j_b

it depends on hand size (duh). for me upper thin fingers is wide and significantly harder than boc, heart of the country or 2nd pitch of davis holland.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/17/opinion/polls/main573774.shtml "President Bush's approval rating on handling Iraq has fallen to its lowest level ever"

it makes sense now

i love eggplant eggplant caponata: http://www.sicilianculture.com/food/epcaponata.htm ratatouille: http://www.cuisinedumonde.com/ratatouille.html

let's have the authors speak .... http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/Jost/_private/Political_Conservatism_as_Motivated_Social_Cognition.pdf abstract: Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (au-thoritarianism, dogmatism—intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r = .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism—intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (—.32); uncertainty tolerance (—.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (—.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (—.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat. excerpts: the disadvantaged might embrace right-wing ideologies under some circumstances to reduce fear,anxiety, dissonance, uncertainty, or instability (e.g., Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Sullivan, 2003; Lane, 1962; Nias, 1973), whereas the advantaged might gravitate toward conservatism for reasons of self-interest or social dominance (e.g., Centers, 1949; Sidanius & Ekehammar, 1979; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Relations between resistance to change and acceptance of inequality. Although we believe that the two core dimensions of political conservatism—resistance to change and acceptance of inequality—are often related to one another, they are obviously distinguishable. Vivid counterexamples come to mind in which the two dimensions are negatively related to one another. For instance, there is the “conservative paradox” of right-wing revolutionaries, such as Hitler or Mussolini or Pinochet, who seem to advocatesocial change in the direction of decreased egalitarianism. In at least some of these cases, what appears to be a desire for change is really “an imaginatively transfigured conception of the past with which to criticize the present” (Muller, 2001, p. 2625). There are also cases of left-wing ideologues who, once they are in power, steadfastly resist change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism, such as Stalin or Khrushchev or Castro (see J. Martin, Scully, & Levitt, 1990). It is reasonable to suggest that some of these historical figures may be considered politically conservative, at least in the context of the systems they defended.4 The clearest example seems to be Stalin, who secretly admired Hitler and identified with several right-wing causes (including anti-Semitism). [...] In terms ofhis psychological makeup as well, Stalin appears to have had much in common with right-wing extremists (see, e.g., Birt, 1993; Bullock, 1993; Robins & Post, 1997). etc ..., boy this is fun. did you notice when they say that stalin, castro et al are actually conservatives

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/headcase.html Those crazy conservatives Their reaction to a new study confirms it BY CLIFF BOSTOCK Are conservatives inherently deranged? A storm has been brewing the last few months over a study about political conservatism published in the May issue of the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin. The study, which identified a handful of psychological traits that conservatives tend to have in common, has outraged everyone from Ann Coulter to George Will. The study -- actually a meta-analysis of 50 years of research literature on the psychology of conservatism -- identifies two core traits of conservatives: resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality. Among the associated psychological factors of conservatism, the study cites fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty avoidance, need for cognitive closure and terror management. Although the authors of the study insist they are not pathologizing conservatism, it's hard not to be sympathetic with critics since they do also cite "lowered self-esteem ... pessimism, disgust and contempt." At the same time, it doesn't take an effete intellectual to conclude that the study considers ideology on a scale affected by characteristics we all share. Obviously, Mussolini and Hitler were more tolerant of inequality than Rush Limbaugh and Ronald Reagan, but the fundamental tendency to devalue diversity is consistent among them. And it is more present than it is in people characterized as liberal, who have their own set of problematic features. The authors explain that they elected to study conservatism instead of liberalism because there simply are not enough psychological studies of liberal movements to perform a meaningful meta-analysis. Most of the damaging movements of the last 50 years have been right-wing, they say. The reaction of conservatives, unfortunately, has done nothing but reinforce the study's observations. One of my favorite examples is the National Review's indignant response to the comparison of Mussolini and Reagan. Sharing the same Web page carrying Byron York's pissed-off column is an ad that compares Hillary Clinton to Saddam Hussein. Besides the obvious irony, the ad illustrates the bad logic of another argument used to attack the study: Left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Krushchev and Castro, demonstrate most of the same characteristics that the study attributes to far-right conservatives, critics say. Obviously, though, once those men came to power, they became staunch conservatives, devoting all their energies to maintaining the status quo. Thus, Stalin the communist can be typed a conservative in the same way right-wingers can call Hillary a leftist but identify her, as an authoritarian presence, with Saddam, who's as far right as you can get. If there is a form of mental illness associated with conservative thought, its poster child is Ann Coulter. She is the shining example of intolerance of ambiguity, otherwise expressed as the need to think in pure terms of good and evil. She is so loony that even the National Review fired her when she wrote that America should invade the Islamic nations, kill their leaders and convert their populations to Christianity. In her new book, Treason, she canonizes notorious Commie-hunter Joseph McCarthy as a saint and, acting just like him, calls all liberals traitors. In Coulter's world, there is no middle ground. The radical division of the world into good (conservative) and evil (liberal) requires a willful self-blindness since, of course, life often paints itself in gray tones instead of solid black or white. The most obnoxious example is Coulter's inability to recognize that her personal experience differs from her rhetoric. If, as she complains, the media is run by such a radical cult of information-manipulating leftists, why is it impossible to open a magazine or turn on the television and radio without encountering her? Why did Crown, well known for its roster of liberal authors, pick her up after HarperCollins, well known for its conservative writers, dropped her? Conservative columnist George Will raised the inevitable question about the study by asking if conservatism is even an appropriate subject of study for psychologists. "The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses," he writes sarcastically, actually misreading the study, which said nothing about neurosis. Nonetheless, his comment communicates his disdain for psychology's meddling in the question of ideology's formation at all, as if belief were unaffected by psychological states. Actually, it's long past time for psychology to more aggressively break out of the consulting room to ask how our lives are affected by the greater culture, instead of focusing so intently on family dynamics. It would be virtually impossible, for example, to explain in personalistic terms why Americans have so willingly swallowed the Bush administration's lies about its tax cuts and the Iraq invasion. This study, however, goes a long way in explaining how an intolerance for ambiguity and the urgent need for closure can cause us to reach premature conclusions -- especially when we are terrified by events like Sept. 11. Thus right-wing populism gains its greatest foothold when our terror and need for security are amplified -- either by reality or the voice of demagogues. Conservatism is, of course, not a mental illness. But its adherents can become sheep -- terrified but contemptuous followers of tyrants -- when life doesn't satisfy their need for black-and-white solutions.

