billcoe

Nice work! Thanks for sharing too.

I'm good with it, climbers should shun government intervention in rescues.....shuuunnnnn! Climbers need to take care of their own, that's what Portland Mt Rescue trains for. If someone screws up and needs a chopper, they or their insurance can pay for lifeflight from the Timberline parking lot. If you want the gov't to help you all the time, and for others to HAVE to pay for our own bad choices, then they get to dictate when and where you and I will go. I reject that. Climbers who want the choppers for free remind me of that Danny Devito character in that Ken Keasey movie, One Flew Over the Cookoos Nest". "I WANT MY CIGARETTES NURSE RATCHET" It's time we grew up and stand on our own 2 feet. Through independence comes freedom. Freedom to climb in the hills as we see fit. WHEN we choose, WHERE we choose. With freedom comes responsibility. And the pain of failing for making a bad choice, or the exhilaration and memories or reaching high and of pulling it out. Let freedom ring boyz. [video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J74Yj2Dn8M8&feature=related Godspeed to the boys serving, hope they stay safe during this rotation and all return healthy and happy to their loved ones and the best country on earth soon.

What STP says. My wife had never seen me yell at the TV till I heard Bush declaring "invasion on". The fact that we got lucky doesn't change the F*ed up/short circuit/internationally illegal/pissoff the world- process that got us in there. BTW, the 9 billion is basically a continuation of the Bush doctrine bailout with an extra billion or so tossed in and more restrictions on the recipients isn't it. Fairweather on Feck - Man, I wish I was able to do that. Sigh...

....who's selling some slightly used hangers...?

Did I call that or what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHOW ME THE MONEY JERRY! HA HA ! YA RACIST!

Your post is demeaning as hell Prole. Put yourself in others shoes for a moment will ya. I'd like to think that we as a country are generally beyond that kind of crap...maybe some of us are and you and a few pointy white hat idiots aren't. Here's to the future where you can let your inner racist lay dormant. I'll bet money on 2 things: 1st, you don't think what you said is racist. 2nd) if you show this post to any person of color they will say it is a racist post.

I picked 3 pm cause that's when I started and everyone is like me....right?

OMG, I stand corrected! Thank you sir:-)

It sounds as if plenty of the villagers have already taken up the torches so I wouldn't expect Monday to be anything less than bolt free based on what I see here. I'd think that carefully unscrewing the bolts and pulling them and leaving clearly visable holes for 3-4 weeks and then patch the holes might be least destructive in case they come back and re-bolt, but I guess that call will made by whomever gets there first. Be nice to touch base with them on this before the whole bolt-in bolt-out cycle gets going.... Take care all! PS, are there any current community service projects (sketchy 1/4'er's being replaced on Monkey etc etc) being done right now that these could be donated for? That has a certain symmetry...

This troll is 3 years old Marc...still there.

Given the proximity to existing routes, they should go as soon as possible. Otherwise, it may be like herpes and it will spread fast. My earlier post was thinking that they had a clear blank line. The only question is this: is it better to yank em and patch immediately, or wait and patch it later. If you answer patch now, suppose these folks show up, ignorant of this discourse, and re-drill? At least if they see holes there, and put more bolts back in (to the same holes), by the 2nd time their stuff gets yanked, they will have gotten clued in if no one has seen them to discuss this. Hmmm, but Bryan did converse with them. Bryan, what do you think is the best course of action? Yank and patch or yank and patch later.

Isn't 7 or more called a "litter"?

