billcoe

My brother was a 1/2 hour from the finish line. He ran a 5K last night which took some of the starch out of him I think, if he hadn't done that he very well may have been standing there wheezing or walking off.

THIS? [video:youtube]

Damn....we've borrowed so much more by now it's almost ridiculous. Wonder what we've been spending all that money we've been borrowing from the Fed on to support those "essential government services". Oh, here ya go. Spying on the occupy kids and free speech protestors. Your tax dollars, plus another 40% borrowed to make up the shortfall, at work. Think of it as an "investment" in the future. http://rt.com/usa/peaceful-demonstrators-spying-security-250/

Downloaded and perused the start and it looks like pretty good stuff. Thanks Jon!!

At least they saved they birds. Wait.... Whoh. Where's the bar-b-que going to be? Nevermind, looks like from the photo Rob posted, Seagal ate most of them already.

Bonus points to Drew. But the rest of you ladies get a little touchy when someone criticizes your fella for offing a few unarmed citiznes who he claimed needed to be snuffed ....just because they needed it.....We don't need no stinking constitution, we have perfection and bliss hah hah! I have no love for Chavez or Sean Penn either, I was only noting that Chavez didn't have a program to murder his citizens for criticizing the country like our President does. (or at least Obama claims he does this service for us weekly by evaluating the next drone strike targets) Damn touchy group here LOL. BTW, douchbag for sure in this country, but how many times was Hugo elected by popular vote? I thought dictators didn't keep running in fair and open elections where everyone voted. One mans twisted opinion: http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5966 and some more info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Venezuela

I dibs King Abdullah of Saudia Arabia as the 1'st dictator to check out, by a nose. Possible replacement below. Chavez was voted into an office titled "President", and has not killed any of his citizens. Which makes him a President and not a dictator. If he were to order the summary executions of some of them I could see changing that title. Would you call him Dictator if he was murdering his citizens without trial? Hmmmm Now here's a "President" that has personally ordered the summary executions without trial or due process of 4 of his citizens so far that we know of. LONG MAY THE GREAT MAN LIVE!! (they have hired people to monitor this kind of post) DISARM THE PEOPLE!!! THEY HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR AND NO NEED FOR WEAPONRY!!

Holy crap, classic Portland:-). Damn that's funny stuff Oly. I can see folks getting yoinked about everyone asking for money for every little thing that they want to do but don't want to give up morning mochas to save the $ up for, but if you don't want to donate, don't. Simple. Let it go.... let it go.....(insert cleansing breath here:-) .....

If anyone knows Alpinefox, nudge him awake to look at this soon. Auction closes in @11 hours. I have to put this long shot out there. Most likely not his gear, but I remember when I had my tools stolen out of my locked canopy on my truck, I forgot to list a bunch of stuff with my insurance folks.....and realized it the first time I needed my tape measure:-) It doesn't match up exactly, but it's been 4 or 5 years. Has the requisite Red Tape and red fingernail polish and the person admittedly doesn't know gear. http://www.ebay.com/itm/ICE-CLIMBING-LARGE-LOT-Screws-Cams-Carabiners-Black-Diamond-Trango-Petzyl-ROCK-/251231169558?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a7e8b6c16 Says: Bunch of photos, I'll post 2. Note red fingernail polish on the Red Metolius cam? [img:left]http://img2.iwascoding.com/0/2013/02/18/6E/541357A07E214A48A480F1B204E1629D.jpg[/img] and another one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/ICE-ROCK-CLIMBING-Med-LOT-Wedges-Floats-Cams-Carabiners-Alein-Yates-USHBA-B-D-/290868019758?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43b915c22e Titled More of the same. But you don't mention having any ice tools lifted. This guy has 3 Grivels for sale. http://www.ebay.com/itm/GRIVEL-CLIMBING-PAIR-ICE-AXES-Shovel-Hammer-Cascade-Italy-Steel-Head-20x10-/290865738559?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43b8f2f33f

