Mountain Project Logo

New and experienced climbers over 50 #37

Eric Engberg · · Westborough, MA · Joined Feb 2017 · Points: 0
dragons wrote:

Orienteering is different from geocaching which is different from letterboxing. I've read about orienteering, but never participated.
Roughly, in orienteering you've got a map and a compass and a set of location points that you're required to get to. There's some means of making sure you actually got to each point, see the wiki page. I suppose you could cheat by using electronics.
In geocaching, you're given the GPS where the cache (often an ammo box) is located and you just have to go find it. So far as I recall, you're supposed to take an item and also leave an item. Not really sure about how you "cheat" here, since so far as I can tell, you just get to the cache however you like.
In letterboxing, you're given clues, and have to figure out how to get to the cache. To me that's more fun than geocaching. You've got your own rubber stamp and you're supposed to stamp your book with the letterbox's stamp, and then stamp the letterbox's book with your own stamp, kind of exchanging stamp "signatures". That's one thing I've done in the past. I discovered a letterbox by accident, and became hooked.

Orienteering is a decades old relative formalized RACE.  Lots of variants - night-o, ski-o, bike-o...

The others are much more recent - more akin to fantasy QUESTS

Emil Briggs · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2013 · Points: 140
apogee wrote:

I read an Editor's commentary in National Review this morning on the subject of the changes made to the OBBB- the great majority of the piece spoke to changes that a typical conservative Republican would appreciate, including preserving tax cuts, Medicaid changes, SALT adjustments, and so forth. There isn't a single mention of the public lands sale provision, and it only just barely mentions the impact this will have to the deficit. For this group, not surprising that there wouldn't be much on the former, but the latter should be front and present in the mind of any true conservative. NR commonly calls out the media bias that exists...they really need to look in the mirror themselves.

I read the  SALT article and my main takeaway is that NR editors are a bunch of assholes. It's no secret the states SALT applies to are donor states who pay more to the federal government in taxes than they get back even with the SALT deduction. Meanwhile low tax Republican states are welfare states who get subsidized through the federal government by states like California, New York and New Jersey. This has been going on for generations and is one of the reasons those red states can keep their state and local taxes low. The editors criticize SALT states for having high state and local taxes but don't criticize the red states for being welfare states.

apogee · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 0

I don't know that the editors are 'assholes' per se, but they certainly show the same bias on facts and information as any other media source. Makes taking them seriously when they whine about media bias pretty hard to do, and reinforces the reality that there is no media source that is entirely 'unbiased', and it is entirely up to ourselves to round out our understanding.

Edit to add: I listened to the NR Editors podcast for a while, and while I do appreciate Rich Lowry, I gained the impression that most of the other editors can be excessively dramatic in expressing their views. There is also the sense that NR knows their form of conservatism is clearly on the downswing with the GOP in recent years, and that they are struggling to remain relevant and heard in all the media noise. Probably explains why some of their stuff can be a bit hyperbolic at times. I wonder how William F Buckley would see this...

Emil Briggs · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2013 · Points: 140
apogee wrote:

I don't know that the editors are 'assholes' per se, but they certainly show the same bias on facts and information as any other media source. Makes taking them seriously when they whine about media bias pretty hard to do, and reinforces the reality that there is no media source that is entirely 'unbiased', and it is entirely up to ourselves to round out our understanding.

Edit to add: I listened to the NR Editors podcast for a while, and while I do appreciate Rich Lowry, I gained the impression that most of the other editors can be excessively dramatic in expressing their views. There is also the sense that NR knows their form of conservatism is clearly on the downswing with the GOP in recent years, and that they are struggling to remain relevant and heard in all the media noise. Probably explains why some of their stuff can be a bit hyperbolic at times. I wonder how William F Buckley would see this...

One thing that stood out to me from recent events is the way NR initially tried to muddy the waters about the Minnesota shooters political preferences. The way they did this was trumpeting the fact that Gov. Dayton, a Dem, appointed him to a nonpartisan board and then Walz reappointed him. This even though the guy was a conservative evangelical and strong Trump supporter.

But here's the thing, the law creating the board specifies it's supposed to represent a diverse range of people across industry. If only Dems were appointed that could have been used to claim discrimination against conservatives which NR has often done in the past. Appoint a conservative who turns into a violent criminal and they'll claim he's a leftist. So kind of a no win situation. I'm sure the NR editors knew better but they chose to do it anyway.

As for WFB he would probably look at the current incarnation and say WTF?

WF WF51 · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2020 · Points: 0
Emil Briggs wrote:

One thing that stood out to me from recent events is the way NR initially tried to muddy the waters about the Minnesota shooters political preferences. The way they did this was trumpeting the fact that Gov. Dayton, a Dem, appointed him to a nonpartisan board and then Walz reappointed him. This even though the guy was a conservative evangelical and strong Trump supporter.

But here's the thing, the law creating the board specifies it's supposed to represent a diverse range of people across industry. If only Dems were appointed that could have been used to claim discrimination against conservatives which NR has often done in the past. Appoint a conservative who turns into a violent criminal and they'll claim he's a leftist. So kind of a no win situation. I'm sure the NR editors knew better but they chose to do it anyway.

As for WFB he would probably look at the current incarnation and say WTF?

Did you see the new biography of Buckley? 

Emil Briggs · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2013 · Points: 140
WF WF51 wrote:

Did you see the new biography of Buckley? 

I have not read it yet. My overall view of WFB is decidedly negative but he did try to use reason to promote his viewpoints. The current crop of conservative intellectuals is more like a bunch of monkeys throwing feces.

apogee · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 0

I did watch this WFB documentary (there's another one out, isn't there?)- he was definitely a mixed bag of actions over the course of his life, but his role in conservatism in his era was pretty impressive. His smarmy attitude could be pretty off-putting, but his debating with forceful logic made him a formidable opponent in any discussion.