Link

For you, this is true. link for others, they define it more like this: "Regrettably, most of us committed to liberal education agree that the outcomes of an undergraduate liberal education are not widely understood or valued by the general public. While the college degree is universally recognized as the key to economic and social mobility, what lies behind that credential—the educational experience, its full value and its purposes—is more or less ignored. In general, in the popular imagination, undergraduate education is a commodity: students and their families are customers, faculty are service providers, and institutions compete to provide accommodations. Specific attention to the full purposes of liberal education is even less focused; and in light of that, it is now rarely considered a necessary element of undergraduate education. Because of its neglect of the core purposes of liberal education, the academy itself bears some responsibility for popular misperceptions—or, lamentably, ignorance of what liberal education promises. There has been, and remains, a “triad” of interrelated core purposes for liberal education: the epistemic (coming to know, discovery, and the advancing of knowledge and understanding); the eudemonic (the fuller realization of the learner, the actualizing of the person’s potential—classically to achieve individual well-being and happiness); and the civic (the understanding that learning puts the learner in relation to what is other, to community and its diversity in the broadest sense, as well as the responsibility that comes from sustaining the community and the civic qualities that make both open inquiry and self-realization possible). On one level, we have lost track of this complexity—focusing in the academy only on the epistemic. On another level, we have hardly attended to the issue of purpose at all. The gaining and transfer of knowledge and discovery, the “epistemic” purpose of liberal education, has been emphasized at the expense of the other core purposes—namely, fostering self-discovery and well-being, and establishing the relationship between knowledge and responsibility for what is beyond self, the “civic” purpose. While other institutions, such as church or the family, and other educational or training experiences certainly can separately contribute to a dimension of this triad of core purposes, liberal education is unique in that it contributes to achieving all three purposes and reveals their interdependency. These core purposes determined the original missions of the many colleges and universities that were founded to provide a liberal education. These institutions forged a de facto social contract. For its part, the college or university was expected to contribute to what is known, to teach and discover, to serve as a positive and reinforcing context for the emotional and moral development of young adults, and to encourage greater responsibility for the common good. In return, society supported both the institution and the conditions of liberty required to sustain open inquiry. Although some colleges and universities may no longer define their missions in terms of the three core purposes of liberal education, the great preponderance of institutions still do. It is not clear, however, that these institutions actually give priority to the practices that instantiate the core purposes. Nor is it clear they recognize that the intentional development of all three interrelated purposes results in confirmable outcomes affecting the full development of students. In recent years, much excellent work has been devoted to the assessment of learning outcomes. This work helps to establish whether and how the epistemic purpose of liberal education is being achieved. However, the scope of assessment should not be restricted to a single aspect of liberal education. Attention to each of the core purposes—the epistemic, the eudemonic, and the civic—is necessary to achieve the full promise of liberal education. The Bringing Theory to Practice project is about demonstrating that, as they are actualized in particular educational practices, all three core purposes produce outcomes— effects and affects, including behavioral results or consequences as well as dispositional patterns, attitudes, and inclinations—that can be documented and studied. Student disengagement The Bringing Theory to Practice project was founded on the premise of a connection between the widespread misunderstanding, devaluation, and neglect of the core purposes of undergraduate liberal education, on the one hand, and certain patterns of disengagement exhibited by a significant and growing number of students, on the other.* Multiple-year national data show that, even excepting students who drop out of school, 40 to 60 percent of all adolescents are “chronically disengaged” from their academic experiences (Blum and Libby 2004). This student disengagement is expressed in a variety of ways, from drug and alcohol abuse to cheating, from nonclinical forms of depression to suicide attempts. More than 30 percent of students abuse alcohol, for example; nearly half of these are repeat abusers whose objective is to disengage completely by becoming “wasted” to the point of passing out. Indeed, over the past decade or so, campuses nationwide have reported dramatic increases in binge drinking. “Students [are] often stuporous in class, if they get there at all,” explains Hara Estroff Marano, editor of Psychology Today and member of the Bringing Theory to Practice advisory board. “The heaviest drinking occurs on weekends, beginning Thursday, but the effects increasingly hang over the whole week.” After counseling many students, Paul Joffe, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, has concluded that “at bottom binge drinking is a quest for authenticity and intensity of experience. It gives young people something all their own to talk about, and sharing stories about the path to passing out is often a primary purpose. It’s an inverted world in which drinking to oblivion (disengagement) is the way to feel connected and alive” (Marano 2004). While it may be the most visible expression of student disengagement, alcohol abuse is among a host of behavioral and mental health issues affecting undergraduates. Somewhat less visible, for example, is the rising incidence of depression among college students. Studies generated by the University of Kansas Counseling Center suggest that, nationwide, over 40 percent of undergraduates report at least one incident of depression sufficient to interrupt their academic work. “Psychological distress is rampant on college campuses,” says Marano. “It takes a variety of forms: anxiety and depression—which are increasingly regarded as two faces of the same coin—binge drinking and substance abuse, self-mutilation and other forms of self-disconnection.” According to Steven Hyman, provost of Harvard University and former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, psychological distress is now so widespread among students that it is “interfering with the core mission of the university” (Marano 2004). Overall, the response of colleges and universities to student disengagement has been partial, focused on