catbirdseat

Do a seach under "Fee Demo Wall".

Now, THAT's funny.

RURP is back in the house. Where have you been this past year? Gainful employment isn't always what it's cracked up to be.

All I'm saying is if you are planning on learning to lead trad, your going to want to have those standard ovals anyway. Wired stoppers have been known to open up wire gates and fall off. This is less likely to happen with the standards. The spine of the standards are a perfectly round section, whereas the Dovals is an asymmetric section. As a consequence of the smaller size and the sharper spine, you'll get a slower rappel with the Dovals. As Tom says, buy the Dovals and try it in your garage.

How about combining slabs, grooves and groves all in one neat package. There is a route in Darrington called Bushy Galore.

Show me a war where atrocities are not committed. War is hell. Kerry was working to get the US out of a very unpopular war. To say that telling the truth about the Vietnam War makes him "unfit to serve" as president is laughable. His recent backpedaling is a due to his understanding of the current strength of veterans and servicemen as a voting block in light of the current war. If anything, he should have the backbone to stand by what he said back then, because it was all true.

Bush and Osama are among the most dangerous persons on the planet. There is no rational argument that will disuade them and they are not afraid to die for what they believe. Although in Bush's case there are so many others who can die for him.

I thought this was one of those "prospective" trip reports.

My brother is one of these persons. He had his pastor lay some heavy-handed words on us at our father's funeral that made a number of people squirm. I decided to let it go and not mention it to him. Then, at the house I heard my aunt say something to him about it, which surprised me, because she is quite religious.

You should get four regular solid gate ovals. They are better for racking pins, nuts, and equal for anything else. After that get wiregates for slings and racking the rest of your gear. The difference in weight is 4 x (62-45) = 68 g or a little over 2 oz.

Like I said, if you can do better, have at it.

Here's to you. You forgot this emoticon

You ought to crew for Alex on his Olson 30 while you are healing. At least that way you can be competitive and use your arms hauling ropes.

Harry McLintock was writing about hoboes, but he might have just as well been referring to climbers. I just love this song, The Big Rock Candy Mountains. It was used in the movie, Brother Where Art Thou. The last stanza, I wrote. I'm sure you can do better. One evening as the sun went down And the jungle fires were burning, Down the track came a hobo hiking, And he said, "Boys, I'm not turning I'm headed for a land that's far away Besides the crystal fountains So come with me, we'll go and see The Big Rock Candy Mountains In the Big Rock Candy Mountains, There's a land that's fair and bright, Where the handouts grow on bushes And you sleep out every night. Where the boxcars all are empty And the sun shines every day And the birds and the bees And the cigarette trees The lemonade springs Where the bluebird sings In the Big Rock Candy Mountains. In the Big Rock Candy Mountains All the cops have wooden legs And the bulldogs all have rubber teeth And the hens lay soft-boiled eggs The farmers' trees are full of fruit And the barns are full of hay Oh I'm bound to go Where there ain't no snow Where the rain don't fall The winds don't blow In the Big Rock Candy Mountains. In the Big Rock Candy Mountains You never change your socks And the little streams of alcohol Come trickling down the rocks The brakemen have to tip their hats And the railway bulls are blind There's a lake of stew And of whiskey too You can paddle all around it In a big canoe In the Big Rock Candy Mountains In the Big Rock Candy Mountains, The jails are made of tin. And you can walk right out again, As soon as you are in. There ain't no short-handled shovels, No axes, saws nor picks, I'm bound to stay Where you sleep all day, Where they hung the jerk That invented work In the Big Rock Candy Mountains. In the Big Rock Candy Mountains Where all the dudes are hip And the bright clean grippy granite Ne’er causes you to slip The rangers have to tip their hats And the buffets are all free There's a splitter crack And a flake or two You get good gear all along it Pull the lip, you’re through In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

I didn't need to see that last picture. I was already jonesing to go to Darrington.

Reminds me of a recipe of Charbonneau's for stuffed antelope gut I saw reading the Journals of Lewis and Clark. I'll have to post that one too.

