Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nonanon

  1. What does it take to work at US Outdoor?

    The US Outdoor Store doesn't sell the FDP Forest Pass. As far as I'm concerned that makes them one of the better shops in town.
  2. "Mommy, that man ruined my line..."

    "Rooounnnd Here..." Lift riderz are the route chipping, gridbolters of the freshiez!
  3. "Mommy, that man ruined my line..."

    A good "all-mountain" boarder is a beauty thing to watch! And just as rare as decent skiers are too, imo. I think it's ski areas that suck punkass! Two days a week, for two or three months out of the year, they've got a serious over-crowding problem and they seem to think the only way to solve this "problem" is for everybody else to give up terrain... Screw the ski areas!
  4. Kill the Fee Demo Project

    Here's an almost effortless way to register your outraged indignancy and whatevah... ----- Original Message ----- From: AZ NoFee-statewide coordinator Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 9:59 AM Subject: FAX DC from our Website. Dear NoFee Supporters, In our continues efforts to make your voice heard regarding Fee Demo, we have made it possible for you to fax the necessary Senators, regarding S1107, via our website. Please go to our website (www.aznofee.org) and click on the alert at the top of the page. We urge you to add your own comments to the letter that is provided for you, to increase the validity of your comments. Special thanks to Marv Stalcup, our volunteer website guru, who made this possible. Please remember that these faxes must be in by 9:30 EST Wednesday morning. Thank You, Jon Orlando- Statewide Coordinator Arizona NoFee Coalition PO Box 1362 Flagstaff, AZ 86002 ==================================== Okay, here's my deal. If folks were truly serious abt ending this effin' scam, then they'd STOP SHOPPING at stores that sell the pass and let them know why! End any appearance of compliance right where it starts. Believe me, enuf of you gear whores did that and they'd get the message! Simple as that.
  5. Prez Candidates as Belay Partners?

    Doctors can come in handy!
  6. Prez Candidates as Belay Partners?

    Dean's a skier, fwiw.
  7. Bush lied, people died...

    That's funny... Babelfish says that, auf Deutsch, it's pronounced: "Bullshit."
  8. telemark boot recommendation?

    Karhu still makes a three-pin leather touring boot. The Market has spoken... NEXT QUESTION?
  9. Cyclist's joy . . .

    Nice post! Where there's a Wheel, there's a Way.
  10. I guess I was wrong...

    If wishes were fishes, Scott, then fishermen would be outta work. Fishers of men, otoh... well, imo there's a new school of marks born every minute. That gal in Georgia's just trying to build the new American Madrassa.
  11. I guess I was wrong...

    "Our Dwayner, who art in Banned Camp..."
  12. I guess I was wrong...

    I once read that would take at least seven years of physics to understand the theory of relativity. But folks hear expressions like "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the Fittest" and suddenly think they've got a PhD in biology. I got about halfway thru the Bible, but only about 200 pages into Darwin's Dangerous Idea. It's all Feng Shoey to me.
  13. I guess I was wrong...

    I wonder if Jeebus nailed as many babes as Joseph Smith... That guy was a machine!
  14. I guess I was wrong...

    Check yer attributes, Chief! FWIW, I'm all about tolerating religions. In fact, my whole attitude wrt teaching Creationism as Geology is: "Bring it On!"
  15. Clark

    Anyone can see that Clark doesn't have the hair to be president. He's also too short. The sweaters are nice and all... at least he doesn't roll up the sleeves. Now that John Kerry... now there's some hair!
  16. I guess I was wrong...

    I can see where some might take offense to that. Hey! This isn't halftime at the stuporbowl, this is life.
  17. MY car was stolen last night

    Dang! I was gonna use that picture but Veggie beat me to it. The Hardest Working wife beater in Rock and Roll. Sad...
  18. maybe we should be dead

    Lots of sex, drugs and rock and roll didn't kill us either! But there's still time...
  19. Snowshoephobia

    I like my snowshoes long and skinny. But not too skinny! (Luv the skinner, hate the skinnin'?)
  20. guidlite tail clip install

    Exactly. Helps preserve your camber too! Why do we even bother???
  21. guidlite tail clip install

    And I quote: "Bullshit" Studies have shown that the rat tail does increase drag. Significantly less so than the stretchy weird green things of course, (but those're sooo '02 anyway.) Also, having to cut the skins off short decreases the overall fur surface area, negating some of the "wall to wall" effect. But still, less than the stretchy weird green things...
  22. guidlite tail clip install

    Oooo this is gonna be good! A between Dave's "I have never used them" and Cracked's "I don't have a huge amount of experience." We want charts! And graphs!!!
  23. guidlite tail clip install

    IME, tailclips come into their own on longer multi-day tours in the soggy Spingtime when your glue is already a coupla seasons old and you haven't gotten around to re-gluing because you've been too busy skiing. Also, having something to grab onto when you're stripping is just plain faster. Anything to avoid the extra step of having to take your gloves or skis off. YMCV
  24. guidlite tail clip install