enforcement or treatment; rarely have institutions seen the possibility of addressing these issues of disengagement through the outcomes of specific forms of undergraduate learning. Awareness of the problem has often led to institutional concern for liability and, in some cases, to the dismissal of students who acknowledge experiencing psychological distress. Only rarely does awareness lead to campus-wide consideration of the gaps between academic purposes, expectations, and practices—gaps that impede student learning, health, and civic engagement. At most institutions, where attention to students’ mental health is relegated to counseling professionals and where the academic aspect of students’ lives is disconnected from the social and developmental aspects, faculty and administrators may be unaware of the full extent of the problem, and of the possibility of addressing the manifestations of student well-being and civic development through academic experiences. Engaged learning The development of the “whole person” has traditionally been the goal of liberal education; however, on most campuses today, the “whole person” is fractured into discrete parts. Students themselves are expected to integrate, cumulatively and developmentally, what institutional structures and operations formally divide. By compartmentalizing students’ intellectual, emotional, and ethical lives, colleges and universities dichotomize the various facets of learning. This paradigm of compartmentalized learning is extended to campus life: faculty take care of the intellect, student-services staff and coaches handle the rest. Accordingly, the classroom is regarded as the exclusive setting for “real” learning, which is seen as wholly separate and different from what takes place elsewhere. The Bringing Theory to Practice project began with the hunch that engaged learning is the key to reintegrating the epistemic, eudemonic,and civic purposes of liberal education. That is, we believed that by engaging students, by involving them in demanding service-learning and community-based research experiences, the academy could force them to consider their own privilege; challenge their assumptions of entitlement and self-indulgence; help them recognize that learning has implications for action and use; help them develop skills and habits of resiliency; and make them aware of their responsibilities to the larger community. And further, we believed that, with these gains, students would be more likely to transfer academic engagement to greater personal well-being and to deeper civic engagement. It may seem quixotic to describe learning as a transformative activity. Many students, faculty, and staff may see no connection between their lives and the problems facing the community, the nation, and the world. They may not feel responsible for others. The many students who today participate in volunteer programs may fail to take action to address the problems they seek temporarily to relieve. In fact, volunteering may reinforce preconceptions and stereotypic beliefs held by students. As D. Tad Roach, headmaster of St. Andrew’s School in Delaware, puts it, “students may volunteer in a soup kitchen, and accumulate hundreds of hours of volunteer service; but if service is not linked with learning, they are likely to understand nothing about the systemic socioeconomic conditions that lead to poverty. And they are, thereby, unprepared to address the desperate need for change.” We have identified service learning and community-based research as exemplars because they require active involvement by students and they have the greatest potential to transform attitudes, behaviors, and dispositions. Quite distinct from volunteerism, both forms of engaged learning require academic intensity. They entail greater expectations for students, pushing them beyond the classroom and beyond the model of learning as the passive receipt of information. And both forms of engaged learning can lead students to take greater responsibility for their learning and for its connection to both their individual development and their civic lives. Students come to recognize that not all learning occurs in the classroom, and that not all teachers are faculty. In truth, the Bringing Theory to Practice project was founded on more than just a hunch. All of us in higher education have seen the transformative potential of engaged learning. We know, for example, that when students are engaged, when someone else is counting on them, the incidence and frequency of abusive behaviors and depression decrease. We also know that students themselves report increased confidence and a positive sense of self-value as results of experiences that take them “out of the bubble” of their school or collegiate life and into the community. Students who experience engaged learning in contexts where they are expected to contribute, and where their contributions are valued, tell us of their greater satisfaction with their education, their personal choices, and their futures. The documentation of these outcomes and their replicability are among the objectives of the project’s research. In fact, part of what the project hopes to document is how findings confirm the now accepted (but, regrettably, less often practiced) view that these are forms of learning and pedagogies (in comparison to traditional emphasis on lecturing as a means of information transfer) that more effectively assure student retention of what is learned and more effectively aid student development of higher critical skills of analysis and synthesis. To this extent, the project will not only be documenting the linkage of outcomes and core purposes of liberal education; it will also be reinforcing educational practices that are more effective in realizing knowledge acquisition and intellectual development. Engaged learning appears to be the normative condition for multiple types of development—cognitive, emotional, moral, and civic. The project explores how the commitment to understanding a topic with significant connection beyond the learner, obliging the learner to put her own views and preconceptions in judgment, makes a positive difference to students’ intellectual development, to their sense of empowerment, and to their civic lives. The sources of the “hunch” the Bringing Theory to Practice project was founded to explore are hardly new. Aristotle and Dewey, among many others, began with similar assumptions about the links among the core triad of educational purposes—the necessity of the pursuit of knowledge, the pursuit of self-realization, and the pursuit of justice. They too believed that realizing these interrelated purposes would result in particular forms of moral development and social action. What we would identify as liberal education was, on the classical model, focused on a public community purpose, namely good citizenship— the understanding that individuals were realized or actualized in the context of community. And it was the Enlightenment that encouraged the grounding of learning, knowledge, and discovery in replication, evidence, and the nonauthoritarian bases for any claims to know. These historical strands became linked elements in describing the sustaining core purposes