Jump to content

Gary_Yngve

Members
  • Posts

    3561
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gary_Yngve

  1. If the sole purpose is to earn revenue, then they should be compared. But that is not why we have national parks. It is a sad day when national parks exist primarily to earn revenue.
  2. I don't think it's so white and black as that. I think fees have a chilling effect. What bothers me is that it's in the best interest of this nation to promote national park visitation, so why stifle it with fees? It's like the old arguments regarding licensing bicycles/bicyclists/pedestrians...
  3. How the hell is this hypothetical mother of 3 or 4 able to afford to pay for the gas to fill up her gas tank to drive to the park (yet alone the cost of owning and maintaining her vehicle) and not afford an entrance fee that is a fraction of that cost? It's a bullshit scenario you are constructing, Bill. No, your argument is crap. I'll respond to it by suggesting that we have a 50% pollution tax per car bought, because if you would already have the money to pay $10K for a new car, you'd be able to afford the extra $5K. The fact is that people are strapped on money just to fill their tanks w/ gas for a family vacation.. so why make it harder for them with park fees? Unless.. the elite don't want to see poor people in national parks..
  4. This editorial disgusts me. There are so many health/psychological benefits to experiencing the wonders of nature, let alone a greater appreciation for respecting the environment. You want to reduce healthcare costs? Encourage people to play in natl parks. And for arguing over the 100M of park fees.. that's chump change compared to our overall spending.
  5. Gary_Yngve

    slow news

    There's currently a movement called "slow food." I think there needs to be a new movement called "slow news." Nowadays news spreads fast, but it is often inaccurate, contains spelling/grammar errors, and lacks deep analysis. The newspapers used to do slow news, but they are hopping on the bandwagon of fast news. There are few places left that still do slow news, and they have high entries of barrier for up and coming journalists. What do you think?
  6. Don't you think it's a bit odd that families of the British victims are not opposed to his release, while the families of the American victims are? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6021327/Lockerbie-bomber-victims-split-over-decision-to-release-him-within-days.html The problem is with American culture. When something bad happens, we want to see someone fry, especially if that person is different from us. We don't even truly care if it's the right person, just as long as "justice has been served." As an example, 60% of convicted rapists/murderers who were later exonerated by DNA were African-American or Hispanic. http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/351.php The notion that his release further emboldens the terrorists is laughable. If they're already willing to kill themselves in terrorist acts, there's not really any repercussions we can exact to act as a deterrent. Furthermore what happens is the American people latch on to a few emotional sticky points that get repeated ad nauseam by the talking heads on FOX, and then the pollsters produce evidence that everyone else in politics must mirror the same behavior for their own survival.
  7. there was some messed up stuff in that trial and subsequent appeals.. evidence not shown to the defense, people being bribed to testify, etc. seemed like the intelligence agencies were arm-wrestling with the judicial system to get a conviction.
  8. I don't see why everyone's so pissed off at Scotland for releasing him (I will agree that Libya's hero's welcome for him was insensitive). Let him spend time with his family as he dies from cancer. The family didn't get convicted/sentenced for a crime. Don't all the WASPs remember that Jesus forgives?
  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16
  10. The confused and angry white people who think the stimulus was supposed to "do its thing" in six months are just precious. Except for "cash for clunkers". That was working too well, and they're mad about that, because they think that if the govt can't run cash-for-clunkers, they cannot run healthcare.
  11. Yep. About a week and a half ago a participant in a rigging-for-rescue course was stung about 40 times when he encountered a hive mid-cliff. A few days later, about 40 stings were distributed among 20 rescuers (and amazingly not the patient) during a lengthy lower through steep woods.
  12. There is some legitimacy to that, as many accidents are preventable or largely avoidable. There are still accidents in ANAM involving top-rope blunders or glissading w/ crampons. There's not much one can do about objective hazard, other than stay away from it, or as Twight says, make yourself hard to kill. Similarly, with cycling, many fatalities are from bike ninjas getting hit. Ride predictably and visibly w/ lights and helmet, and your chances are much better.
  13. Roughly how many soldiers have you known, and how many climbers?
  14. It's not a surprise that there's a continuous gradient in risk. What's more of a surprise is how there is a discontinuous step between one level of risk and another as far as someone's perceptions. A good example is how paragliding off of peaks never really took off here because it was too risky, whereas it seems the sport has critical mass over in Europe.
  15. Alpine driving is dangerous too. http://www.kmbc.com/cnn-news/20414373/detail.html
  16. Great videos, Wayne! Yeah, scary how each minute of video can take at least an hour of processing.
  17. here's some recipes: http://www.farmdirectproduce.co.uk/html/kohl_rabi_recipes.html i think we're making a kohlrabi pie on sunday.. dunno if it's the same recipe
  18. i wimped out and took the bus most of the way
  19. not a new book, but i've really enjoyed Tim Egan's "Lasso the Wind: Away to the New West"
  20. WOW.. i hadn't heard of that before.. pigs protecting pigs
  21. I saw that quote too. But it made me wonder if we tell ourselves those same stories regarding other activities too, not just alpine climbing. How risky does something need to be for someone to cut back on it when they get kids? Or how risky does something need to be for someone to want to convince themselves that they are above an accident?
  22. The annual fatality rate due to auto accidents is about 1 in 5000, though I bet it's much lower if drugs/alcohol are taken out of the mix. Certainly there's a difference between how often people drive and how often people climb a mountain. But if we assume that each person drives 500 times a year, then the per-trip risk is about 1 in 2.5 million. Alternately, if we assume someone drives for 60 years, then the odds of dying in an auto accident is 1 in 84.
  23. especially if texting onto Spray at the same time.
  24. About 1.5M Americans have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. About 5000 have died, making the odds about 1 in 300, which is about the same as the fatality rate for summit attempts on Denali. The fatality rate on Everest is about 1 in 20. The fatality rate on Rainier is about 1 in 10000.
×
×
  • Create New...