tvashtarkatena

If you have one party member who is comfy downclimbing the pyramid, you could fix a single rope, and have the other party members down climb with a prussik backup. Last person pulls the rope and down climbs without it.

Old School understated. What is it with these extreme skiers?

Atlas Shrugged, OK? Nuff said.

Sorry, bro, I meant Pearly Gates climbing crag in Leavenworth. You had be confused for a moment there!

I was hoping to get up to the Pearly Gates and some other spots. Anyone solo folks to head out that way, too?

Unfortunately, this landmark study does not explain why liberal women are hotter and liberal men get laid more. Inquiring minds....

Killin it. Thanks for stoke inducing pics.

Damn. Tough week for our Canadian friends. Condolences.

All the world loves a scold.

Yes, I softened my kneejerk viewpoint after researching the issue a bit. I don't drink, so personally, I don't really care that much either way. As a matter of public policy, I think the data supporting such a move is not as robust as the NTSB indicates, and the results seem to be mixed.

The NTSB is charged with keeping accident stats, investigating public transportation accidents, and helping the victims of same. They are making a recommendation, but states would have to pass the measure and state and local governments enforce it. They really don't have a $$$ dog in this fight.

BALLER

Oh, man. Terrible. Condolences.

Europe's the place to look at. All but 3 countries have had the lower .05 limit for over a decade now. As you can imagine, its complicated and many of the results ambiguous. There really isn't that much out there to draw from, either, so everyone gloms onto to any study that does come out. I found this paper, which concludes: "The estimation results for the total fatality rates are reported in Table 5. Specifications (1) and (2) show that the coefficients associated with the 0.5 mg/ml BAC limit are not significant neither for the total fatality rate per population nor for the total fatality rate per Km driven. On the contrary, when I use as a key policy variable the interaction between BAC limits and Random Checks in models (3) and (4) I find an important negative impact even at the 5% level of significance in the latter model. This result suggests that lowering BAC levels does not have a global impact unless this regulation is enforced in practice by random checks on the road. Thus, when these two regulatory measures go together both fatality rates seem to decline substantially. The fatality rate on population declines a 4.3% while the fatality rate on km driven falls a 6.1%." In other words (per the author), you need random sobriety checkpoints AND a lower limit - not just the latter. While the former are legal, with restrictions, there are limited studies indicating that saturation DUI patrols in problem areas are more effective. As uzhe, there's a dearth of studies about any of this stuff. It seems that the only population effected by the .05 limit was men 20-49. Other relevant factors are cars per 1000 population (development). Condition of a nation's main roads also appeared to be a (less significant) factor. This will put you to sleep in a hurry: Linky The question is whether reducing drunk driving fatalities by 3 to 6% (or whatever it will be) is worth the required extra enforcement, economic, and social costs of such a move, and whether another policy would serve to produce the same or better result more cost effectively. Hell, I don't know. In the end, each state would have to enact the new limit separately. Some other countries do take their DUI laws more seriously. In NZ I was warned - if you drink at all, DON'T DRIVE. It's not like the States here.

Fuck all yall. Lowering to .08 did help a lot - in addition to much stricter enforcement, penalties, and verification (required treatment, piss tests, blah, blah). Seems appropriate. One beer is going to 'impair' you. Two will 'impair' you more. The question is, who's causing the bulk of the accidents, and how should the state target that particular group most effectively? The NTSB does have an agenda - to stay in business and keep their funding. Just like any agency. They should provide links to the actual studies from which they draw their conclusions (like the I502 campaign did). That's the modern way of upping your cred. Frankly, I couldn't find any studies in the 60 precious seconds I devoted to looking for them. - it's all government website soundbites out there. It would be ridiculous to focus on the 2 beer crowd while the 10 beer crowd continues to plow into minivans filled with innocent children and puppies. There's an opportunity cost to every policy. If anyone does come up with them, that would be kewl. Meanwhile...FUCK OFF, BOTH OF YOU!!!!!!

You might consult a less biased source there, Rob. Buttfuckit, in 30 years, nobody but robots will be driving. Bottomz up!

I wonder how many drunk driving accidents cited occur for people with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. This all smacks of nanny-gov't puritanical BS to me. Good on you if you don't like alcohol - it's junk calories, but some of us like a couple or three beers after a climb or at a concert/ballgame/whatever. More accurately, its a fleecing operation. Accidents, particularly the serious ones, are being caused by hardcore drunks who are fucking blottoed, not by working stiffs who've had a couple of beers. The public should strongly oppose any attempt to lower the already very low limit further. Stricter policies have been very successful at addressing the problem. Now its time to provide more widespread, AFFORDABLE, and effective (AA cerca 1930 - seriously?) treatment and education for alcohol abuse - particularly targeting teens. That's where being a drunk starts for most folks with a problem.

That's what I thought when I read it. Now look where he is. Not a good lotto number.

Fortunately, many Americans are large enough to swim inside a beer truck for an hour and still drive home legally.

I realize your reply is probably tongue and cheek, but the gentleman who wrote the account I posted didn't kill anyone, apparently. Like a majority of the 80 or so detainees who remain in Cuba, he was deemed to not be a threat years ago by the US, has never been charged with any crime, yet he remains imprisoned. He was captured in Afghanistan after going there to seek work.

Force feeding is actually excruciating, according to the detainee's account I posted previously. And, if you step back a bit, you might consider that that detainee shouldn't be in anyone's custody at all. He should be back home, living his life.

I was shocked to see this brand new campaign on the front page of the NYTimes so quickly. Gay weed wins you the mike, I reckon.

Gallup hawking its Editor in Chief's new book, which is full of 'bold' predictions. No surprise there. Gettin' any election predictions right these days, boyz? Love the comments about religions salubrious effect on health and wellbeing. Statistically, our brethren below the Mason Dixon are rocking the bottom of the bell curve on those stats - obesity, smoking, education, teen pregnancies, divorce rates, alcoholism...pick one, any one. Still...those poor, Dogless Hawaiians!

Think again That's the ACLU of WA's Legal Director Sarah Dunne, fighting the good fight. Go Sarah!

Oh man, I'm already several levels out of my pay grade here. I PREDICT...the earth will get warmer. So much of decisions like this depend on the individual judges involved. Off the cuff, I'd say the last minute, obviously political nature of the appeal doesn't help it any, but it's a wacky world out there. Sometimes waiting until the last minute helps your case - it gives the other side less time to respond before the next deadline rolls around.