of liberal education. In translating our hunch into a set of testable hypotheses, we recognized that not all relationships are causal, that discernible effects are distinguishable from likely affects, and that the relationships may be additive or even symbiotic. Nonetheless, concrete evidence is needed to substantiate the effects and affects of actualizing the core purposes of liberal education. The Bringing Theory to Practice project is supporting ongoing research that seeks to document outcomes and to justify the changes in educational practices required to make engaged learning normative. The key role of faculty Faculty are viewed by students as the primary agents of transformation on campus, and they are the group students respect the most. Thus, faculty are perhaps the only group on campus with the authority and the educational responsibility to confront the proximate conditions of self-indulgence and the withdrawal of students from the challenges of engagement. For this reason, the Bringing Theory to Practice project is attempting to demonstrate that, through their teaching and their expectations, faculty can affect students’ choices and behaviors, as well as students’ emotional and civic development. Faculty are not counselors or therapists. Appropriately, they recognize that the provision of mental health services is beyond their expertise. But faculty are often aware of the crises their students experience. They are very likely to notice when individual students are incapacitated by depression or abusive behaviors, and they are concerned about these problems. Most faculty recognize that they have considerable influence on the choices and behaviors of young adults, and most want to help create positive contexts for learning and for student choices. If faculty do not actively encourage the full integration of students’ lives, if they elect to address the issues through grading alone and to relegate all other responsibilities to student affairs staff, then the current conditions of disengagement will continue to prevail. The Bringing Theory to Practice project Developed jointly by the Charles Engelhard Foundation and the Association of American Colleges and Universities, the Bringing Theory to Practice project was designed to encourage colleges and universities to revisit or review the core purposes of liberal education and to assess their students’ achievement of the full range of related outcomes. Such an effort can reveal the need for a significant redirection of energies and resources or for broad cultural changes. Most significantly, it can result in changed student expectations. In addition to providing support for specific campus programs, the project, now in its fourth year, supports research on the connection of certain forms of engaged learning to student health and well-being, and to the complexity and depth of students’ civic development. To date, over two hundred colleges and universities have been linked to aspects of the project, and forty institutions have received grant support for their programmatic or research work. Project research is currently focused on seven institutions that are serving as national demonstration sites (see below). Getting at purposes through an examination of possible outcomes is a complex task; it is exceedingly difficult to isolate the epistemic purpose and to determine effectiveness in creating and measuring learning outcomes. The Bringing Theory to Practice project is focused on very specific forms of pedagogy and learning that already are important elements of many undergraduate liberal education programs—namely, service learning and community-based research. These particular forms of engaged learning encourage students to examine how concepts translate into practice, how they expect and value greater personal involvement from students, and how they oblige students to link action and understanding. The project is currently studying the possible effects and likely affects produced by engaged learning experiences that are expected, intensive, and valued elements of the undergraduate experience. We are gathering evidence— both testimonial and empirical—of outcomes that link engaged learning to behavioral choices and to student development. And we are learning how faculty and administrators who are involved across many campuses can begin to structure a “learning community” of their own affecting directional change at their own institutions. The provisional evidence supports the initial premise of the Bringing Theory to Practice project: the core purposes of liberal education can be realized through particular forms of engaged learning that affect the health, behaviors, and well-being of students and foster civic responsibility. Even as the research goes forward, the project is encouraging campuses to continue, or to initiate, conversations about the purposes of liberal education and about the institutional means available for achieving them. This effective strategy already has led several campuses to reexamine the extent to which they are defining and actualizing their own sense of quality, and the extent to which they are pursuing services and activities that are driven by perceived “market” demands. Additionally, the project has supported the efforts of individual campuses to better understand the actual behaviors and patterns of experience chosen by their specific populations of students, and to assess those data within the context of national studies. The overarching aim of the Bringing Theory to Practice project is to help colleges and universities deliver on the full promise of a quality undergraduate education by orienting their campus practices to the achievement of the three interrelated core purposes of liberal education. The project encourages institutions to create and support learning contexts that enable student transformation and, where current practices do not succeed in creating such contexts, the project argues for change. In creating and sustaining contexts for engagement, faculty must be supported, valued, and rewarded for experimenting with new and emerging pedagogies. This work is complex and often difficult; however, faculty frequently find such experimentation to be among the most intellectually, emotionally, and morally satisfying dimensions of teaching—especially when they are supported culturally and institutionally. The faculty members and professional administrators involved in the project have demonstrated their strong commitment to the students on their own campuses. They have been willing to act somewhat counter to prevailing campus cultures by seriously considering how the very heart of their institutions—the faculty, dominant pedagogies, and the curriculum— can positively and holistically affect the lives of their students. Through their involvement in the project, faculty and administrators alike have found the reinforcing rationale and evidence for strengthening the academic experience in ways that more directly involve students, that expect more from them, that take them out of the classroom, and that involve them in experiencing and understanding the relation of what they study to issues and responsibilities rooted outside of themselves." good luck

