tvashtarkatena

I'm kind of with Joseph, here. I go out because I like to. Once in a very great while I'll go out with someone because they want to try the experience. It seems like that this attitude also describes most climbers I've met. And there's nothing wrong with that. Catholic guilt be damned!

If you're local, if you haven't climbed with someone you've flamed, you've climbed with a partner of someone you've flamed. Incestuous business, I tell you.

I've always thought so.

As long as your not a fucking idiot, that is. I like being alive.

Check out my TRs: proof positive that I'll climb with anyone, and that my partners share the same lack of discrimination.

I like the solitude of climbing, but if you're going to crag in a popular area, a few bimbos (I prefer the term hotties, personally), are just fine with me. A lot of bimbos these days can outclimb me with both slender, well manicured hands tied behind their exquisitely arched backs...preferably with strips of alabaster silk. Some of them even come to the crag...are you sitting down?...without any men!

Worry not. There is zero chance of his intellectualism rubbing off on you.

1000 pages of obfuscated legalise babble. Nobody but a herd of lawyers can (or will) even attempt to read that POS. yes but its a Republican plan therefore like any good partisan he hasn't read it either, he just knows it has to be good. On that note, i got a good laugh listening to Hannity along with Ann Coulter and Dick Morris "analyze" each line of Obama's plan yesterday. Like you said, those bills are pretty complicated but thank goodness we had such impartial legal 'experts' on the case to decipher it for us laymen. Hey you'll never guess what their findings were!? Is it that hard to punch the bill's name into Google? Enter "Patient's Choice Act" and there are summaries aplenty. I first read about the bill in the WSJ in May, and that article is link number four: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286548605041517.html Here's a quick non-republican analysis: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/05/ask_the_expert_eight_thoughts.html Here's what the CEO of crunchy-icon Whole Foods has to say about reforming health care. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html IMO the less involvement that conflict-of-interest laden third-party rationing agents have in influence what kind of treatment I get and when, the better. I'd also much rather pay hundreds of dollars into an account that I own and control, and have the un-used balance accumulate, than hand it over to either an insurance company or the government. I also think that it makes much more sense to use health insurance as....insurance...to keep from going under in the event of a medical catastrophe, rather than a monthly pre-payment scheme. I'd also like to be able to buy insurance in a national market, as opposed to being limited to the choices that any given state regulator thinks that I should have. For the people that are uninsurable, IMO it makes much more sense to give them income indexed vouchers that cover most of their costs, and let them decide which providers/treatments work best for them than it does to give the money directly to giant, conflict-of-interest-laden cabal. IMO giving individuals as much control as possible over their health care dollar appeals to me on principle, and I think it also has quite a few practical benefits that come along with it. Whoever offers a plan that's closer to that model will get my support. At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, it looks like that'll be the Republican party. If you like a single-payer, government-as-uber-HMO model, or just think that maximal government control over the entire sector a better way to go - then it makes sense to support the Democrats. If you fall into that camp, it's perfectly fine under these conditions to say that "The Republicans don't have anything to offer that I like and/or approve of." Saying that they haven't offered up anything other than opposition just isn't accurate though. If you want to notch the claim down a bit and state that they have done a miserable job of presenting their plan, arguing on it's behalf, then I'd agree with you. Summary (one is always needed with this poster): Let the individual regulate the industry. Pit individuals against huge corporations. It's worked so well in the past....

It's no wonder why most of the Republicunts on this board have quietly become liberals....too embarrassing to hang to the club membership.

The Book of Mormon's more realistic...it's got Mexicans in it.

You fucking moroni

If it was kinda like hazing at college fraternities, i assume they all laughed it off over a kegger that night as soon as they logged off and left the guy in the chamo pants and black Reeboks, alone and crying quietly to himself about little Trig and the Good Times That Once Were. Except that the guy logged off for good. Sometimes spraying just goes awry, its just meant to be fun, ya know?

It's all fun until somebody gets hurt.

I'm not really into science fiction. That's in the Fantasy genre. Get with it, dood.

Shooter's Bible. Along the lines of one of your titles, "Japan at War: an Oral History". Amazing. Along one of your other threads: "Taliban" and "Jihad: The rise of militant islam in central asia"

Nice point... It seems a wee bit ironic that the old skool folk always want to tell us all how much better their generation was and how useless the up and coming kids are, now Dawg is telling us the future generation is going to have this old skool ethic and look down on the sporto generation of climbers. Can't have it both ways Dawg. Either your generation is the last of the greatest dying breed, or not. Make up your mind already. I climb with 30 somethings and 50 somethings. Love 'em all. Yes, it's a different experience between the two generations (but mostly between individuals, of course), but it seems to me the tradition of intelligent irreverence and love of the mountains runs as strong as it ever did.

One more administrative hassle: most trailheads require a Northwest Forest Pass...annual or by the day...the latter available at NFS ranger stations and, occasionally (but not often), near the trailhead.

I second Dan's picks, too. Note that Dragontail and Little Annapurna requires a pesky, at times hard to get permit, though, and it's heavily patrolled.

Not leaving your house is no guarantee. I heard a talk by one of the country's top lightning researchers at the time, and he recounted a story of a women who was killed by her phone...the bolt struck the line just outside the house. Moral of the story: Hang up or die. Oh, he also stated that getting rid of your ice axe makes no difference whatsoever, although when it's all buzzing and flaming and shit that can be distracting.

Dave, First, check the weather forecast. The Chelan/Sawtooth and Pasayten Wilderness areas tend to have better weather in general, but particularly when we get wetter SW flows, meet your criteria, and have extensive trail systems that allow loops or a point to point. There won't be a lot of snow that time of year. In the Chelan/Sawtooth, my personal favorite is the Oval, Star Peak area. In the Pasayten, consider checking out the Osceola, Carru, and Lago area. Another area you might consider that is also on the dryer/less glaciated side is The Mt. Maude, Fernow, 7 Fingered Jack area, which can be extended to include Cloudy, Sitting Bull, etc if you like. There are more, of course, but that'll give you something to bite into for starters.

What struck me was that no one in the biz knew where they were on the cost per capita curve, and the McCallen providers where surprised and at a loss to explain why they were the highest in the country. The article never suggested or recommended 'imposing' anything, but it seems to be that requiring that this information be provided and disclosed to both to the consuming public and practitioners, would do much to bring the high end outliers in line. Consider it mandatory food labeling (which had done wonders for the ability of consumers to either choose wisely or not give a shit) for health care.

Participating in a 'high risk' activity can reduce other risks, so it's hard to parse things out unless you look at overall lifestyle risk. Alpine climbing requires a certain level of fitness, which reduces the risk of dying earlier than normal of many of the leading causes of death in America, such as congestive heart failure. It also rewards anticipatory behavior, particularly under stress, which may reduce risks in other areas. Finally, it's incredibly satisfying and there's nothing quite like it for reducing stress. Is the life expectancy of an alpine climber shorter or longer than those who do not alpine climb? It doesn't matter to me either way because living is about quality, not quantity. Not living fully during your prime seems like a poor tradeoff for a few mores years drooling into your cream of wheat.

Very moderate, light duty track skiing for a beginner on some Trak NoGlides found in a free pile, so the shoes/boots need not be anything too high zoot. . I'll check on the width (I forgot there were two) and get back to ya.

Will the new health care plan allow us to finally kill Sarah Palin?

This was not a premise of this article. Gawande clearly stated so by comparing McCallen's per capita Medicare costs to El Paso's, an area with nearly identical demographics, culture, and health statistics.