selkirk

Nice article. I never quite understood why so many people take the text of the Bible so literally. After all, even the newest parts are thousands of years old and translated 3 or 4 times, sometimes well, sometimes poorly, no document is going to survive that in an absolutely pure form. Science in no way negates religion, or negates the divine. As memory serves, the Pope also gave scientists his blessing to research anything up the point of the Big Bang. While the Catholic church may be a little dogmatic in some instances, I can at least respect that a huge amount of thought, prayer, and consideration have gone into every last aspect of their doctrine. Much more than I can say about a lot of organizations. now i'm just rambling so i'll stop The supposed "war" between religion and science is overstated. Those on the side of atheism find comfort in pointing out the ignorance of "creationists" and painting all people of faith with this broad brush-stroke. In reality, there are many people of faith who find that science and religion can coexist and are not necessarily mutually-exclusive. Scientists who think that science somehow answers all the questions about life and its purpose are just as ignorant as the most instranigent creationist. Agreed, there are people on both sides who are ridgid and locked in their own mindsets, and believe anyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong. Maybe we should just ban all people incapable of independant thought and analysis from the gene pool. Then they wouldn't be able to infect their spawn with their ridgid mindsets Either that or just remove warning labels from things like toothpaste. If you can kill yourself with toothpaste you shouldn't have kids. Was it Plato or Socrates? among many good words to live by "The unexamined life is unfit to be lived by man."

Nice article. I never quite understood why so many people take the text of the Bible so literally. After all, even the newest parts are thousands of years old and translated 3 or 4 times, sometimes well, sometimes poorly, no document is going to survive that in an absolutely pure form. Science in no way negates religion, or negates the divine. As memory serves, the Pope also gave scientists his blessing to research anything up the point of the Big Bang. While the Catholic church may be a little dogmatic in some instances, I can at least respect that a huge amount of thought, prayer, and consideration have gone into every last aspect of their doctrine. Much more than I can say about a lot of organizations. now i'm just rambling so i'll stop

Dru, can ya'll please keep him? We don't really want him anymore and I think you'll be more kind to him than anybody else.

Fawkers, I feel sorry for the students more than anything else. Just shows that were not as far removed from monkeys as we think we are Oh, and your links broken....

...sure Are you saying it should be "what's right with this picture"

Would have to agree with Dru. Just climb faster! Have often does the weather got to shit fast enough that you can't sprint out the last 1/2 pitch to the anchors and rap off?

So 2 more questions then.... How steep is the learning curve for Tele? (I was reasonably good at downhill before I stopped, comfortable/competent on pretty much any in-bounds terrain) And does the increased force on the front AT bindings that iain mentioned, when skinning, and shuffling often cause problems or failures? Or is it just something you need to be aware of?

Ok, so i'm pretty much a rank newbie in terms of backcountry and am wondering what the relative advantages of Tele, Randonee, or Split board settups are for backcountry turns and/or ski mountaineering? The only skiing i've done was downhill on fixed heels, it's been 2 or 3 years but I didn's suck terribly. I imagine I could pick up Randonee pretty quickly, but since i'm out of the loop and don't have any gear right now thought I would consider Boards and Tele settups as well. So what's better and why? Thanks

Another vote for the Rockcentrics on Dyneema. Lighter, Stronger, and if you pull the sling through and clip both ends they don't sound like cow bells

Boy she's got a nice rack, biggest of the bunch!

Says the man from the wilds of British Columbia where the population density is lower the NZ by a factor of 3

It's all about New Zealand baby. Good alpine, good backpacking, good sailing! Anybody now about the Rock Climbing? Of course I guess you could always head to Australia or Asia for that? I've been told I should never go because I wouldn't come back!

Did you read the article? A Bi-partisan coalition is going to try and change that so instead of being US-born, you'd need to be a naturalized citizen for 20 years. (no illegal aliens, but the Governator and CPB would be in).

The republicans are greasing the wheels for Arnold in 2008! Polish Bob gets my vote though! Article