if things are going so well why do we need to beg the UN to validate intervention and deflect iraqi anger away from the troops? anyhow, the overwhelming majority of information coming out of iraq indicates things are not going well at all. so, where are the wmd's?

certainly not. i told you before i am not an ideologue. no. but i'd like to point out that one has to be retarded (or lying) to think that one can bring democracy at gunpoint. just check out the news, and see how it's working.

this is quite symptomatic of the piece. he tells us the intents of bush and neocons were pure as snow but they were forced to lie to us because of our distrust ( ). democracy suffered and we common folks only have ourselves to blame for not believing in the natural goodness of those in power. this guy is out to lunch, and apparently does not have any sense of history. the neocons were so concerned by human rights in iraq that they had to unilaterally go to war to solve the problem? without ever mentioning the role of the us in how the situation got to be what it is? how naive/delusional does one have to be to believe this crapola?

as an outsider to the pope/dwayner versus darryl argument about the use of hammers on NA overhang and getting to read about it on this site, i'd like to suggest a couple of things. it appears that the original interaction was based on a misunderstanding about the intents of both parties involved (using hammers on a clean climb and the rock cop thing). over time it seems things got worse as the story and ensuing interaction were told and repeated to/by a number of 3rd parties and as the personalities/egos of individuals played off one another. i think it may be important to keep the above in mind as you guys are discussing this issue so that unnecessary luggage does not get in the way of a healthy argument.

pirates of the potomac

anyhow allende was a social-democrat. similar to the social democrats who have had power at various moment throughout western europe (who were our allies even then). and the people murdered in chile were mostly trade-unionists, farm worker organizers and such. it's quite fitting for extremists to say that butchering thousands would save lives.

must be warm during emergency bivies. what do they talk about while climbing?

it took me years to realize it, but someone with whom i share more than climbing. we spend too much time with partners for them to be people we would not be caught dead with in any other circumstances.

i wonder if he will ever make it to greg_w top 3 list. i suspect not.

i hate to bring you back to reality but you keep hanging your hat onto free market economics as the panacea to get access to as much oil/at the right price when needed while in fact it can readily be shown in the workings of most industries within the us (militari-industrial complex, oil, agriculture, natural resources,cattle, computer software, etc ...) that they benefit from subsidies, cost-plus and/or non-competitive contracts, and/or they eventually attempt to close out competitors by every means possible but fair competition. so much for the market ruling the day without interference in the third world .... while in fact it is not the case here. as to the specifics of the energy market, it is obvious that most oil producers do not strictly follow market principles because they use oil supply as a political tool or simply because they want to control the price of their oil. which, we don't like one bit because first world economics rest on a constant supply of cheap oil. and this is precisely our problem .... remember the premise is whether unfriendly governements or we will control supply and price, as demand is bound to skyrocket. this is a simplification of course because we are also interested in determining who will get the energy needed to develop their economy (i.e. china and others) at a time when energy is the number 1 problem of the future. or more fundamentally, even in an ideal/never seen before perfect world, where the market price for oil was strictly determined by supply and demand (and there is little we want to do about demand), making sure there is abundant supply to keep prices down is what it's all about. considering the number of enemies we have among oil rich nations, controlling the resource is a necessity. from your failure to address my point w.r.t. investment, profit and loss, i'll take it you agree with me that taxpayers will pay for the cost of intervention (including blood cost) while profit will be reaped by corporate entities, thereby making your argument about the cost analysis of the intervention irrelevant to say the least.

