catbirdseat

"President Bush concedes the rich get more under his plan, but claims that his proposed $1.6 trillion tax cut is a win-win for every family: Everyone gets cash back and the cut will stimulate the economy. This administration will leave no billionaire behind. Let’s take the W. Bush-Greenspan claim that tax cuts will goose the slowing economy by giving folks money to spend. The father of modern economics, John Maynard Keynes, and modern economists that followed show that if you need spending the rich are the worst people to target; they hoard cash and spend it on foreign goods. A tax cut to wealthy Americans might help the French wine industry, Swiss tourism and the German car companies. But it won't do much for Muncie. All in all, economists don’t buy the stimulus claim. The tax cut is no win-win; it’s win-lose. Someone pays. Bush’s budget bill spends $16 billion less on the environment, research and, surprise, the military. The tax cut raises the price for things we want now and may want later — bombs and freeways. And, it will make soaring inequality worse. A top-heavy tax cut perverts market incentives, though capitalism’s charm is supposed to be rewarding effort and ability. Congressional Democrats complain that the tax cut rewards those who the 1990s treated the best and not those who worked the hardest. " Article Some more reading.

Do we have to?

It was a thought provoking article. I know nothing about kayaking, but it would seem that in white water kayaking it is more difficult to assess risks than climbing (cragging at least) because you can't always see underwater hazards. Even if you knew what was below the surface, the currents can behave very unpredictably depending on flow rates. In rock climbing of established routes, the risks are known, but making first ascents or alpine ascents in variable snow and ice, it's got to be a lot like kayaking with regard to unknown hazards. In rock climbing, unlike kayaking, if you encounter an unexpected danger you can sometimes reverse the moves, that is, back off. Many cases this isn't possible, hence the "failing upwards" scenario. Let's talk about the insurance experiment. I think their conclusions are bogus. In the first case you pay a $100 premium for 100% coverage. In the second case you pay a $45 premium for what amounts to 50% coverage. They claim that the latter is the more logical choice, but is it? The logic of the decision depends on more factors than they are weighing in their analysis. You don't know what that risk is. If it is very high, the first makes a lot of sense. Conversely, if it is low, the second would be favored. If the value of your belongings is not very high, it would favor the second choice and so on. We also figure in our ability to replace our belongings and the necessity of doing it immediately. The formula they are using is as follows: Value of policy = Replacement Cost x chance of loss x Percent Replacement Suppose your belongings were worth $1000, and the chance of loss in over the term of the policy was 10%. The value of the policy in the first case would be $100. In the second case, it would be $50. The second policy is the better deal. But what if you added another term to the equation. This term would be the inconvenience which results from not being able to immediately replace your lost belongings. The formula becomes: Value of policy = Replacement Cost x chance of loss x Percent Replacement x inconvenience factor How do you put a value to this inconvenience factor?

Tool dip might be a way to deal with meat hooks on trigger wires.

I googled and found this report, and this: (http://students.washington.edu/~mmcmurra/climb%20html/swauk.html)

If you give a rich guy a tax cut what does he do with the money? He goes on vacation in France, or maybe he buys a new BMW, or maybe he just invests it in European currency or in European stocks. Anyway you look at it, the money doesn't do anything to stimulate the American economy. When a middle class guy gets a refund check he pays down his credit cards, replaces his broken down Chevy or takes his wife out to dinner at the local restaurant. Tax cuts to those of modest means do much more to stimulate the economy. Because most of the money went to the rich, we have the largest trade imbalance in our history. The money is largely going overseas.

The good old post-gaff pseudotroll.

That rope eating flake is something else! It will swallow your entire rope. You'll be hating life if you rap past it without pulling it all out first, because it won't pull out from below, that's for sure.

I heard a review on the radio that panned it, big time. It sounds like gratuitous violence unmitigated by a plot, but as H. L. Menken once said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the American public".

Gold leaf and electroplate are two different methods. You should know that, Dru.

No one is forcing you to buy high tech gear.

I have some ancient hexes with galvanized wire. On some of them, they put some plastic tubing on the eye before they swaged the cable. With something like that, I imagine you COULD sling directly to the eye.

That is correct. It would mean that the quality of the belay anchor becomes more important. In practice, the leader could choose whether to use a Revolver depending on the perceived quality of the placement. He'd use a conventional biner for a bomber cam, but a revolver for a tiny stopper. The Revolver concept is somewhat analogous to using a Screamer, but would take less time and weigh less.

I noticed some people with wired nuts that had a plastic coating on the eye where the biners is clipped. What's the idea behind that? Is it to prevent scratching of the carabiner, or to reduce catching on the nose slot? I can't imagine it would allow one to safely girth hitch a sling directly to the eye as the diameter is still rather small.

I was wondering when someone would finally invent something like the Revolver. It's a natural progression. Supposedly, the friction through a biner is about 35% of the tension in the line versus about 15% for a pulley. If that were true, then the revolver would cut your impact forces (on natural pro) by about 20%(?). My guess is that it would be more than 20%. The length of your fall might increase proportionally, though. Revolver Description

Let me get this straight Josh. Are you are saying that cars and trucks put out hundreds of times more pollution than snomobiles? Are you talking aggregate or per vehicle?

My biggest complaint is the rock is so smooth that it feels greasy. The rock at the Bobs is somewhat more textured. Not only that, but the views are better, the bugs are fewer and it is less crowded.

So which group is the one doing the firebombing these days? Earth Liberation Front? Where they not the group that burnt down the Center for Urban Horticulture, just because some scientist was hybridizing poplar trees? Who do you suppose is burning new homes in Monroe?

If it is yours email Jim at rodeoclimber "at" centurytel "dot" net

No. The closed area is between RC and the Bend.

The FBI is not "seemingly" incompetent. Since the days of J. Edgar Hoover it has been more interested in its public image than catching criminals. It took a long time and a lot of pressure to get them to go after the Mafia, but they finally did when forced into it. The FBI has done a lot of good work, and taken a lot of criminals off the street, but it could do a much better job.

He does not look in the least bit French.

So was she worth it?

The truth will set you free (from gainful employment).

If you kicked the crap out of him we're all proud of you. You don't mess with a man's vehicle.