    First, have a beer handy. Then, with a utility knife, cut the skins 2" or 3" shorter than your skis. Stick both skins together for the cutting and drilling ops. Cut out the paper template and use it to trim and punch or drill the rivet holes thru both skins at one time. After that the only tricky part is making sure you have the tail buckle oriented correctly* before slamming home the rivets. *With the tail stretched out behind the skin, think: glue down, tab up. (I'd hold off on the 'til this part is done.)
  25. Married vs. Single

    Divide and Conquer, people. The more interesting article was this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/opinion/25KIPN.html Jan, 25, 2004 NYT Should This Marriage Be Saved? By LAURA KIPNIS Marriage: it's the new disease of the week. Everyone is terribly worried about its condition, though no one can say what's really ailing the patient. Others are simply in denial, like President Bush, who insisted that heterosexual marriage was "one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization" in his State of the Union address last week. Yet this statement came shortly after his own administration floated a proposal for a $1.5 billion miracle cure: an initiative to promote "healthy" marriage, particularly among low-income couples. And what of all the millionaires in failing marriages or fleeing commitment? Where are the initiatives devoted to rehabilitating this afflicted group? Sorry, they're on their own in the romance department. In this administration, the economic benefits filter upward, the marital meddling filters down. The administration may think that low-income Americans need to be taught better communication and listening skills, but actually they're communicating just fine. Conservatives just don't like the message being communicated, which is this: We don't want to get married. More and more people — heterosexuals, that is — don't want to get or stay married these days, no matter their income level. Yes, cohabitation is particularly prevalent in less economically stable groups, including the women counted as unmarried mothers. But only 56 percent of all adults are married, compared with 75 percent 30 years ago. The proportion of traditional married-couple-with-children American households has dropped to 26 percent of all households, from 45 percent in the early 1970's. The demographics say Americans are voting no on marriage. The fact is that marriage is a social institution in transition, whether conservatives like it or not. This is not simply a matter of individual malfeasance; in fact, it may not be individual at all. The rise of the new economy has gutted all sorts of traditional values and ties, including traditions like the family wage, job security and economic safety nets. Women have been propelled into the work force in huge numbers, and not necessarily for personal fulfillment: with middle-class wages stagnant from the early 70's to the mid-90's, it now takes (at least) two incomes to support the traditional household. But as the political theorist Francis Fukuyama has pointed out, the changing nature of capitalism since the 1960's also required a different kind of work force; it was postindustrialism, perhaps even more than feminism, that transformed gender roles, contributing to what he calls the "great disruption" of the present. The increasing economic self-sufficiency of women has certainly been a factor in declining marriage rates: there's nothing like a checking account to decrease someone's willingness to be pushed into marriage or stay in a bad one. And interestingly, welfare reform has played the same role for lower-income groups: studies have shown a steep decline in marriages among women in welfare-to-work programs, for many of the same reasons. So how about a little more honesty and fewer platitudes on the marriage question. Sure, most people would like a lifetime soulmate, but then there's that widely quoted 50 percent divorce rate to consider. If more people are resisting marriage, or fleeing the ones they're in, or inventing new permutations like cohabitation and serial monogamy, here's one reason: for a significant percentage of the population, marriage just doesn't turn out to be as gratifying as it promises. In other words, the institution itself isn't living up to its vows. A 1999 Rutgers University study reported that a mere 38 percent of Americans who were on their first marriages described themselves as actually happy in that state. This is rather shocking: so many households submerged in low-level misery or emotional stagnation, pledged to lives of discontent. But perhaps there's also a degree of social utility in promoting long-term unhappiness to a citizenry. After all, those accustomed to expecting less from life are also less accustomed to making social demands — and are thus primed to swallow indignities like trickle-up economics along with their daily antidepressants. As for those better communication skills the Bush administration wants to teach low-income groups, particularly regarding "difficult issues" like money: that could backfire. If the lower and middle classes did start communicating better about money, that could include communicating to their elected representatives that they're fed up with condescension and election-year pandering for conservative votes while central issues in their lives like jobs, pay and working conditions are studiously ignored. But you can also see why conservatives might be getting nervous about the marriage issue. According to the historian Nancy Cott, marriage has long provided a metaphor for citizenship. Both are vow-making enterprises; both involve a degree of romance. Households are like small governments, and in this metaphor, divorce is a form of revolution — at least an overthrow. (Recall that our nation was founded on a rather stormy collective divorce itself, the one from England.) Come November, how many of the disaffected might start wondering if they'd be better off with a different partner? How many will find themselves murmuring those difficult, sometimes necessary (and occasionally liberating) words: "I want a divorce"? We're a society whose social institutions are in flux, and the interplay among economic transitions, shifting gender roles and changing emotional expectations are impossible to quantify until the dust settles. If the Bush administration really wants to improve the lives of low-income people, here's some simple advice: Rather than meddle in their love lives, raise their incomes. Start by throwing that $1.5 billion into the pot. Once low-income groups are making middle-class wages, their marital ambivalences will be their own business, just like millionaires. Or members of Congress. Or all the rest of us. Laura Kipnis, a professor of media studies at Northwestern, is the author of "Against Love: A Polemic."