanks. On the bigger picture front, thanks too for confirming that our Republic is effectively held hostage by, and that your grand vision for politics consists entirely of political representatives being sock puppets for Capital. Well, it's up to everyone who has money to spend or invest to decide for themselves what to make of the legislation that's working it's way through Congress, so there may indeed be some business owners out there there that feel that way. I suspect that the net effect of the various legislative proposals working their way through congress is increasing "regime (rule) uncertainty" and decreasing private investment, but others may feel differently. If you alternately consider what would happen to net business investment, employment, and wage-growth in the US in response to and announcements that effective tomorrow: A)The tax on corporate profits earned in the US would be permanently reduced to zero, with no exceptions. B)The tax on corporate profits would be permanently increased to 100%, with no exceptions. I think that most people will concede that expectations about the future play an important role in shaping investment decisions in the present.

Send the wrong signals about the future and you can significantly depress hiring, equipment purchases, investment, etc in the present and thereby significantly worsen whatever contraction that's resulted from factors in the past.

Might be a good time to Google "Regime Uncertainty" and "Private Investment."

All true (minor quibble about the meaning of words thing) - just hoping to get the homonym to articulate his personal sine qua non of right-wingism.

I was actually kind of concerned that they'd be short on material after the end of the Bush years...

Jesus, STFU, you drama queen real world violence...give me fuckin break, man. Hey: Look on the bright side. There's no reason anyone who wants to cross the vauge and context-dependent lines that get drawn on the site every once in a great while can't go on pursuing whatever outcome or interaction they're after using PM's, e-mail, registered mail, phone calls, telegrams, etc in private even if it's not particularly welcome on one of the public forums here. Besides, it was just a request. From a drama queen, no less.

dude, he called Ivan right wing in the last day or two. liar. show us. i may have just been collateral damage from standing too close to jay on the "suffer the fucking children" thread you can poke around page 7 of that gem and infer what you will for yourself, and if you catch yourself doing it, you probably should seek counseling I'm actually curious about what constitutes a conservative and/or right wing outlook. I don't necessarily take offense at being labeled as such here, but I'm curious about a definition of "right wing" that can encompass agnosticism, complete legalization of drugs and prostitution, support for gay marriage, etc. "This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles,[6] it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory. Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.[7] Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people. When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends. It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal. In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others."

Pat & Bill: Arguments and low-grade rhetorical clashes have always been a part of Spray, but using the site as a mechanism to perpetuate a feud that always seems to be on the edge of escalating into real world violence just isn't a suitable use of this site, IMO, and I hope that you'll both reconsider persisting in it - at least here - regardless of who may be most at fault.

independent/public media are a "gaggle of leftists"? why do you keep thinking your rhetorical fallacies will go unnoticed? hmm, nope. You'll find that an informed public being essential to democracy is a widely shared concept and definitely not an obsolete, moth-eaten vision despite your irrational hatred of what the 60's brought to western democracies. For all your attempts at appearing as a tolerant, freedom loving type, the vision that emerges from your rhetoric is very bleak. I'm not the one histrionically lamenting the inadequacy of the American public's media preferences here, kemosabe. Listening to you expound on the significance of TV in the internet age is like reading an anarchist manifesto concerning the political implications of the phonograph in the radio age. "Step 1: Seize the phonograph factory and distribute wax cylinders bearing the manifesto to...." The vision that you've been articulating is neither necessary nor sufficient for an informed public. Most of the items passing for news on the itnernet is opinion, talking heads, blogs reguritating wire service stories, and "analysis". There is very little investigative journalism that orginates from these sources. Rather that is still the domain of newspapers, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.; and some broadcast news - 60 minutes comes to mind. While the information is now more widely dispersed via the internet - it's pulling content from the traditional news sources. And more variations on the same content, rehashed over and over, is not adding any information but spin. Maybe this will change as the medium matures - but my guess is that we'll just get more dancing midgets on things like youtube and an endless succession of 15-minute-moments that continue to find a vast audience of dolts. Anyone who wants the information can easily find it. Anyone with a pulse can find draft copies of pending legislation, in about five mintues, even before it hits the floor for a final vote. I do this at least once a month. Ditto for every episode of FrontLine, recordings of significant political speeches, SEC-Filings for public companies, minutes from Congressional hearings, content and perspective from news organizations based outside of the US, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. There's never been a time when either becoming or staying informed was easier. Seems like your main gripe here is with the American public. No?