I may have to revise what I said upthread. I just bought a Yates Kong backup. Had it out the other day for some semi wet and dirty toproping and it kicked ass. Exclusion that they say it will work on a 13mm rope, I had a 12.3mm static and that was too large for smooth, hands off, feeding. On a 10.5 dynamic it was so smooth running up the rope that it was scary. Seems to lock up great too although I was too chickenshit to fall on it and grabbed the rope and cinched it to set it before hanging on the rope to clean some blackberry bushes out. That it will take a Fall factor 2 without chopping the rope didn't much ease my mind as it was new, and plenty of people have been dropped with partners using the "Failsafe" Gri gri and Cinchs. Soloing is much more gear intensive. So I had backup knots, but can see that it may be the best device for rope solo. Leading possibly, toproping certainly. BTW, I own the Grigri, Grigri 2, Cinch, Soloist and a Silent Partner (otherwise best for TR with the exclusion that overhangs and possibly weird body position traverses are out of the question as the device won't lock on an inverted fall), so I've had some experience in hating various equipment:-) It's an industrial safety device they show rigged to the back of a harness on the D ring. Putting it in front off the belay loop seemed to transition well for the thing. The slide knob on the left in the photo is utilized to tighten it up on the rope. One position it rolls up and down freely although you have to grab it and keep it positioned correctly. When you do this: ps, in my mind, the Cinch would have the greatest possibility to put you on the dirt and it would be the worse of all the devices. I'd rather just go old school and use a clove hitch if aid soloing or put a jumar on the rope. There is a good discussion on Supertopo on how the hard core Yosemite guys do TR soloing you might look up. They effectively use 2 Mini Trax's in line.

You have totally captured the essence of the guy Dave. BTW, Dave is one of the nicest folks I've had the pleasure to hang with, so it's a hell of a burr under that saddle to get him riled up. I don't know why the PM's (mentioned upthread) when you can just put it right here. That hilarious and yet trainwreck like U-Tube of the little girls first car, parents buy her something like a Lexus for her 16th birthday and she goes off wailing and screaming at her parents that "ITS THE WRONG COLOR WHAAHHHHHH", is close to the guys mindset. No matter the topic, same gig. Kind of hoping that he either grows up or stops drinking...or whatever his mental problem is, that it gets fixed. Kind of given up hope on that I suppose.... Only bumped into Pat once in a public setting and he seemed pretty funny then. HOPE AND CHANGE BABY!!!

From Cristian Science monitor article By Eric Talmadge, Associated Press / January 28, 2013 Interesting story here discussing the 2003 Brazilian "Disarmament Statute" as they call it. The short version, just like in the US where we attribute declining crime rates to increased gun ownership, in Brazil, declining gun ownership tied to declining crime is most likely a demographic issue. http://www.comunidadesegura.org/en/story-enforcing-brazils-gun-law-eight-years-later Next up. Oh oh, looks like someone fell off the wagon and is slurring their words midday again.

KICK ASS BOYZ!!!

Sorry to hear of your fathers passing Steve. Tough to see your dad get old and check out. Wishing you well.

Sure. The last time when I hiked up to Bagby Hot Springs met a guy carrying. I don't carry, didn't even have a pocket knife (I usually might only have 1 of the ten essentials, but it rotates which one it is) and will admit that it made me nervous till I had edged up on the guy close enough for comfort and stuck up a conversation and soon realized that other than the cowboy looking gun he had on his hip, he sounded and looked normal.

They were able to all but ban guns in Brazil via strict regs and requirements. Not gun violence though. Just the guns. Turns out, and I know this will shock the shit out of some of you, that criminals don't follow the law. So while you think banning guns here will do anything, it won't. Stupid gun accidents, crimes and suicides will decrease from honest people, but criminals will pick up the slack. End result, you will be less secure. Politicians will continue to amass power and we will have given up incrementally more. Look at Brazil or Mexico. Look at the laws they have passed and the net result. Too many douchbags that don't give a f**k about others. Mexico has strict gun laws. They've been able to disarm the honest people. Yet Mexico has enshrined rights in their constitution just like the US. Here are some of their gun "restrictions" which serve to keep guns in the hands of police, criminals and military....which are all sort of interchangeable there. Net effect is that dishonest politicians and dishonest police and army folks are out of control. They'll sell guns to criminals and report them stolen. One way to make a buck. Or they prey on civis and kidnap their children to pick up a few extra bucks. Gun violence is shitloads worse in Brazil where the gun restrictions are much more strict. Of course, the crooks don't give a shit. Never happen here. Right? Easy to overlook the facts you don't choose to believe I guess. You want to do something, start working on civics lessons in grade school. Not joking. It's a slow process. The founders wanted to convey something with the bill of rights...consider this. Most politicians want and seek power. Regular people do not (in the way that politicians go for it at least). That's what the 2nd amendment addresses. Who do you trust more? For me, I trust my family and friends more than power seeking politicians. They've been able to ignore tenants of long held and established laws elsewhere. Our President chooses who will live and die weekly in drone strikes. (this is his own words) How many Americans have been killed without trials? How many were only speaking their minds? Al-Alawaki claimed to only be a shit talking un-armed Non-combatant. The President agreed and announced his death sentence publicly. The guys dad took it to federal court to get the Presidential Fatwa overturned or at least examined where it was tossed because the Presidential Fatwa wasn't against him (ie dad had no legal standing). So they snuffed him. No due process. Snuffed him for violating their interpretation of the 1st Amendment. Then 2 weeks later they killed his 16 year old son although one of the Obama administration people said that the execution of the son was due to bad parenting. Any of you want to explain or discuss that? Didn't think so. Of course, fortunately, our President is a "constitutional scholar" is smart and would never make a mistake. These un-armed miscreants clearly needed to be killed without due process. Right? Maybe free speech ain't so free anymore? Anyone wonder what Washington, Jefferson or Madison would say about the killing of citizens without trials for shit talkin'? Was King George even killing people without trials because of things that they said? The thought coming out of Washington is that the 1st amendment is teetering our way so lets go after the next one now. Maybe we should start calling it the "Bill of Things we'd like to see if our betters will let us have them" or "Bill of some things that would be Nice to Have" instead of the Bill of Rights. [/daily rant] Take care all.

