johndavidjr

James Watt, Edwin Meese, Bush #1, Patrick Bucannan, John Poindexter, much of the current Supreme Court bench (the absurdities of Robert Bork), Michael Deaver, Lyn Nofzinger, et cetera, et cetera.

Ronald Reagan, November 1986: "In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories about arms for hostages, we did not, repeat, did not trade arms or anything else for hostages."

Quote from David Stockman's book "Triumph of Politics:" "If the Securities and Exchange Commission had jurisdiction over the White House, we might have all had time for a course in remedial economics at Allenwood penitentiary."

Considering that pure alcohol is used as stove fuel & then recall the definition of a calorie. (Can't use cheese cake to boil your coffee, & though you could maybe make a stove that burns butter, I reckon it would be less efficient & messy.) Also, I hear alcohol isn't readily metabolized. I don't really know what that means, & I don't know what carbo, protein, fat, is/are, but I hear alcohol is none of the above & I know if you're bonking-out from hunger, a few shots of booze won't address that particular problem, yet it can "help" you put on weight.

A very insightful comment Mr. Harpell.

This isn't a new thread.

PP & Fairweather-- The Republican Kevin Phillips' rather devastating critique of Reaganomics provides us with the numbers, and there actually isn't any controversy about the relative shift in tax burden to the middle class from the wealthy under Reagan/Bush. So-called supply siders, you might recall, are supposed to argue that rich folk used their gargantuan tax savings and invested it in economic growth (The stock market bubble?) The controversy about tax policy (Reaganomics) simply lies in whether this assertion is correct. PP's link to Arthur Laffer & Associates, however, offers no quantitative data suggesting this has occurred, but provides merely a celebration of long-ago political success (my earlier point about it as simply polemics). GDP growth rate has been far lower in past 20 years vs. 1950s & 60s, when relative tax burden on middle class vs wealthy was substantially lower. If you have other evidence relevant to an evaluation of Reaganomics, then do let us know. It seems clear, however, that the rich have obtained a greater share of US economy's comparatively weak growth over the past two decades, than in prior periods, due in large measure, to GOP-backed tax policy that prevails under Reagan/Bush. PS, my mom died with senile dementia; ain't nice & I don't view the news of Mr. Reagan's demise at age 93 on a personal level. -------------------------------------------------

Puget---Your link above is to a highly partisan interpretation of political history, a polemic rather than the exposition of economics that it may appear at first blush. Phillips, too, indulges in some interpretation from his own point of view as a moderate Republican, but he presents plenty of raw numbers which incontrovertably demonstrate how Reagan's people (many of whom now operate the current administration) shifted the tax burden on to the middle class from the wealthy. Phillips also provides the numbers that clearly show how the greatest period of U.S. economic growth (roughly 1950s to late Vietnam era), coincided with the highest historical tax burden on the wealthy (including JFK's comparatively trivial tax cuts.) He also includes interesting data on the oil shocks of 1970s, the oil glut of 1980s, as well as payroll taxes like Social Security, which GOP partisans generally omit from debate. His personal bottom line (not necessarily my view) is that weakening the middle class weakens the social and political fabric, & he draws some interesting & somewhat ominous parallels with the history of various empires, especially England. If nothing else, the USA is now more politically polarized than previously.

Excellent tip. Thanks. Not yet on their Web site though.

Yeah I reckon. Just found relevant thread in the "online mailorder" section of this board.

Fairweather: If you remove value reference (swindle) my post above is merely historical fact & in that regard I do wish you'd read either of Kevin Phillips books from 1990s about so-called Reaganomics.

It's ironic that the whole GOP swindle may have been inadvertantly set in motion by the dumbo Ayatollahs in Iran, who made a deal with Republicans to hang on to the embassy hostages until immediately after the election, which for much of the campaign season was looking like a very close call. Their payback was arranged by Lieut. Oliver North, I suppose.

I just searched board but failed to locate comment on Kahtoola crampons. Does anybody have experience, or views on their effectiveness & limitations? I think Pro Mt sells them. Remarkably light.

Yeah, I don't doubt it. But its in my pack when I most appreciate the weight. Petzl warns against sitting on the thing, but it does seem to pass various safety test criteria & after all, no helmet can protect from more than a relatively small impact.

I've used Meteor four years, entirely based on its weight, & seems like the screw jobs ought to provide pretty good fit for most people. It doesn't seem as widely distributed as formerly & I wonder why. Also, I hear it suggested (in Twight's book?) that the thing would be trashed more quickly in a barrage than other types, & is thus less helpful in survival. Certainly rockfall doesn't only come one rock at a time.

Thank you dkemp. (Routes are on S & E sides) I'm suspecting the Oly mt guidebook sandbags practically everything --- based on my one trip up Deception "class 2" route.

I think "More Climbing Anchors" is barely okay & not well-done compared with "Climbing Anchors" which I think is good. David Faluso's "Self Rescue" is quite good, though slightly mis-titled & maybe a tad overkill. "Glacier Travel & Crevass Rescue" has a few bits applicable to rock also, & is very well-done.

We mostly just toss them in the street here in Jersey City, a.k.a. "Terror Town."

My favorite mountaineering book is "Mountaincraft" by Geoffrey Winthrop Young. I got it on interlibrary loan. Historical equivalent of "Freedom of the Hills" for the Brits -- probably through the 1930s. It was published just after WWI, & listed in bibilography in early "Freedom" editions. There may have been multiple editions of "Mtcraft" but dunno. I suggested once that Mountaineers PublishingCo. put ou a facsimile edition. It's a long book, & says stuff like, one must always remember to treat guides as social inferiors, & that climbers should smoke tobacco, because it surpresses hunger & thirst, & reduces "unnecessary talking."

Sorry aboot TR label &I've edited it out-- The system is a little bit unobvious at first. Nice info above though-- thanks

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17210

I guess flypaper pass is the normal route but has anybody done either of the supposedly class 2 routes to the east? Are the ratings on these sandbagged like certain others in Oly Mt Guidebook??

Never climbed it-- but Pershing is an astounding mountain-- as seen from near Lake of Angles (near Stone) Perhaps you saw it from Washington?

Am skeded to go here to Alpine Club of Canada hut via helicopter with ACC in Aug. Can anybody tell me what's to expect? The range in immediate area is called the Adamants. -----

whatever the cause, obviously an accident. Poster who suggested otherwise was thoughtless in making (equally) obvious point about the N word.