But it's out of bounds in the no climbing area.

Mexico has strong gun control laws and now only the criminals and the police have guns. Both are preying on the honest civilians and it's out of control. They have 3 kidnappings a day on average (sometimes they use machettes), more than Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran combined. The guns are mostly smuggled from the US, however, if the US didn't have a single firearm, they'd easily get them elsewhere....Uganda, Afganistan, lots of countries in South America.... IMO, guns should be in the hands of every law abiding citizen for political reasons first and foremost.

Sweet, just what I need to start my new spaid route starting from the parking lot at Beacon. First I gotta rap in to set up the burly anchors. Something like that already was done and then erased: Gordons retro-bolted 5.9 up that pretty and steep slab which Wayne had done trad (as I understand it) right by the water fountain. And that was not for aiding but for freeing although you could have stick clipped the bolts to aid if you wanted....so whats that called?....spaid and neutered? As long as we are defining terms, how about when the route gets put up, it's "Spaid", when it's removed, it's "Neutered"? Good name for a route...spaid and neutered.

Hellllooooo! Over here!

ABOUT FRIGGAN TIME LINK "....Obama also directed his administration to get moving on new fuel-efficiency guidelines for the auto industry in time to cover 2011 model-year cars. "For the sake of our security, our economy and our planet, we must have the courage and commitment to change," Obama said in his first formal event in the ornate East Room of the White House...." DAMN STRAIGHT I'm high now, and hoping this legislative onslaught of good doesn't turn bad as you all know how I feel about the 2nd amendment... President Obama also added .."Year after year, decade after decade, we've chosen delay over decisive action," Obama said. "Rigid ideology has overruled sound science. Special interests have overshadowed common sense. Rhetoric has not led to the hard work needed to achieve results — and our leaders raise their voices each time there's a spike on gas prices, only to grow quiet when the price falls at the pump." Good stuff.

My thoughts as well. Having a bolt ladder for aiding isn't the end of the world although I know others will argue endlessly otherwise. If it crowds an existing route that's another matter of course. However, I'm so far away emotionally from Broughtons that I don't even feel like I should have a voice anyway. I might have climbed there once last year, but I can't remember why. I know a solid trad climber who has approached me about putting a bolt ladder up in the gorge at a more remote, abiet historic, location - I passed on helping out. Although it's not my thing, I could understand having one to access a remote pinnacle that gets climbed about every 15 years...if that. There is a ladder at the butte thats' been there since probably the 50's or early 60's. However, the hangers were removed at least 37 years ago so it's just rusty old 1/4" studs. It's pretty much invisible unless you get right up on it and squint. Then maybe you'll see it. I know that almost all of the people who have stood right under it have not seen it. Could it be the worlds first A3 bolt ladder?:-) I suspect this is eventually going to turn into a very involved, long, self righteous thread, so let me only say it once: thanks for the heads up Bryan - but speaking only for myself, this ladder to nowhere doesn't bother me.

