Kimmo

you write good campaign speeches (in a flowery hitler kind of way), but i'm not sure i'd use a reference to the arab situation, considering how things are turning out over there. the potential for the most vicious form of regression exists in humans, no matter how progressed we seem. i think it's important to be aware of this, avoiding frivolous declarations of victory over the "evil foe", without understanding who or what the "evil foe" is in the first place.

i don't necessarily agree that their "strategy of obstruction" cost them this election; i'd wager their choice of candidate had more to do with it. if you overlook the fact that a candidate such as romney took nearly half the votes cast, you're overlooking a key piece of the puzzle. like any adaptive organism interested in survival, the republican party will change. how many times in the past have we heard the death knell of a political party? your self-assurance regarding these issues is impressive, but predicting the future lends itself to prognostication much better than to science. Bush got 44% of the latino vote. latinos are a pretty religious group, and if it wasn't for that pesky immigration issue, could easily be swayed into the conservative camp. things change, joe. that's the constant. even more so than "racism", "sexism", "homophobia", etc. etc. in 12 years we might have the "republicans" holding the presidency, house, and senate, yet barely recognize them as today's "republicans". and that could be a good thing. i think there's potential for the repubs to finesse these issues. it's gonna be tricky, but i think it can be done. after all, the south's gonna vote for someone. and this "sewing (sic)" of hate? i don't know man, you sound kinda angry, like you might just be hatin on somebody yourself.

some of you might find this article interesting, from Virology Journal, a peer reviewed journal: link A ninth conundrum evident only recently is that epidemiological studies question vaccine effectiveness, contrary to randomized controlled trials, which show vaccines to be effective. For example, influenza mortality and hospitalization rates for older Americans significantly increased in the 80's and 90's, during the same time that influenza vaccination rates for elderly Americans dramatically increased [7,8]. Even when aging of the population is accounted for, death rates of the most immunized age group did not decline [9]. Rizzo et al studying Italian elderly, concluded, "We found no evidence of reduction in influenza-related mortality in the last 15 years, despite the concomitant increase of influenza vaccination coverage from ~10% to ~60%" [10]. Given that influenza vaccinations increase adaptive immunity, why don't epidemiological studies show increasing vaccination rates are translating into decreasing illness?

truly so. but one should understand both the risks and benefits for the equation to work, yes? did you read the original linked article?

They are *not* free. good point. flu vaccines are a multi-billion dollar industry, and pharma isn't into charity work.

really? i think his input to the "vaccine controversy" should be questioned, as should anyone's.

not sure if you're serious, but: perhaps because its efficacy seems to be in question? perhaps because the illness it's attempting to prevent is about 0% danger to those that the vaccine *might* actually help? Because of the possible dangers of this vaccine? Because of the limited testing of the vaccine? i don't know.... i tend to shy away from intervention therapies that have serious issues. perhaps your school "strongly recommended" the vaccinations?

Because it could cause the activation of oncogenic viruses that in most cases are undetectable. Wait, are you saying the flu shot causes cancer? Did you vote for Ron Paul, Jon? http://genome.fieldofscience.com/2009/09/scare-mongering-about-flu-vaccine-and.html?m=1 the blog you cite seems to be a rather poorly written opinion piece, don't you think? Not sure why you are citing it. but regarding the cancer link, never heard about that one....

Last month,, in a step tantamount to heresy in the public health world, scientists at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota released a report saying that influenza vaccinations provide only modest protection for healthy young and middle-age adults, and little if any protection for those 65 and older, who are most likely to succumb to the illness or its complications. link

i'm really going to enjoy this too. i'm just gonna pull up a chair, maybe grab a soda, and really enjoy myself.

i think one big part of the problem is the two party winner take all system we have. parliamentary systems hardly blow ours out of the water, would you not agree? republics aren't panaceas... perhaps not (nor did my assertion identify what the "problem" is, exactly!)

i think one big part of the problem is the two party winner take all system we have.

i think it's a bit more complicated than "buh bye". Some, including you, dismissed future Republican relevance back in '08 when obama won, declaring the party "dead". Then they came roaring back in 2010. Even Romney somehow managed nearly half the popular vote.

this would mean that the "vast majority of our voting population" change party allegiances at least somewhat regularly, and this isn't the case.

have you been climbing for a while? if not, i'd say just climb a bunch. your finger strength will improve as your general climbing improves; it's not all just about finger strength. oh and if you're overweight, losing lbs will be a much quicker and safer way to improve apparent finger strength.

comfortable velcro slippers. not sloppy comfortable. then off they come at the belays. i don't know if there's any rock shoe that's comfortable on for long periods that still performs the way a rock shoe should, so might as well have a good performing shoe that isn't a hassle to take on and off.

actually, not so true anymore. maybe the hardest when he did it? although there are possibly other routes he couldn't have done, meaning, difficulty is very subjective.

where does your wife teach?

sure, we can configure the list to include/exclude any particular discipline, but we are talking "all arounder" here, and imo you can't exclude the purest of the pure rock climbing disciplines. but even with a contrived list, a 5.11 "master" would onsite any and all routes in the given grade (minus obvious sandbags), and this I know of no one doing.

Man, I don't personally know ANY who qualify. Any and all 5.11's, including J tree slabs, and offwidths? In a comfortable style? pffffft. only 3 come to mind: honnold, croft, and the late reardon. because they could do all the above, including in the discipline of free solo (the most pure form of our hobby).

V7 at seattle bouldering project or stone gardens hah. getting back to your previous level depends a bit on how established you were at that level. if you had just gotten to v7 and were projecting them and getting a few here and there, then i'd guess you'll lose a little ability, a few weeks' worth. but if you were doing them consistently, and for a while, 6 weeks won't drop you much, and you'll be back in a coupla weeks i'd say. but shoot, having a leg injury gives you a good excuse to get stronger, not weaker. time for lots of fingerboarding and campusing, since climbing isn't getting in the way!

tell me what crag you're setting him loose on and I'll share my proprietary expertise!

is the placebo effect only noted in instances of pain? neither do homeopathics.

thanks for interesting post. what, 3 to 6 lbs of the critters in the average human gut, and we are born without any. and speaking of homeopathics, what do you, as a scientist, think about the placebo effect?

1 millimeter!