JosephH

Lance - that was hilarious. Your post was far better than my post even though I didn't read your post at first because you aren't one of us. I'm also glad you don't climb where we climb because then I'd have to try and get at least as creative as you and that would be more difficult then imagining how clever I really am. But, you don't climb where I climb so I don't have to worry about that unless you come to visit. Hopefully you would only visit when I was climbing at my old new place or my new old place. Either way shouldnt' you be starting your own thread instead of posting in this thread where you make our posts look lame just when we were feeling pretty gooud about ourselves.

I now have a partner now for Sunday, will be out Saturday but not on an early start myself.

I'm down for both days so I'd be happy to get out with you sat. and do somthing. I've also got to get up to retreive the half a rack I have up on Menopause at the high anchor if anyone is at all curious about it.

What's on tap for this weekend...?

Just to be clear, I don't purposefully put up scary routes or routes which require aid pieces for free climbing per se. I put up routes where lines incite me to the point of obsession. I then attempt to climb them in a way that has the lowest impact on rock possible. Another way of saying it might be that I attmept to climb in a manner where the rock and I share the burden of the ascent and I think long and hard before I impose my will on the rock in any permanent way. Don't get me wrong, I do impose my will on the rock at times, but every time I do I consider it as somewhat diminishing my overall efforts and result relative to my 'ultimate' vision of the 'perfect' trad climb. This typically doesn't result in 'popular' routes and that would definitely and explicitly fall into the category of a non-goal for me. But again, that's just my approach and what climbing 'is' all about for me.

Kevin, I'd say where you beg trouble is your constant attempt to serve many [conflicting] masters - attempting to look like a 'bad ass' climber, seeking to be a popular 'route setter', and wanting everything entirely safe. You often talk the former, but the latter two undeniably drive your actions once you hit rock. I feel you are getting a bit clearer relative to wanting everything perfectly safe and, by not such a coincidence, that attracts a following all of its own. The problem I, at least, have is when it comes down to it that is just such a lowest common denominator explotation of rock as to drive the discussion back to what climbing 'is' and why we do it. Now I'm adminttedly an old guy so I explicitly started climbing in part at least to escape the very people you seek to attract - risk-averse suburbanites seeking risk-free [social / group] entertainment. I know, I know, I'm an elitist and misanthropic pig in that respect, but I'm also driven by the notions of, and need for, climbing that's a challenge which explicitly includes a requirement to actively assume and manage risk. This is clearly a moribund and tired concept of climbing which, almost by definition, results in 'wasted rock' when one of us poor sots is the first on something. In general, I think there is just an inherent and inescapable mismatch of goals and intent which is driven by an impedance mismatch of our basic needs. This disparity of needs and intent is such that for me, in the end, I can't help but view the net result of views similar to yours on par with the rollout of another mini-mall or Walmart - they use otherwise 'wasted' space, a lot of folks find them convenient, and many or most might shake your hand for building one. But the rest? Well, as you say, you can't please everyone...

? Then how do you explain away the thousands of offensive based missiles China has been installing, adding too and still increasing in numbers on the straight across from Taiwan. Maybe they are not as smart as you? I think Bug is speaking in the larger context. China's older leadership wants Taiwan back in their lifetimes which are drawing rapidly to an end. Timing's now on their side and they will call our bluff if and when they make their move. They know because we are over-extended in the ME that we can't realistically respond in Taiwan in any sustained manner and that the American public in reality has no stomach for supporting or risking our nation over what is essentially a civil war among the Chinese. We can only hope the risk of large-scale capital flight keeps the Chinese on a political track, even if a high power and pressure one. To some extent I think the relevance of the whole Taiwan question is more a vestige of the Cold War in a post-Hong Kong / Walmart era, though it all does make Vietnamese, Malays, and Singaporeans a bit nervous.