i'll repeat again: not every military involvement has to turn a profit to mean that it enables control of supply and/or markets. examples: intervening in both the balkans and afghanistan fills the vaccuum left by the soviets while these regions also happen to be major trade routes for energy. thus controlling these regions also amounts to having a say in the transfer of oil and gas between producers and client states. it is thus going to be difficult to show the profit that you hold as the lithmus test of whether or not such moves were ultimately motivated by economics. i can't resist pointing out the silliness of your argument about loss and profit. what you say would hold true if those who stand to make a profit actually paid for the investment. but as far as i know, american taxpayer (the one paying for the investment) is not spelled c.o.r.p.o.r.a.t.e a.m.e.r.i.c.a. (which stands to make a profit, i.e. haliburton, bechtel, etc ..) and the part about needing a durable monopoly to control prices does not hold much water either. it may hold true if you want to keep prices high, but if you want cheap oil you only need to make sure that supply exceeds demand. to do that you don't need a durable monopoly but control over significant resources.

at this point, the idea is not to turn a profit (or at least not directly) but to not lose our status as the only superpower. which would surely happen if, say, major oil producers started trading in euros, as iraq was talking about doing before the war or if we did not get the oil we need to run our economy the way it has been running. not every conflict we are involved in has the same immediate motive. many things are needed to maintain our economic supremacy and they don't necessarily involve turning a profit right away (talk about simplistic btw). however, all of our actions in the middle east for the past 70years (be they suppressing arab nationalism, islam or whatever) ultimately have the same purpose: controlling oil resources.

oil is the ultimate strategic commodity since it fuels the world economy. iraq 'happens' to be in the middle of 2/3 of the world reserves. controlling iraq means controlling oil prices and availability at a time when competition over a soon dwindling resource is increasing. the simplest but still meaningful explanation is usually the right one. if we were interested in 'nation building' we would have tackled pakistan (an unstable dictatorship that has plenty of wmd).

Not really sure if this is a troll, but I think this is a myopic view. Nation-building and empire-building are two entirely different things. If we wanted a 51st state, why not just take Peurto Rico or Guam? We already have both of those on the hook. This is a silly viewpoint and not one based in fact or logic. i think '51st state' was a figure of speech. nation building is just a euphemism for having a favorable environment in which western corporations can control iraqi national resources. which is why we went there since oil will run out within 50 years (situation will be critical way before then of course)

you must be joking? if there is a problem getting stuck it is because it is a 2-lane road/street. i have a hard time imagining getting off the roadway (no lane line apart form center line either) in such instance. you may well be right but it won't change my driving habits.

the worst is when there is a car stopped in the intersection to make a left-hand turn and the car(s) behind it (that want to go straight) don't bother going around and wait, wait ....

so, is someone going to sue over this: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=BPSTGU41GRF02CRBAELCFFA?type=healthNews&storyID=3421429 Study Finds WTC Fires Spewed Toxic Gases for Weeks Wed September 10, 2003 12:35 PM ET By Ellen Wulfhorst NEW YORK (Reuters) - The burning ruins of the World Trade Center spewed toxic gases "like a chemical factory" for at least six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks despite government assurances the air was safe, according to a study released on Wednesday. The gases of toxic metals, acids and organics could penetrate deeply into the lungs of workers at Ground Zero, said the study by scientists at the University of California at Davis and released at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in New York. Lead study author Thomas Cahill, a professor of physics and engineering, said conditions would have been "brutal" for workers at Ground Zero without respirators and slightly less so for those working or living in adjacent buildings. "The debris pile acted like a chemical factory," Cahill said. "It cooked together the components and the buildings and their contents, including enormous numbers of computers, and gave off gases of toxic metals, acids and organics for at least six weeks." The report comes amid questions about air quality at Ground Zero and what the public was told by the government. Last month, an internal report by Environmental Protection Agency Inspector General Nikki Tinsley said the White House pressured the agency to make premature statements that the air was safe to breathe. The EPA issued an air quality statement on Sept. 18, 2001, even though it "did not have sufficient data and analyzes to make the statement," the report said. The White House "convinced the EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones," Tinsley said. Among the information withheld was the potential health hazards of breathing asbestos, lead, concrete and pulverized glass, the report said. New York leaders including Sen. Hillary Clinton have called on the Justice Department to investigate. EPA acting administrator Marianne Horinko has defended the agency, saying it used the best information it had available. According to the newly released UC-Davis study, after the towers collapsed, tons of concrete, glass, furniture, carpets, insulation, computers and papers burned until Dec. 19, 2001. Some elements of the debris combined with organic matter and chlorine from papers and plastics and escaped to the surface as metal-rich gases that either burned or chemically decomposed into very fine particles that could easily penetrate deep into human lungs, it said. Specifically, the study said samples from Ground Zero found four types of particles listed by the EPA as likely to harm human health -- fine metals that can damage lungs, sulfuric acid that attacks lung cells, fine undissolvable particles of glass that can travel through the lungs to the bloodstream and heart and high-temperature carcinogenic organic matter. Measurements made at Ground Zero in May 2002, months after the fires were out, showed levels of nearly all the fine components had declined more than 90 percent, the study said.

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/irony.html

just put on more socks