Wonder if this is a true story. It's got to be bullshit, I don't think I believe it. Of course, they say he's a criminal and a crazy F?, maybe it's true. Maybe he should just be locked up. http://www.presstv.ir/ or direct http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/04/287235/fbi-stops-malcolm-x-grandson-trip-to-iran/ Maybe they are using the outdated "Don't ask don't tell policy " to bury dudes in obscure prisons. What would the charge be? Flying while black? "We had to keep the Shit(e) out of da plane, boss? Anyway, "it's off to Guantanamo for the lad for an all expense paid trip by you, Mr and Mrs Taxpayer." I understand that the food is great and the beaches warm and fun. The department of homeland security spending is going through the roof, "UNLIMITED TAXPAYER MONEY!!!! WOOT!!!! Send the rest of the Shites over", they say. Keep hope alive. Perhaps Mr Shabbazz needs to get on the "new hope and change" America bus or get shipped off to prison. Well, I mean, accept the "hope and change" mantra to get out of prison. Clearly the first Amendment has it's limits, as Anwar Al-Awaki learned much too late. ANWAR DONE INSPIRING LINK Anwar, these days we'll just kill you for what we perceive as yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. It's legal now to do so and the President evaluates malcontents weekly. He'll get around to Pat soon enough I suppose. They are thinking: "We've expanded the first amendment restrictions to don't say anything negative about us." As long as you don't say a bad word why would you care about the new restrictions? Right? So don't be trash talking the man. In fact, publishing this post should get me on the list as well. Too fucking bad I guess. Maybe I'll get Shabazz as a roommate. He can do a Chris Rock imitation and I can be either Stan Laurel or Hardy. Except maybe I'll get Pat as a roommate, my version of Dantes hell. Keep hope alive. pfft, can't be true, they probably arrested Chris Rock. Keep hope alive. Oh, check out the comments too. LOL. And you thought some of you all were nasty bitches? Wow!

My climbing buddy Ujahn started brewing batches with his next door neighbor. Some of the beer (they've made @ 9 varieties) is/was world class good. They said that it's better to do the work yourself, rather than buy a kit. I wouldn't know, being too lazy, but that's what they said. He keeps it in a keg on tap. Mmmmmm. DAYUMMMM good. Philonius has good advice up there. Good luck!

Nice Ivan, I was wondering how you folks were faring in the weather. Multiple pitches at Beacon sounded great but decided that due to the cold weather sunshine and high winds sounded better than shade and high winds. I got a Yates (Kong) "Back Up" fall arrester and took it out to The Far Side to see how to operate it. Figured I'd do toprope laps on Tribal Therapy till I was exhausted. Had the place to myself. Got 1 lap in, barely that, sore today (shoulders are off the charts saying "TAKE THE DAY OFF!!!!). Had to traverse in from Yashua. The blackberrys have returned with a vengeance. Skirting them and the wet dirt that had accumulated on anything resembling a ledge was actually kind of fun. Once I topped out, didn't feel much like rapping through the berry bushes again, so I spent the rest of the day making the upper 30 feet look like a plate straight out of the dishwasher. The wind wasn't a factor and died down. The routes more doable now, and the handcrack on top is fun again. Got to try out the Purple LaSportiva shoes my son bought me for Christmas. They are old school snug to the point of pain. But they fit like a pair of supertight slippers. The trade off is great sensitivity on tiny edges. Felt like I was dancing...in pain. Awesome. Turns out that once I'd uncluster frigged my gig, that fall arrester looks like it will work great. Not enough to fully trust it yet, but heading that direction. Next time out, I'm taking my ice tool and digging the rest of the berrys out. So I finally burn out @ 3 and bump into the old guys doing graveyard shift a few min after I've noshed and watered down. By the time we were done bullshitting, I'd run out of time and had to head home. Wondering how you lads were faring. Thanks for the report. The guts:

Incredible! Thanks for sharing that Jay. Todays news coincides with a book I was going to recommend. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_RUSSIA_STALINGRAD?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-31-06-54-20 book - Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943 http://www.amazon.com/Stalingrad-Fateful-1942-1943-Antony-Beevor/dp/0140284583/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1359662574&sr=1-1&keywords=Stalingrad

I have a hard time accepting that even you are dumb enough actually believe the claptrap yer spewin' Pat. It's said that you have lies, and then you have damned lies. I see what they mean. That's almost as ignorant of a statement as those who say that ALL democrats are tax and spend liberals. please

Full text of quote" "Why liberals should love the Second Amendment" Liberals love the Constitution. Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus." There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales. And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them. Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties. Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms. When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts." They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats. And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties. Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime. So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights. And this is why: (Reasons below the fold) No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights. If you've read the Bill of Rights -- and who among us hasn't? -- you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them: "the people." First Amendment: ...the right of the people peaceably to assemble Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects... Ninth Amendment: ...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people Tenth Amendment: ...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government. We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about "separation of church and state," although there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment. But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for our rights to be interpreted expansively. We believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government. And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment. If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the "Fuck Bush" bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment's use of "the people" has the same meaning? But it's different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to "bear arms," join the National Guard! Right? Wrong. The United States Militia Code: (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else. Everyone else. Individuals. The People. The Founders well understood that the militia is the people, for it was not only the right but the obligation of all citizens to protect and preserve their liberty and to defend themselves from the tyranny of the government. And fighting against the tyranny of the government is certainly a liberal value. No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties. All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights. But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that certain restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth. We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment. But when it comes further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions. Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable, even though the Supreme Court has now said otherwise. Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment? Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. What if a member of Congress -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal? Except that such an argument is ridiculous, of course. Liberals would take to the streets, send angry letters to their representatives in Washington, organize marches, call progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, liberals would be up in arms. And yet...A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million -- about one third -- are handguns. Such a narrow interpretation of this particular right is inconsistent with the otherwise broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And just as conservatives weaken their own arguments about protecting the Second Amendment when they will not fight as vigilantly for protecting all the others, so too do liberals weaken their arguments for civil liberties, when they pick and choose which civil liberties they deem worthy of defense. No. 3: It doesn't matter that it's not 1776 anymore. When the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket. Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. Or 24-hour cable news networks. Or talk radio. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week? Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment. Liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment. And one's personal dislike of guns should be no better a reason for fighting against the Second Amendment than should one's personal dislike of Bill O'Reilly justify fighting against the First Amendment. And yet, when discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals. Liberals will defend the right of Cindy Sheehan to wear an anti-war T-shirt, even though the First Amendment says nothing about T-shirts. They will defend the rights of alleged terrorists to a public trial, even though the Founders certainly could not have imagined a world in which terrorists would plot to blow up building with airplanes. But we do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because methodology is not the point. Red herring arguments about types of ammunition or magazine capacity or handguns versus rifles are just that -- red herrings. They distract us from the underlying purpose of that right -- to ensure a free society that can hold its government accountable. The Second Amendment is no more about guns than the First Amendment is about quill pens. No. 4: It doesn't matter if you can use it. Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It's not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete. Tell that to the Iraqi "insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons. The Second Amendment is obsolete? What other rights might be considered obsolete in today's day and age? No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, "I'll be staying with you for the indefinite future"? It's probably been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you'd dust off your Third Amendment and say, "I don't think so, pal." And you'd be right. What about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? How much use does that get? The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. We all know the youth vote is typically pretty abysmal. Those lazy kids can barely get out of bed before noon, let alone get themselves to the voting booth. If they're not going to use their Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights, shouldn't we just delete the damn thing altogether? Hell no. And this is why liberals work so hard to get out and rock the vote -- to encourage citizens to exercise their rights. That is our obligation as citizens, to protect against the government infringing upon our rights by making full use of them. And yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals do not fight to protect that right. Instead them demand more laws. Regulate, regulate, regulate -- until the Second Amendment is nearly regulated out of existence because no one needs to have a gun anyway. And that, sadly, is the biggest mistake of all. No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution. In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night. It is the right of revolution. Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary. The Founders might never have imagined automatic weapons. But they probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either. We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters. And the Second Amendment is no different. It is not about how much ammunition is "excessive" or what types of guns are and are not permissible. Liberals cling to such minutia at the expense of understanding and appreciating the larger concept that underlies this right. So. What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive. No, this is a rallying cry for the Bill of Rights -- for all of our rights. This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns." This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition." This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founders meant." This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU. This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.) This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights. This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will not protect their Second Amendment rights. This is an appeal to liberals, not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others. Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do. Because we are revolutionaries." Written by Kaili Joy GrayFollow for Daily Kos From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