In a strategic sense I agree, we're all pretty much societally doomed in a large-scale clash of powers at this point. Most of the action now is asymmetric and / or largely a matter of friction between spheres of influence not unlike the Cold War. Still, when things heat up, it behooves us to prevail decisively whenever we exert our military might. And by 'prevail', I mean the final, long-term outcomes on the ground in the aftermath of a conflict contribute to our overall regional and strategic advantage - that's the having a clue, the will, and a plan part before reaching for a gun.

I think once again we're roughly in synch with one another. The principal threat I see with China is the level of their nationalism. They have many of the same internal problems as Russia and thousands of years of history of their 'nation' being badly managed by competing internal and external forces - simply maintaining a 'state' has always been a challenge for them. But they now have a strong rising tide of nationalism driven by a new nouveau-rich class and a retiring older generation which wants Taiwan re-assimilated in their lifetime. If their ambitions over Taiwan or Gulf oil turn military then I see the risk more in posturing, miscommunication, and things just generally getting out of hand. The problem for our Navy is that the average depth of the Taiwan Strait runs from 60m (a rope length) to about 100m. It's basically a soup bowl we can't engage in; we instead have to stand off on the other side of the island. A decidedly unsatisfactory arrangement from a naval perspective, and one that pretty much forces our hand to heavier measures and tactical nukes if we were serious, as once the Chinese commit, they'll fill the Strait with their own bodies to march across if they have to. And I think in Afganistan (particularly our dependence on warlords at Tora Bora), Iraq, at the WTC site (still not rebuilt), and New Orleans we've demonstrated we as a society don't have the collective will to endure pain anywhere near the level necessary to take on China over a breakaway province. And that was the real flaw in the neocon's 'strategy' that we could (or should) impose our will in the ME on the cheap. Now, both the various interests in the ME and the Chinese have picked up on our low pain threshold as our primary weakness. For example, I think standing off with Predators in Pakistan simply begs derision from the Pashtun and breeds a lack of respect from them. In a similar manner, not crushing any and all oppostion we encounter in the ME with overwhelming force speaks volumes to the Chinese for whom it's all about enduring pain. Pretty much all our foes have been emboldened by our current misadventures.

They've figured out we threw chump-change at Afganistan. At this point we're locked down in Kabul, Kandahar, and couple of other spots, but otherwise it's Taliban vs. Warlords all over again - same as it ever was. Possibly, the guys from Texas were all posers when it came down to it. Obama won't go to war telling the American people they should ignore it and go shopping - he'll tell them every day at war is going to hurt. I've been saying all along that China is the strategic threat and that Iraq has been nothing but a distraction. I also think most everything happening with Russia is - as it almost always is - mostly for internal consumption and a matter of them trying to regroup, consolidate, and reestablishing effective command and control both within their borders and sphere of influence. That, and restore a little pride and luster. Not so much different than all the neocons of the administration using Iraq to try and to reclaim the [imaginary] 'glory' of their Reaganite youths (and firmly establish America as the pre-eminent 'superpower'). To be honest, I don't worry all that much about the Russians - they have a ton of oil, a largely cash economy, and cheap labor right next door. They're also surrounded by people who don't like them much. All in all, Iraq has very much been all about taking our eyes of what matters to pursue a fantasy that doesn't...

Depends where you are at homey. Vietnam > killed 58,217 wounded 153,452 > x2.6 Iraq..... > killed _4,190 wounded _30,774 > x7.3 At Vietnam's casualty survival rates we'd have 11,836 dead in Iraq instead 4,190...

Who cares what they think of someone drawing a picture of Beacon. Why would they care? Well, if it were just a drawing it would be far less of an issue. As it is he's conveying quite a bit more than just the drawing and the BRSP-related info should have been verified with them. But as it was, Olson couldn't be bothered to check in with them.