Two outrageously funny posts in the same thread. I had to re-post them here. Poster: Unabonger Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:33 pm Post subject: Re: Most Embarrassing Climbing Experience? The following was posted a few years ago on rec.climbing. I don't know who this guy is, but I'm prettysure it doesn't get more embarassing than this. UB ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Code Brown: An Epic? Or Food Story? One Friday night, long ago, a climber who will remain anonymous consumed many, many beers, a giant burrito, and more beers. Stumbles home. Saturday morning, his alarm pierces the early morning darkness. The climber chokes down a thirty-grain superfiber muffin. He leaves with his partner, whose impatience is obvious, and in the bleary fog left from the previous evenings festivities, the climber neglects his morning "constitutional". His partner provides a giant thermos of excellent and much needed strong coffee for the drive up to Mt. Evans. Cup after cup serves to revive the climber, and by the time they've finished the drive and shuffled along the approach, the climber can appreciate the sublime surrounds, and is amused by the antics of the mountain goats and their young, jumping crazily from ledge to ledge with hundreds of feet of exposure. The climber and partner execute four rappels down the granite cliffs. Now they are committed to climbing back up as the easiest way back to the car. The route is unfamiliar, but should be well within the pair's limits. The partner takes the first lead. With the partner 70 feet up, the climber watches as something falls from the partner, as it comes close, he reaches out, and BAM, he catches the car keys. A good luck omen, definitely, he thought, for if he hadn't caught them, they would have been irretrievably lost in the talus far below, protected from the current position by a hundred feet of 4th class rock. The climber's amusement continues as he starts the first pitch, climbing smoothly and marveling at the beautiful terrain, he arrives at the tiny belay ledge. Soon, though, the climber's amusement turned to discomfort, and his stomach rumbled. Something was wrong. Something needed to give. Soon. The climber's discomfort soon turned to dismay mixed with pain as he realizes the implications of his predicament. Pounds of foodstuff, probably poorly digested, still resided within him. Bloated by beer, topped off with Mexican food, lubricated by bran, accelerated by coffee. He felt like an overfilled sausage skin, with someone squeezing the middle. His harness will not allow for removal and proper relief, in any case, there's no proper place for such relief... In a cramped voice, he hands the lead to his partner again. "I'm feeling a bit queasy, yes, you should do this lead also." With his partner halfway up, the pain of holding back grew greater than the shame of letting loose. With a groan, a teary eye, and clenched teeth, he opened the valve and let it go. And go it did. It kept going and going, filling his pants with a loose and smelly stew. At home this would've been a multi flush monster. Here, the squishy mud spooged down his legs, squashed by his leg loops, and settled near his ankles, trapped only by the elastic bands, which were failing anyway. Still the smelly mud was coming, and like a chocolate icing out of a tube, it started dropping from his pants legs, falling like brown hail down to the rocks below. With a few last shudders, the brown gusher stopped, leaving a disgusting and foul smelling mess smeared along the inside of his pants, and a goodly collection still trapped by the leg loops of his harness, turning his underwear into a defective sort of overfull diaper. His partner, by now arrived safely at the belay, had no clue what had happened. The climb must go on, so our stinky hero worked his way up, and with a few meters to go before reaching his partner, started explaining. A frown, a sigh, and a strong motivation to finish quickly passed over the partner. Too smelly to share the intimate belay, the climber stayed below the stance, tied in out of arms reach, but within the nose's, from his partner. Of course leading was now out of the question for the muddied climber--any fall might have dislodged brown hail from his ankle openings upon his hapless partner. Content to slump against the wall, he belayed his partner without incident to the top. Blessed was the feeling when he reached the backpacks, despite the now cold temperatures, he stripped naked, and attempted a cleanup operation using a liter of water (thirst was strong, but disgust stronger). With only small success, he now faced a walk of several miles back to the car, on a popular trail. His sole clothing was an old cheap plastic tarp, originally used for a convenient ground cover when gearing up or having lunch. Now it was a smelly and ill-fitting skirt. For the drive home he kept the tarp on, shivering in the bed of the pickup truck for the ride back to Boulder. In the following years, he never rushed out of the house without a proper visit to the holiest of shrines, the toilet. Poster: endrizzi Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:28 pm Post subject: Re: Most Embarrassing Climbing Experience? For high school graduation present I took my quite, self-conscious introverted nephew up Durance at Devil's Tower. Prior I warned him to take a crap before climbing or else there would be issues. On top of leaning tower I get the "Uncle Mike, I have issues". I decide to go up another pitch and let him do his business. I hear a scream "OH YEAH BABY!!! WAAHHOOOO, GOTTA LOVE THAT ONE. WHO"S YOUR DADDY" etc. etc. Finally: "UNCLE MIKE, THAT WAS THE BEST CRAP I EVER TOOK IN MY LIFE!!! THANK YOU!!!". Of course because of the amphitheater effect it echoed throughout the whole east wall and every tourist and climber had their eyes on us. When he came up next to me he was filled with testosterone and pride. "Hey Uncle Mike, I just crapped in my pants...LOOK!" It was 95 degrees and I could smell it before he got to me. It was leaking out of his ankles. I spent the rest of the climb trying to get away from him, but the rappels were the worst. He was so ripe by then I wanted to vomit last week’s tacos. Once on the ground I gave him all my gear and walked quickly in front of him. He was a playing swaggering mountain man with all my gear. He went up to a tourist with his camera and said "Hey Mr., could you take a picture of Uncle Mike and I?” The look on the tourist's face went from friendly smile to death camp horror as he took his first whiff. My nephew ran up to me and hugged me tight and yelled "Dude, take the picture". I just wanted to vomit again. At the campground my nephew took off his grundies and put them on a stick and flew them like a flag as he paraded around the campground like a toy soldier. Last time I ever take any of my relatives climbing. dreez PS: I've got the pictures in case you doubt me.

