j_b

this from the guy comparing the Iraq quagmire to World War II and the American Revolution yes, the same guy who just said that joshk hated the us because he pointed out that soldiers were soldiers no matter what uniform they wore.

can't you people stop talking about prisoner torture in iraq, it's obvious it's making the warmongers uncomfortable. so uncomfortable in fact, that they'll stoop down to accusing you of being a traitor if you bring it up one more time. so let's get back on topic and talk only about how perverted the un is or else ...

there is nothing relative about the data they compiled.

May 25, 2004 Despite a perception that National Public Radio is politically liberal, the majority of its sources are actually Republicans and conservatives, according to a survey released today by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a left-leaning media watchdog. "Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge," according to a report accompanying the survey, "individual Republicans were NPR's most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance." In addition, representatives of right-of-center think tanks outnumbered their leftist counterparts by more than four to one, FAIR reported. Citing comments dating to the Nixon administration in the 1970s, the report said, "That NPR harbors a liberal bias is an article of faith among many conservatives." However, it added, "Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR." The study counted 2,334 sources used in 804 stories aired last June for four programs: "All Things Considered," "Morning Edition," "Weekend Edition Saturday" and "Weekend Edition Sunday." For the analysis of think tanks, FAIR used the months of May through August 2003. Overall, Republicans outnumbered Democrats by 61 percent to 38 percent, a figure only slightly higher now, when the GOP controls the White House and both houses of Congress, than during a previous survey in 1993, during the Clinton administration. "Some people may think is too left of center because they are contrasting it to the louder, black-and-white sloganeering of talk radio," said FAIR's Steve Rendall, a co-author of the report. "It could be that, just by contrast, the more dulcet [tone] and slower pace and lower volume of NPR makes many people think it must be the opposite of talk radio." link

ribit ... ribit ... ribit ...

``The total amount spent doesn't change,'' Laurent says. ``People are allocating more dollars for each gallon of gasoline. But the dollars don't get lost. It's not clear why this should have a dampening effect on economic activity, like a tax. There's no dead-weight loss.'' is he really saying that since the same amount of dollars is spent, there won't be any adverse effect on the industries that depend on oil? increased oil prices will be felt in most goods, from food to plastic chairs. and even though the oil industry may rake in as much as it used to, the rest of industries won't, which in turn will eventually affect the absolute amount that people spend.

well, at least, this one acknowledges the hubbert peak for cheap conventional oil. it still is in denial about the huge costs involved in increasing recovery and processing of bitumen and heavy oils ... and the obvious implication for the world economy. "Despite the higher recovery expected from this emerging process, the huge amount of energy required results in major drawbacks, such as much higher greenhouse gas emissions and much higher production costs, when compared to conventional recovery methods." http://www.peakoil.net/iwood2003/abstracts/FrancoisCupcic.html

i wasn't really aware that the techniques you mention were widespreadly useful on most climbs. or at least used commonly enough to offset the advantages offered by leashes. but perhaps my perception of the number of people going leashless is not accurate.

first, i have to acknowledge not fully understanding the reason for the leashless trend (old fart, you know), but aren't all these ergonomical devices (pinky rest, etc ..) somewhat defeating the purpose of reaching a freer form of ice climbing. in other words, how is the threshold defined between unfair advantage (i.e. leash) and fair advantage (rests, and such)?

even then there is still the temptation to get something in return for the time and money invested even if conditions are not quite right. the canadian rockies are a place where nw climbers tend to get in trouble because of time constraint. which when combined with the fact that alpine climbing in the rockies is also more hazardous than cascade climbing, makes it a very significant hazard.

interesting piece on salon about why this is happening: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/20/chalabi/index.html "Why did the Bush administration turn against its former favorite Iraqi? Almost certainly because it realized that Chalabi, maddened by the realization that he was being excluded from the post-June 30 hand-over arrangements, was putting together a sectarian Shiite faction to destabilize and destroy the new Iraqi government."