I rather be greeted with "Whats up Doc", than, hows it going Mr Wrinkly? ! This advice should help us all age more gracefully:

One doesn't see Robert Reich called a dumbass too often. Liberal...sure, professor, OK, ...short...absofrigganloutly:-) Dumbass, not too often. As a former "White Male Construction Worker" myself, I always felt like I could take care of myself and wasn't to concerned. Of course, there was that time where my boss went bankrupt during the 20% interest rate days, and I missed getting 5 paychecks (got some partial $ here and there) with the end result that I when I had finished my very last sack of potatoes, I had to dive into the garbage where I'd so stupidly tossed the peelings the day previous to pull out the skins so that I could eat something for 2 more days. The part of the sound bites on the video that seems to strike me wrong is the assumption that at the root: what they are talking about is taking away money from those who have it and giving it to those they deem worthy. In doing so, as a forced measure, it makes the gesture which could have been highly altruistic, meaningful and beautiful: a morally bankrupt one with bad feelings on both sides. The good that a person would have felt about voluntarily contributing to a person in need goes away. Furthermore, the government doesn't appear to but rarely be concerned about "teaching a man to fish", but usually settles for "giving the man a fish". This makes the poor folks feel indebted: not in a good way, but more like a beggar, unable to do achieve success on their own and dependant on da Gobment. I don't want to see folks starve, or even have to pull out their potato peelings to eat though, even if it didn't use to bother me when I had to do it. On the other side of the transaction it makes those who have money have less. They then do not want to give any to anybody for any reason since it's getting forcefully yanked from them already and to top it off da Gobment usually winds up wasting a shitload before they even start to feed the man that fish with the result that productive money goes down a shithole never to reappear again and both the recipient and receiver have strange non-happy feelings or feel like shit about it. It ain't healthy. However, what can you do?

Hmmm, are you suggesting that I need to stop watching the clock ? LINK ps, I'm over both Bush and Clinton....they were so, hmmm, sooo 90's:-)

I thought Obama was smarter than that. I don't have a clue why he'd give that windbag free media air time AND something to talk about on his show for the next 4 years. Jeeeze. http://www.nypost.com " WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration. "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts. "There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done." That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today. While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House's Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message. "I won," he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that." The response was to the objection by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) to the president's proposal to increase benefits for low-income workers who don't owe federal income taxes. Not that Obama was gloating. He was just explaining that he aims to get his way on the stimulus package and all other legislation, sources said, noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers. Republicans, along with Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate, met with Obama to hammer out details on a stimulus package that has reached $825 billion. "We are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis that has to be dealt with and dealt with rapidly," Obama said during the meeting. Republicans say that is too big a burden for a nation already crippled by debt and that it doesn't do enough to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes. "You know, I'm concerned about the size of the package. And I'm concerned about some of the spending that's in there, [about] ... how you can spend hundreds of millions on contraceptives," House GOP Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) later said. "How does that stimulate the economy?" But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs countered: "There was a lot of agreement in that room this morning about the notion that we're facing an economic crisis unlike we've seen in quite some time ... There was agreement that we must act quickly to stimulate the economy, create jobs, put money back in people's pockets." Gibbs disagreed with those who called the meeting window dressing. "The president is certainly going to listen to any ideas," he said. "He will also go to Capitol Hill the beginning of next week to talk to Republican caucuses and solicit their input and their ideas." Obama acknowledged that $825 billion was a tough price tag for some conservatives and deficit hawks to swallow. "I know that it is a heavy lift to do something as substantial as we're doing right now," he said. "I recognize there are still some differences around the table and between the administration and members of Congress about particular details on the plan," he said. "But I think what unifies this group is a recognition that we are experiencing an unprecedented, perhaps, economic crisis that has to be dealt with," he said. The president added that legislation governing the use of an additional $350 billion in bailout money for the financial industry must include new measures to ensure accountability. And he continued his initial round of calls to foreign leaders, dialing up Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Saudi King Abdallah and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown"