Matt Kidd

irony

Very emotive - you fit in "chaos", "murder", AND "freedom" in one sentence. Is this the O'Reilly Factor?

Being offensive is part and parcel of free speech. Bombing those who offend you, or slitting their throats is not. So by being offensive you are becoming a champion of free speech? Very admirable.

"Islamofuckistan" Who could think anything like this could be offensive?

[quote=ClimbingPanther We all know religions can go through phases of evil, such as the Inquisition in Christianity, but a religion that goes through a phase and recovers is different from a religion whos very nature is evil. I'm not drawing conclusions here, but posing a question. Is this phase of Islam (widespread acceptance of violence in the name of Allah) just a phase, or is it the very nature of the religion? Read Karen Armstrong's "Islam" - a former nun writing a very good history. You are describing a religion as being in an evil phase. Where does that leave the Muslims who do not advocate violence? What I am saying is that it is how religion is practiced that is important. Any religion can be abused.

I'd rather have the conversation over a beer. Lots to talk about and I'm supposed to be writing a paper. Nonetheless, I did chime in so I guess I better respond. "Howz'bout the notion that fundamentalism breeds extremism? Or howz'bout the notion that intolerance breeds extremism, eh?" My definition of extremism would tend to include religious fundamentalism. For the latter, I agree. I would suggest that there is not a great deal of tolerance or understanding being displayed on either side. I just get frustrated that people don't seem interested in the roots these statements. Won't go into a long historical review, I'm sure that you know that the Middle East has enjoyed a lot of interest from "us" for quite a while now. Now, with all their oil wealth, there is still such an incredible rich/poor divide with many suffering people. I would suggest that such people would be prone to extremism. And those within the society who desire political control have plenty of fodder with which to agitate. That is what happens with these cartoons/movies, they become exploited. To me, it's not so much about whether we should have the "right" to offend people, it is that we should take stock of what we say and consider whether it is having a positive or negative effect upon the world. But it is a complicated issue, as censorship always is. "But it would seem that the pacifist "let 'em run all over us and beat us into the ground" approach ain't working very well, either. You have another suggestion? " When was this happening? I can't say that the West has EVER been pacifist regarding the Middle East. VERY interventionist. I only mentioned my friend because it is relevant to the discussion. If in Canada two educated young men will beat a brown person almost to death for 9/11, then it logically follows that the suffering of some Muslim people would provoke others to violence. I see several factors responsible here. One is foreign policy - lots of adventures in the Middle East that have led to the deaths of Muslims. Another aspect to this is the sponsorship of repressive regimes. Another (a topic which I'm not willing to wade into in depth) is the support of the state of Israel. Another, and I think that this one is REALLY significant and rarely talked about - oppressive rulers that gain political advantage by blaming outside forces for their people's problems. If they blame America and Israel for their people's problems, then their people will not be focused on them. Maybe hatred isn't the way to phrase it. Maybe it's derision, maybe it's distaste. I don't know. That video was more disturbing to me in how it was meant to make us think about Muslims. It just makes me furious that it seems to work, that such a nutcase becomes a champion for free speech.

I can't believe how much hatred is in this thread. Yes there is some crazy shit on that video. But the idea that Islam is an evil religion is equally crazy. No religion is inherently good or bad. How about the notion that suffering breeds extremism? A Moroccan friend of mine was put into a coma post-9/11 by being beaten with a baseball bat by two University of British Columbia Engineering students. Because his skin was brown. Lots of people respond to extreme situations with violence. All this polarizing "us versus them" shit is really harmful.

Demonstrating a thorough understanding of the topic, based upon a credible source concerning climate change. Why argue?

"Out of Gas" David Goodstein

There are many more types than that, and many of them don't split the vote in the way you describe.

Can you imagine regularly having two ideologically aligned parties splitting the vote every election cycle and throwing the victory to a candidate that only a small minority of voters want? There are other electoral systems that prevent this.

Flesh Gordon is in your neck of the woods - works in an Italian Caffe on Commercial Drive...

Hard to forget the video of Steve House on gear used on Nanga Parbat - Using entirely different tools. A lot can be done without the "ideal", so I wouldn't worry about it too much. If it happens that you need new picks then I would go for consistency, but otherwise I would just switch hands once in a while so you get used to swinging both. Just my opinion, good luck!

You have to admit that they're effective at getting what they want in business... a national model for business makes for a strong bargaining position.

