tvashtarkatena

The viewpoint that The Imuscide was somehow a watershed moment is a bit naive. It was more like a concatenation of events that resulted in a rare but perfect media storm. 80's era shock jock meets social climate change meets ratings losing company meets really slow news weekend meets extremely sympathetic and undeserving target of insult with a dash of Sharpton and Co. It's a story about a company firing a radio DJ who pulls in $15 million in revenues a year. That's a chunk of change, but barely a line item on CBS's balance sheet. Ie, not a very big story in the scheme of things, but hey, what else was the country going to talk about at Easter Dinner? The only thing that made this story a remotely social issue, really, is that Imus made his remark on public airwaves licensed by the FCC. Still, those who argue for his firing (as anything other than an at will employment business decision on the part of CBS) might think further about the implications of such actions should the political climate change. What if a radio personality gets fired for going against the social tide by, say, critizing the war or defending muslims? All the same principles apply. By this reasoning I'm very leary to jump on the lynch Imus bandwagon (full disclosure; I hadn't heard of him before the story broke, and have never heard his program). And I'm dead against a government agency regulating this kind of speech. Don't like what's on? Then turn the fucking thing off. Meanwhile, back at the studio, other shock jocks will continue to say what they want, although they'll probably drop 'nappy headed hos' from their repetoires, until their schticks become too stale to make the ratings. Cable/Broadband, happily a zone where freedom of speech still survives, continues to eat broadcast alive. It's bidness as usual.

To the 'unfettered ownership' crowd: As long as admit that you are trading off a much increased death and injury rate from guns (accidents, suicides, and assaults) and you're willing to accept that price (that others, and perhaps someday you or someone around you pay) to have your guns anytime you want them, fine. If, however, you argue that there wouldn't be as many violent deaths or serious injuries if guns were more difficult to come by, you're self-delusional and, at least in my eyes, probably not the brightest bulb on the marquee. Even if the level of violence remained the same, guns are so much more lethal than any other weapon that the death/serious injury rate from guns would plummet if their numbers were decreased. Guns are also an 'impulsive' weapon. Bludgeoning and cutting weapons not so much so. It's much, much easier to shoot someone from a distance than to lethally attack them any other way. Again, the decreased availability of this option would result in decreased severity and lethality of person to person violence. The statistics back this up, but who in their right mind would seriously argue against the obvious? It's really, really hard to kill 22 people with a machete and a baseball bat.

I propose a new calendar: BIBD (Before IB Disaster) and AIBD. It was this watershed moment, when the world held it's breath, that spawned the MLU madness that is currently robbing our freedoms far more effectively than any terrorists could ever dream of doing!

If Al Gore had half a conscience he'd be organizing Earth Aid Routes!

Redwoods!

I'd like a Via Ferrata, but I can only afford a Subaru.

Uncomfortable? Ask a starving baby gorilla that depends on tender lichen for it's sustenance!

And how dare any of you accuse deeply concerned environmental advocates such as myself, who have spent so much valuable time trying to reverse the destructive tide of bolts, of a neurotic, masturbatory effort to satisfy my need to force other climbers to conform to my obviously superior ethics? How many of you walk the path of purity from your grass hut to the trailhead, as I do, stepping gently to avoid crushing any mites or redwood seedlings that may cross my path? How many of you have lovingly carried small baggies filled with soil and lichen to fill the bolt, no BULLET holes, so heartlessly punched into Mother Nature's temples of rock?

Where will this visual assault on the purity of Mother Nature end? Shall we spray paint the Grand Canyon safety orange? Turn Crater Lake into a laser lit computer controlled fountain? St. Helens into a NASCAR track? And the lichens? What of the lichens that have been lost to the unsatiated appetite of the drill?

I, for one, cannot believe any of you would treat this issue in any manner other than with the gravity it deserves. Humanity stands at the brink of the abyss, staring down the loaded chuck of a gas powered drill into a dismal, bolt-choked future.

We must all spend every waking minute chopping bolts, starting now, if we are to avert a global catastrophe. There is absolutely nothing more important one can do with one's time at this late juncture.

This is the most important issue of our time. Anyone who does not care about how bolting is destroying the planet should look a crying mother gorilla whose baby has just been killed by a fallen redwood in the eyes.

Every hour you spend not chopping bolts is an hour of life lost for a redwood tree.

Bolts are the number one cause of global warming and gorilla infant mortality.

Every time you clip a bolt, Hitler kills a baby gorilla.

I like watching angry little things hit other angry little things.

Hair pie

Hair pie

pie

Hair

Looks like they followed Petzl's lead and went with stainless heads to reduce melt out. They still feature that annoying little flip out crank...tough to manipulate in colder temps with thicker gloves on.

Excellent arrest, though, I must grant you that.

I'm fighting the urge to be cruel right now...

Old is between not old and dead.

Nah, dis fuhnneh. Imus goin' ta Al Shopton fo fo-givnss'z lahk a 13 year ole boy goin' toa Cathlic pries' ta confess his penchance fo chokin' his chicken: dey both boun' ta win' up witta dick up dey ass!