so let's see. which nations "were directly profiting from the oil for food program"? "The bulk of goods were supplied by Australian, Vietnamese, Thai, Russian, Jordanian and Syrian firms, said an official familiar with the contracts. Saudi firms were also involved, as were US companies although they were minor players, he said." http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/19/1084917660987.html

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031704_two_planets.html "Major oil discoveries have declined every year so that 2003 saw no new field over 500 million barrels, and in 2001 and 2002 the top ten non-state oil companies spent more on exploration than they discovered in value, a new and alarming record. It is well over twenty years since more oil was found than consumed in a year. From the outset of 2004, large reserve write-downs, starting with Shell, and including El Paso and BP, have shaken the confidence of the financial community, set in motion an official SEC enquiry, and may yet be just the tip of the iceberg." [..] The trouble is that the Saudi Aramco presentations of Mahmoud Abdul-Baqi, Vice President of Exploration, and Nansen Saleri, Manager of Reservoir Management, seemed to be describing not just another country, but another planet when compared with what Matt Simmons, President of Simmons and Co (the world's largest private energy investment banker) had to say. [..] The two different reports presented by Simmons and Aramco are so utterly divergent that they are polar opposites, so that there seems to be no room for a middle ground. Either the Saudis are in the right direction or Matt Simmons is. Simmons was one of the first in the world to begin to comment loudly on global oil peak, after he discovered that the North Sea giant fields of Forties, Brent, and Ekofisk had peaked and already declined to midgets without anyone really noticing. Simmons and his staff have carried out some of the most meticulously detailed studies of US oil depletion, and he has been proved right concerning his prediction of North American natural gas peak. “Non-renewable things do some day peak, and there is some chance that that might be in the past tense. Scoffing at the notion is today, in my opinion, frankly naïve.”

my response addresses your question. assessing the cost of environmental damage based on scientifically sound standards and making sure the real cost is paid by those who make a profit destroying the environment account for all values of americans (which aren't really mutually exclusive). You completely miss my question and I question you understanding of the term "cost" where is your argument?

Your study while not conclusive considers only ifnat deaths thus if it is accurate it does not contradict my contention it certainly shows that the problem isn't as simple as you make it to be. it also does not account for other problems associated with the use of ddt in the tropics such as contamination of northern latitudes and evolution of ddt-resistant strains of malaria vectors. moreover, my link is the synthesis of a scientific study so it probably won't ever present "proof" (to address your mention of it being 'inconclusive') by oppositon to the non-scientific references on the problem that you no have no qualm buying a 100%. my response addresses your question. assessing the cost of environmental damage based on scientifically sound standards and making sure the real cost is paid by those who make a profit destroying the environment account for all values of americans (which aren't really mutually exclusive).

are you saying it's ok to destroy the environment (with associated consequences) because otherwise we'd starve to death? isn't it like being a fear-mongering catastrophist?

would this be due to known unknowns or unknown unknowns? unless you are talking about non-toxic pesticides, this is so rarely the case that i don't think it's really worthy of mention shouldn't be a problem to cite a few examples then ... it would be because such people do not know any better "When we combine data from North America on preterm delivery or duration of lactation and DDE with African data on DDT spraying and the effect of preterm birth or lactation duration on infant deaths, we estimate an increase in infant deaths that is of the same order of magnitude as that from eliminating infant malaria. Therefore, the side effects of DDT spraying might reduce or abolish its benefit from the control of malaria in infants, even if such spraying prevents all infant deaths from malaria." http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol9no8/03-0082.htm it is clear that each case has to be assessed on its merit. but we are really far from such process in decision making, on the contrary, the private sector has little accountalibity to the public (by opposition to public officials), and little incentive to promote environmental conservation. a) don't politicize the epa, i.e. let the scientists do their jobs free of political influence b) enforce standards of emissions, toxicity levels, etc ... as determined by science c) institute widespread carbon credit schemes, etc ... to integrate environmental costs to that of doing business. environmental ideals are not only abstract concepts such as that of open space but also every day matters that have life and death consequences. for example, global warming causes the expansion of the range of mosquito-borne deseases to speak of only one example related to malaria.