That's not the ideology that you're talking about, that's the practice. The ideology was based upon agrarian revolution and the emancipation of the peasant class (as opposed to the proletariat). This Mao's weak attempt at claiming the Chinese revolution was Marxist. The ideology was based upon helping the peasants. Your evaluation of the consequences seems pretty fair to me, though the largest number of deaths resulted from foolish economics not murder. I'd argue that China is returning in many ways to its Imperial model. Keeping the control politically, but interfering less in economics. The problem as I see it is that that the liberalization going on undermines their ideology, and thus their political legitimacy. Makes them all the more likely to respond harshly to political attacks (read: Tibet, other religious/political groups, and the possible consequences if Taiwan ever declares independence). Just my thoughts...

Or get one of these... http://www.bdel.com/gear/atc_xp.php

In the words of my Anarchist cousin, "I don't see what the big deal is about the Dalai Lama - he's just a fucking aristocrat!"

So was Halliburton, don't worry, it'll blow over.

I'm not really going to argue with you - it is likely at least partially a fabrication based upon the source. It is just supposed to be funny, but has at least some elements of truth. The caretaker was a pretty low-key guy and I have a hard time seeing him conspiring with Bob and Jim about the phone call for the sake of a silly story. It's all speculation about the insurance and charges etc. That's what they said and it makes for a better story (which is quite possibly why they said it). I disagree that an insurance company would just pay out, though. ICBC gave my 50+year old mother the third degree about a parking lot hit and run on her car - "this damage says that YOU hit something". If they suspected fraud they'd pursue it.

I'd be interested to hear some refections comparing the Metolius with the new C3s.

I suppose because they lied about the context of the event.

What would your list look like if you included geopolitical considerations?

JayB Gains need not be merely in the resource sector. Gaining geopolitical advantage and maintaining/expanding spheres of influence are also important. That said, I could never see the US getting involved in Tibet. Just as in the Cold War significant powers generally avoid interfering in each other's established spheres of influence unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

I'm inclined to agree. Bit of a shocking temper, and likely to get him in some hot water. Aside from the overkill of his retaliation, now if Yellow Geo recognizes Bob's truck at the base of another climb he's in for it. Hard for me not to like them generally, though, as the next day Jim dislocated his shoulder on a mixed route, and when they left they gave us several salmon steaks and some ground moose. Greatly improved our meals, let me tell you. Maybe not karmically balanced, but closer in my mind...

My story is one where "the bad guys got theirs" in the end. I was told it at Rampart Hostel on the Icefields Parkway. Anyway, over dinner these two nice guys (I can't remember their names so lets call them Bob and Jim) told us a story about a day out on Weeping Wall. Apparently they were about to start up right-hand when a second party of two arrived. These guys asked what they were going to climb to which Bob and Jim replied right-hand and something on the upper tier. One of the other party asks "So you're for sure climbing something on the upper tier?" to which they replied "yes". So at the top of right hand Bob and Jim decide they're done for the day and rap off, while the other party is about to start pitch 3 on left-hand. When they get to the bottom they find their gear gone (camera, belay jacket, misc), but their pack still there. Just to be sure they check their car, and recheck their bag, and then check their car again. Nothing. So, convinced that someone came off the road and ripped them off, they're about to leave. Then Bob suggests "Why don't we check their packs" (the other party's). This is brushed off by the Jim, who says "they wouldn't rip us off, that'd be stupid". But Bob persists and they trudge back up to the base, where curiously the other party hasn't started rapping despite having finished some time ago. Sure enough in their packs is all the missing gear. Bob is furious and wants to climb up and confront them, but Jim convinces him that a death match with ice tools at the top of Weeping Wall is not a great idea. Bob refuses to leave, however. Instead after a great deal of yelling up at the party (who is refusing to come down), Bob goes down to the car and gets his bottle of Jack Daniels, and sets up camp at the base. As is usually the case, drinking the Jack only made Bob angrier, and at around midnight he has decided that he's had enough. Recognizing that he's in no shape for a confrontation, he settles for putting out all the windows, lights, mirrors, etc. on this party's car with his hammer, and generally demolishing it. Satisfied, they went back to the hostel. Then the hostel caretaker takes the story over. He said that a couple days later he got a phone call from the cops. They asked him if he knew people by Bob and Jim's description, and he identified them. He asked what the problem was and the cops said that they had been accused of this vandalism. Apparently the car owner had said that they had been innocently climbing and saw these guys wreck their vehicle. The insurance company smelled a rat and started questioning, and the guy says "Nevermind, I don't want to claim the damage anymore." The insurance company said "Doesn't work like that", and called the cops. So in the end (we'd gotten the story after everything had panned out) the car owner had been denied his claim, and convicted of insurance fraud. Bob and Jim had no charges laid for vandalism. Bob and Jim said to watch your gear if you ever climb near a party with a yellow Geo Tracker.