Fixed that for you. Again, you've clearly not spent time around Chicago politics - there are no liberals behind closed doors there, pragmatism is about as far left as anyone goes. And funny how Bush and McCain have been pushing for a SOFA that pulls our troops out when? There is no 'strategic plan' because a bunch of civilian ass clowns totally screwed the pooch on that front. Now, you might be able to come up with a good strategy for taking out the garbage in the wake of their administration - but a cogent, effective strategic plan for Iraq is going to be damn hard to come by. The 'strategic plan' we've been operating under to-date might as well have been written in Tehran by Ahmadinejad. Really the whole Iraq exercise has a lot in common with the Dot.com bust - a trillion dollars disappeared down a rat hole and the only thing that was accomplished with it was to teach a new generation that content should be free. Yeah, team! Similarly we've tossed a trillion dollars down a rathole in Iraq to perfect design and deployment of IEDs and various wireless trigger technologies and to enrich and empower Iran. Again, yeah, team!

If there was a strategic plan that wasn't based on neocon fantasy then I for one would love to hear it... Dude, they're talking about getting electricity on in a couple years. Give it some time. If they had a working strategic plan the electricity would have been on 3 1/2 years ago...

I have to beg to differ, I have an definite emotional attachment to any number of loose rocks out at Beacon. The high crux on Lost Warriors is over three flakes that have to be "set" before you use the lefthand one. Menopause has some loose blocks you wouldn't want to have come off and you wouldn't want to trundle either as they're the size of cars. Lots of routes are that way and you have to either be prepared to deal or not. The Valley alone is filled with big expanding flakes on numerous routes. And I have a particular emotional attachment to the Silver Crow panel, being the second climb I ever attempted at Beacon. That panel makes free climbing the route up to the base of Silver Crow possible - aid may be you're thing, but if 'other way' in 'one way or the other' is aid climbing then I'd say that would be damn shame over that particular stretch of rock - it is breathtaking free climbing from the Pipeline anchor over to the top, dead-center of the Arena. Would love to, but just can't pull it off at this point...

Yet again, the panel has been aided and free climbed at least a half dozen times as is. If you guys can't deal with it as it is you should move on rather than comfortizing it to suit your palate.

If there was a strategic plan that wasn't based on neocon fantasy then I for one would love to hear it...

I'd say this is just about where the posing and shittalking kicks in - given you seem to make it clear time and again you aren't interested in being one of those people...

The panel is loose, and has been aided and / or free climbed as is by McGown & partner, myself, and my partner Jim Tangen-Foster. Under absolutely no circumstances should it be deliberately "cleaned" by anyone. You have no idea what you're even talking about to even make such a comment. Anyone incapable of climbing through leaving it intact - be it aid or free - should leave the line to people who can...

From Obama's web site: ---------------------------------------------- A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began. Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

It was far from obvious and being married to a 'biracial' Native American who has often been subjected to various insults both at home and abroad I'm more than a little sensitive about the issue. 'Discussing' race is one thing - Ann Coulter does it all the time - how it is discussed and in what context matters greatly.

Who knows, it could go free. That lower section we already freed was likely at least part of the A3 rating, can't say what the line proper might yield up...

Same to you whatever you're up to...

I wasn't misinterpreting you so much asking for clarification as the way you phrased your question to me it was hard to tell which you were suggesting. I would say that W is no Winston and where Winston was simply looking for a general who had what it took to deal with Rommel, W and company were explicitely shopping for senior command officers who were ready to relinquish their responisbilities and allow the military to be manipulated in support of a very specific political agenda - it has very much been of repeat of Vietnam in that respect. As far as Obama's agenda goes - the difference between McCain's plan and Obama's can be measured more in weeks than months. Republicans were on track with the current security agreement to bug out at the earliest possible date despite McCain's rhetoric to the contrary.

Aside from the fact this thread basically has a real bad odor about it, and the original 'question' significantly blows, the above isn't true - tribes set their own enrollment standards. And 'Race' is as much a matter of societies' and individuals' perceptions, stereotypes, and reactions to a person's appearance as any genetic measure. On that basis alone it's more than a little appropriate for Barack and Tiger to represent themselves as African-American. Try a little experiment and ask yourself if they'd have been a freemen or slaves in Charleston, SC on November 10,1808 - enough said on this rancid topic...