Headlee Pass

Back when I was a little tyke in the Y-Indian Guides we went on a rafting trip on the Colorado River. At the end of our float we arrived at a campground called Water Wheel. There our "tribe" camped in tents. There was another tribe from a spendy side of our home town called Emerald Bay. They all had humongous motor homes. One of the dads from our group quipped, "Those Emerald Bay guys bring their own trees". We all thought it so funny we retold the joke many times over the years. There are always going to be those who need to take the city to the wilderness. They are cheating themselves, big time, but they are also cheating the rest of us.

The US maintains a double standard when it comes to WMD. How can a country that is so hypocritical have any respect in the world?

Nobody can "reserve" a crag. That is utter nonsense. The Boealps are PLANNING to be at Mountaineer Dome on Sunday. They told me that anyone is welcome to show up and climb if they want. If there is a particular route you want to climb, mention it to them, even if there is already a top rope on it and I think they will accomodate you.

Anniversary of Columbine High School Massacre.

I think it all comes down to whether you take the long term view or the short term one. Investing in education and health care is more expensive short term. You more than get your investment back long term. I think conservatives tend to take the short term view because they are more opportunistic, meaning gamblers. By reserving capital short term, it is available for possible investments that are unforseen. Liberals are planners and are willing to wait for their investments to mature. For example, the wisdom of the latter philosophy is bearing fruit for Airbus big time these days. Airbus is kicking Boeing's butt big time and will probably push it out of the commercial airliner business if it doesn't start thinking long term again.

Wendy's Dave Thomas died of a heart attack, although, he was 70 years old.