forget the tr then, but what about some pics?

weird, i don't remember any obvious descent gully ...

here is a piece from science mag. (via the national geographic society) on the real economy of land use: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0816_020819_environmentinvest.html Study Adds Up Economic Benefits of Conservation National Geographic News August 19, 2002 Shell-shocked investors bouncing between stocks, bonds, and real estate are putting their money in all the wrong places, according to a paper published in Science magazine. The best deal going, by a wide margin, is the environment. An annual investment of U.S. $45 billion in preserving large tracts of wild nature, said the paper's authors, would yield an annual return to society of between $4.4 trillion and $5.2 trillion in "ecosystem services" like water filtration and climate regulation, a 100 to 1 return on the investment (ROI). Greenbacks aren't rushing into green causes because the market-based economy doesn't tell the whole financial truth, according to Robert Costanza, director of the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at the University of Vermont and one of the paper's co-authors. "Converting ecosystems typically benefits only a few private individuals," he says. "Leaving wild nature wild produces benefits in the form of ecosystem services, but these services are public, rather than private goods. They serve society as a whole and aren't captured by the imperfect market." [...] go to link for rest of article.

klenke, you don't know me except for my personna on this board. so don't generalize about what you don't really know. there is certainly a lot of stuff around here that isn't as funny to me as it appears to be to some people. i don't bash them for it unless i find it abusive to others, and even then more often than not, i ignore the bulk of it. this isn't to say that, at times, i don't laugh at some of the going on on this board; however, i suspect you would not find some of my funny stuff very funny either (just rent 'celebration' by winterberg, it's a riot). i do post a lot about 'politics' because i feel that we are living critical times that will affect us and our children deeply for decades to come. just so you know, i don't go out of my way to talk politics to individuals outside my community. i'd much rather go climbing.

no, no, you need to go back to humor school. it seems that you retained the 'poking' part but totally forgot about the 'fun' aspect of it. for the record, i have never commented about you (or anyone else) except in a reply to a specific post. if you post something, i believe it is fair game for anyone to comment on it; however, don't drag people in out of the blue just because you want to make point for whatever purpose.

there goes the 'moderate' thought police. you don't have to enter or read political threads, nobody is forcing you. in turn, nobody has to do as you please either. and leave me out of this, i don't need your editorializing especially if i am not involved.

i did the route quite a while ago (~25years ago in july) and didn't feel exposed to the icefall in spite of the constant activity. i am, in fact, surprised to hear that someone died in a serac fall above the arete. but my recollection may be less than perfect and we certainly did the climb a good ~10years before the mentioned accident so things may have changed in the interval. the climb is mostly 4th class w/ a couple of mid-5th, all on good rock but i assume the character of the climb would be significantly different this early in the season. at the time, we did need a short rap to get onto the hanging glacier. once there, we climbed ice up to 50deg to reach the summit pyramid. great location, scenery and sound effects. shuksan rocks.

anybody interested in the willie horton/revolving doors ad campaign should read the following: http://www.insidepolitics.org/ps111/independentads.html summary: bush/quayle ran an ad accusing dukakis of letting murderers go free. an independent group (americans for bush ...) ran an ad on the theme with a mugshot of horton (black convict whereas of the 19 "prisoners" making their way through the "revolving door" of the Massachusetts penal system, 16 were white, two black and one Latino). "Larry McCarthy, the NSPAC media consultant who worked for Americans for Bush and created "Weekend Passes," was a past senior vice president of Ailes Communications, Inc. (ACI), the main media consultant for the Bush campaign. According to an affidavit filed by McCarthy, he had worked at ACI prior to January, 1987. After that time, he continued to handle projects on "a contractual basis with ACI" through December, 1987, at which point he became Senator Robert Dole's media consultant." "The FEC investigation furthermore uncovered that Jesse Raiford of Raiford Communications, Inc., a former employee of ACI who was responsible for post-production editing of the "Weekend Passes" spot, "simultaneously received compensation from NSPAC and the Bush campaign, and that he had expended NSPAC funds for the production of the Willie Horton ad."