I honestly couldn't give you the example your looking for. But that doesn't really surprise me. I don't think he would ever do anything to undermine the president or his decisions regardless of his personal beliefs. My impression is that given his choice Powell would never have made that presentation to the UN. But I think there are two competing values there; his loyalty to the President, not as an individual but as the Commander in Chief, and his own principles. My impression is that given the choice between upholding his own beliefs and upholding the chain of command, he'd choose to uphold the chain of command, even if he didn't agree with the orders. If he had a dissenting opinion, I think it would have only been expressed in private and off the record (i.e. calling for more planning, more troops, as the generals requested). But once the course of action has been set he would do everything in his power to see it through successfully, since the choice of what action to take isn't his, it's Bush's. In my opinion that doesn't make him less than respectable, or impune his integrity or dignity. It means he was given two bad choices, disobeying and order and undermining the administration even further, and presenting false information to the UN. You would rather he have refused the order? I think as a military man, that's not an credible option. It doesn't accomplish anything worthwhile, other than letting the wider public know of his dissent, and undermines the presidnet which ultimately hurts the administration, and inderictly the country as well. It's a choice of two evils, and he made his own decision. I'm still glad he was there as opposed to say Condoleeza. Again, there are no smoking guns I can point to for my opinions, there are no instances of him directly contradicting the president, but again, I don't think he ever would, that's not an option. I think his integrity is just as strongly tied loyalte and to following orders as it is to honesty. You value honesty more strongly, I think he probably values loyalty more (to the country and the office of the president). Granted all of my opinions are based on his reputation prior to the administration, and second hand information through a coworker of my wifes, who is distantly related.

left wing weanies huh? Actually have very little interest in gun bans. I think within reason I don't see an issue with ownership. Now background checks, mandatory licensing and training, trigger locks or gun safes, I'm all for those, and haven't heard any arguments against them. Contrary to popular belief, not all liberals are rabid or limp wristed, just like not all gun toting conservatives aren't trying to compensate

nice cover...

I don't know... there's still basalt to be had and this is two dry weekends in a row!

Did you mean cretin? If so than you should probably crawl under your own rock or go back to high school for civics and spelling.

I'll second that. No need to ban gun ownership, but we should at least require training, licensing, and a certain level of safety. Mandatory training and licensing before you can purchase and operate a deadly weapon (i.e. cars, private airplanes, motorcycles, semi trucks, forklifts, guns). Require either gun safes or trigger locks (no different than a set of keys for the car...). though insurance might be a step too far

So you would have rather had Powell resign on the spot refuse to serve the administration and the people due to his opposition to a war that was going to happen regardless of his presence or opposition? And then what, promote Wolfowitz, or some other chicken hawk? Then we'd be completely isolated instead of almost completely isolated. I could be completely off base but my gut says he hated presenting that information to the UN. I doubt he thought it was any thing but BS. However, i'd guess his orders from the Chimperor were, 'present our case for wmds to the UN and get us some allies'. So he took the information the administration was relying on and presented it, even if didn't agree with it. I'd be willing to bet that he also recognized that a completely unilateral war, unmoderated by the presence of strong allies would allow Bush co to be even more unchecked, but if the UN or European Union could be brought in, their pressure might be enough to tone down Bush a bit. I don't think his intentions were ever to thwart bush's plans or prevent the war, that would have been pointless, but if he softened the stances of administration even an inch, or forced them to consider their actions things even a second longer, than i'd say he was as successful as could have been hoped for. I'm sad to see him go, and more than happy to say the Condoleeza Rice, however educated and bright, is attack dog. If she can garner us even a single ally in this conflict through anything but intimidation and bullying, which seems to suit Bush co. just fine, i'll be shocked and amazed.

Can you hook with that or is it for offwidths?

granted.... but if you only jug up fixed ropes and don't hump any of your own loads, does that count as climbing it? Sounds like toproping to me!

That's a very valid point, but I think he most likely felt that his duty was to the duly elected president. Voicing dissent, and getting himself fired may get his voice heard, but that's all. By doing as ordered, and expressing his opinions whenever possible he still has the potential to at least influence the foreign policy of the US. Once he's been fired, or resigned, now he is just a voice, although a respected one, of dissent, and there are all ready plenty of those. From the inside he can at least try to mitigate the damage done by the presidents foreign policy. I think it really comes down to him placing more value on his loyalty, and the desire to do what is best for the US, for Iraq, for the rest of the world, than on his own "integrity" though I don't think that's quite the right word, as I think his loyalty and good intentions are definitely aspects of his integrity. I've actually run into this in other places as well. I've talked to a few gov't employees who feel this way. By working for an administration they vehemently disagree with, they can still accomplish some good. They can mitigate the damage, and remain as voices of reason, even if they disagree with the policies they have to implement. I think this is ever bit as respectable, as an intelligent voice of dissent. There are plenty of people whining about what's wrong, and plent working to fix it from the outside, but without people like these still working on the inside I think the damage done by this administration would be even worse than we've already seen. Heres to all you civil servants sticking it out and fighting small battles for small steps in the right direction

I think he probably is the voice of reason. I also think that as a good soldier his loyalty to the Pres. take precedence. He may disagree with a course of action, but it's his job to do it in the best way possible, and to mitigate the effects as much as possible. A great man working for a crappy administration.