Now that Fairweather is lurking again, I felt the need to come up with a tweak for the conservatives. This comes in the form of an article I saw in the April 15 New York Times. It was a book review by Jeff Madrick about a new book by Peter H. Lindert called " Growing Public " (Cambridge Univ. Press). The book contents that there is no evidence that cutting domestic spending will spur economic growth or that conversely, increasing it will deter growth. He used 19 developed nations as examples in which he focused on social spending rather than total spending as previous studies have done. Here are the findings: (1) Tax systems of countries with high social spending are less antigrowth than is realized because nations in Scandinavia and Continental Europe typically derive so much tax revenue from regressive consumption taxes. (2) Social programs in nations with high welfare levels usually include everyone. Because benefits are generally not cut off as incomes grow, the disincentive to get jobs or invest is reduced. (3) Much of the publich spending in these nations is also conducive to economic gowth. Public health programs produce a healthier work force that is more productive. Education programs also result in more productive workers. Here is the article in it's entirety, if you care to read it: Does Big Government Hurt Economic Growth? By JEFF MADRICK The New York Times Published: April 15, 2004 N widely reported comments before a Congressional committee in February, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, suggested that President Bush's tax cuts should not be even partly rescinded. Rather, Mr. Greenspan said, the nation should cut future domestic spending, including Social Security benefits, to balance the budget. Higher spending or higher taxes would deter economic growth, he warned. The committee should have asked the statistically oriented chairman for the evidence. A comprehensive analysis by the economic historian Peter H. Lindert, published in a new book, "Growing Public" (Cambridge University Press), contends that there simply is none. His analysis is partly a broad extension of other studies by economists like Joel B. Slemrod of the University of Michigan, but he adds considerably to the argument. Advertisement Mr. Lindert is a professor at the University of California, Davis; former president of the Economic History Association; and an associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. He has examined levels of taxes, public investment in education, transportation and health care, and social transfers like Social Security, and finds a stark contradiction between conventional wisdom and the evidence. "It is well known that higher taxes and transfers reduce productivity," he writes. "Well known - but unsupported by statistics and history." He compares the level of social spending over nine decades up to 2000 in 19 developed nations, including most of Western Europe, Japan, Australia, the United States and Canada. His analysis differs from many studies in part because he focuses on social programs, not overall government spending. He finds that high spending on such programs creates no statistically measurable deterrent to the growth of productivity or per capita gross domestic product. As many nations in Europe built welfare states after World War II, they continued to grow faster than the United States, a nation with low social spending. For many people, this defies common sense. Higher taxes to support social programs surely deter investment or the willingness to work to some degree. As Mr. Lindert points out, estimates by some economists, like Martin Feldstein, a Harvard professor and president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, find that extra government spending leads to a large reduction in gross domestic product. In fact, taken literally, these studies suggest that the gross domestic product of Sweden, to take an example of a nation with heavy social spending, should have been reduced by up to 50 percent. But nothing remotely like that has happened. The principal problem with such studies, Mr. Lindert writes, is that they are simulations of a highly simplified world. The economists recreate an economy where almost all incentives lead to slower growth, Mr. Lindert said, but that world does not exist. Why, then, have high levels of social spending proved no deterrent to growth in the real world? Mr. Lindert has several explanations, some of them surprising. First, he says, the tax systems of countries with high social spending are less antigrowth than is realized because nations in Scandinavia and Continental Europe typically derive so much tax revenue from regressive consumption taxes. In fact, these nations do not penalize profits and capital investment any more than the United States or Japan does, and possibly even less. Mr. Lindert cannot be pigeonholed as a conservative or a liberal. He says he believes that less tax on capital will promote growth. But nations with high social spending typically tax alcohol, tobacco and gasoline highly, he notes, which contributes to better health and environmental quality. Healthier workers are more productive, and cleaner air requires fewer expensive environmental regulations. Second, he finds that social programs in nations with high welfare levels usually include everyone. Because benefits are generally not cut off as incomes grow, the disincentive to get jobs or invest is reduced. But third, he finds, much of the public spending in these nations is also conducive to economic growth. Among such spending is that for education and health. Mr. Lindert argues firmly that under comprehensive public health programs, people are healthier and live longer, which also makes them more productive. He cites a study by the economist Zeynep Or for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that finds that in nations where a higher proportion of all health outlays are public, life spans are significantly increased. Mr. Lindert also contends that higher levels of government support for child care and requirements to re-employ women after maternity leave at the same job can enhance economic growth. Business considers such workers long-term employees and is likely to invest more in their training and place them on a faster track. Workers probably expend more time and effort on their long-term careers. The statistical probability that some women will leave work creates a bias against all women. Ample government support apparently reduces this bias. The difference between pay for men and women is higher in the United States than in most of Europe, and is especially narrow in Sweden, which provides generous child support. This summary does not do justice to Mr. Lindert's book. He also, for example, provides a valuable history of social spending and proposes a theory about why some nations spend more than others that is closely related to how well democracy works. This is a piece of research that is rich in insight and grounded in empirical evidence. There will be challenges. But the upshot is unmistakable. Government spending, if administered wisely, can have great value for everyone, including but not limited to the especially disadvantaged. Jeff Madrick is the editor of Challenge Magazine, and he teaches at Cooper Union and New School University.E-mail: challenge@mesharpe.com.