Well, it's wintertime, so that means it's time to argue about shoes, shoe rubber and bolts. Here's my thing. I don't have anywhere close to Jens mileage or grades, but I found something interesting last trip to Yosemite. 1st) Having previously compared Evolv to Stealth @ 5 years back (I don't even recall what they called that Stealth at the time Chad), I thought that for Yosemite granite, Evolv had a slight edge. Miniscule to the point of absurd slight, but it was there. Both for smears and edges. Seemed to last longer as well. BUT FOR BASALT AROUND HERE, THE EVOLV STUCK MUCH BETTER WHEN IT WAS WET. MUCH MUCH BETTER. So it should come as no surprise that I resole with Evolv via Yosemite bum. They do a kick assed job. And in the rain and damp, which seems so common to me, they do work better. I have 2 pairs of shoes that are on their 6th resole, and a bunch more on resoles and they all get evolv. I kept seeing folks resoling with Stealth, TC Pro owners too, so my assumption was XS was worse than Stalth which I knew to be worse than Evolv. In fact, my thoughts that Evolv was the best got reinforced on some tests Spadout posted of a a physicist who ran tests of the rubbers on granite - the Evolv took the sticky title. However, last trip to Yosemite, May, I took my TC Pros that still had the XS vibram soles. I was planning to get stealth on them based on what Chad, Timetravelr, Joseph and many others had said about Stealth outperforming the XS. So I matched the Pros up to my beloved Evolvs. Left foot XS, right foot Evolv. I already new that the Evolv was the best rubber, I had proven it to myself and then later saw independent testing. I only wanted to see how bad the XS sucked in comparison, I already knew they sucked. So the bouncing ball is Evolv>Stealth>XS. In my mind anyway. Imagine my shock and disbelief. Against all I knew for a fact - the winner and better rubber, not by much, but the winner was the XS on the TC pro. Not the Evolv.

Don't disagree but isn't it job specific? Isn't that more of a reflection of military training being outdated? The training is appropriate for some (infantry), but how about Pershing Missile Crewman? Seriously, aren't many combat MOS's (aka jobs-careers) going high tech? Women have both the spatial control (think working a controler with yer thumbs) and maturity needed for a lot (didn't say all) of the burden many of the combat mos brings.

I dislike roped soloing, really hate it. But I love climbing so I do it on rare occasions. I'd rather Free solo, boulder, or top rope solo or stay at home and pleasure myself most days if I'm alone though. I've pretty much adopted Josesphs exact method with the Eddy. He's super savy on systems and safety, and he solos a lot. Why (re)invent the wheel. As he points out, rope diameter choice is critical, and even then it will occasionally lock up at the worst friggan times leaving you grasping for the FR$$%@ing thing mid move. The rubber bands work good, or at a good spot (ie, easy climbing with good pro above) a quick clove hitch on a piece. I used it on a ground up solo first ascent of The Old Witch, pretty much thinking that an accidental but unavoidable loose rock kicked off would likely kill a belayer, but only chop my rope. It wasn't a false belief as it turned out, for although I got up with some small crap coming off as I stepped on it, I was on the ground out there 3 or 4 ascents later when Plaidman on lead kicked off a toaster that slammed into the dirt and almost took out his dog on the ground 350 feet below. There was a whole lot of Monkey Fucking going on as you can see from all the crap hanging off me in the top photo. I use a Cilogear pack I have to stuff the rope in, Graham makes them so that the tops come clean off so the rope feeds better and there's a place to clip the rope so stays in position and it guides smooth, 1 less thing to Monkey Fuck with I guess. Don't have real clear shots of the system, JH has some closups that are the same so you can get the details. On the Witch, the pinnacle my right foot is on, I tried to push that off, when it stayed I slipped a runner on it for pro. It would have been the mother of all trundles, being almost as large as a railcar. About 5 months before I'd gotten trapped solo mid cliff elsewhere yarding a desk sized rock that really went crazy, did the unexpected and swung uphill and pinned me to the wall. All I could think of as I looked out (stuck), full on Aron Ralson style, out of cell range, having told NO one where I was in an area that was off the charts and secret at the time, was that the crows would be appreciative for the gift of the dinner. Really. Anyway, I really didn't want a person under me for this trip. Here's some shots of that time. For soloing freeclimbs, JH has it dialed.