Among the current NR editors, Lowry and Dougherty are reasonable to listen to (even if you don't agree with them), but Geraghty & Rothman often fit in the category of fecal launching hominids, with Cooke somewhere in between.

In terms of reasonably rational conservative perspective, NR is about the only one out there- pretty much any other media source that is considered 'conservative' is just a cesspool of hyperbolic ranting and disinformation. The mushroom cloud of populist brainless thinking has eclipsed about everything out there.

John Gill · · Colorado · Joined Apr 2019 · Points: 27
apogee wrote:

 I wonder how William F Buckley would see this...

Or Theodore Roosevelt.

Nick Goldsmith · · NEK · Joined Aug 2009 · Points: 470

My dad was a hard core conservative who killed fascists in 1944 and 45. He usually thought that the govt was right and we should obey the law. He would be absolutely horrified right now. 

WF WF51 · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Oct 2020 · Points: 0
Emil Briggs wrote:

I have not read it yet. My overall view of WFB is decidedly negative but he did try to use reason to promote his viewpoints. The current crop of conservative intellectuals is more like a bunch of monkeys throwing feces.

The biography won't change your mind. 

Victor Creazzi · · Lafayette CO · Joined Nov 2022 · Points: 0
Terry E wrote:

Victor, I’m wondering if the book you read was one of these and if so, which one?

“Wayfinding: The Art and Science of How We Find and Lose Our Way” by Michael Bond  

or 

“Wayfinding: The Science and Mystery of How Humans Navigate the World” by M. R. O'Connor

Thanks!

Ah. It was the book by M. R. O'Connor

apogee · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 0

Does anyone really think we are likely to bomb Iran? As usual, Congress isn’t showing any inclination to be associated with such a decision- maintaining such distance will save their political bacon when it went completely upside down. The decision is pretty much Trump’s- most of his MAGA  base doesn’t want to be involved with such international entanglements, and then there is the well-established fact that TACO…he doesn’t seem to like actual physical conflict and wars in general. Seems like the likelihood of bombing Iran is very low, and his claims of ‘I might…or I might not’ are just the usual bloviation. If not for his childish impulsivity, this would feel much more secure.

Emil Briggs · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2013 · Points: 140
apogee wrote:

Does anyone really think we are likely to bomb Iran? As usual, Congress isn’t showing any inclination to be associated with such a decision- maintaining such distance will save their political bacon when it went completely upside down. The decision is pretty much Trump’s- most of his MAGA  base doesn’t want to be involved with such international entanglements, and then there is the well-established fact that TACO…he doesn’t seem to like actual physical conflict and wars in general. Seems like the likelihood of bombing Iran is very low, and his claims of ‘I might…or I might not’ are just the usual bloviation. If not for his childish impulsivity, this would feel much more secure.

I tend to agree with you that it's unlikely to happen. He enjoys being the center of attention but can get that just as readily from threats as from actual conflict with less risk of things going sideways. That being said he's deteriorating mentally at an ever increasing pace and, unlike his first term, is surrounded entirely by sycophants. So while the chances are small they're not zero.

Lori Milas · · Joshua Tree, CA · Joined Apr 2017 · Points: 240
Alex Smith wrote:

Yes. They are itching to try out their high altitude spy plane gravity bunker busting bomb. 

A hammer needs a nail

I’m with Alex.

I seem to recall Trump was just a few months into his first term when he ordered the “Mother of all Bombs” on Afghanistan with a lot of bluster about how terrified Afghan forces (and civilians) were.  

During his early briefings wasn’t he overly inquisitive about using nuclear weapons?  Also given his aggressiveness with ICE and immigration, I think he likes to be seen as the strongman.  


So I think if he can possibly support bombing Iran (not antagonizing Congress too much), he’ll use that Bunker Buster.  It’ll be a Big Beautiful Bomb. 

M M · · Maine · Joined Oct 2020 · Points: 2

But if we can just give the bombs to Israel and let them blow people up it won't make our hands dirty right?

I wonder what our massive defense industry thinks

apogee · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 0

I hope you are all wrong, and it wouldn't be surprising if it turned out that this has all been a(nother) Big Beautiful Bloviating Bluster. On the other hand, it wouldn't be surprising if Trump's erratic behavior resulted in going big, too. 

All of this chaos is exhausting.

Lori Milas · · Joshua Tree, CA · Joined Apr 2017 · Points: 240

I seem to always get in trouble on Hunk Rock. I don’t know why but there’s always a white knuckle moment on an approach or descent.  Now that I’m almost a professional stemming pro I wanted to check out this corner.  I know there is a route here.  Dihedrals are going to be my new Superpower.  




I encountered a very fast red racer on my way down. We almost had words. But look at this beautiful fella who I saw yesterday.  At least 4 feet, maybe 5.    


How about this one?  

Emil Briggs · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Sep 2013 · Points: 140
M M wrote:

But if we can just give the bombs to Israel and let them blow people up it won't make our hands dirty right?

I wonder what our massive defense industry thinks

You need planes capable of carrying them and Israel doesn't have those. I'm not an expert on the subject but from what I've read one reason Israel refrained so long from attacking Iran directly in an attempt to eliminate their nuclear facilities was because they knew they didn't have the necessary capability. The distances are large and the targets are heavily fortified. The one hope of success was getting the US to join in.

M M · · Maine · Joined Oct 2020 · Points: 2

California king snakes are beautiful snakes! 

Lori Milas · · Joshua Tree, CA · Joined Apr 2017 · Points: 240
M M wrote:

California king snakes are beautiful snakes! 

This is a snake I desperately wanted to pick up, he was just so pretty.  His skin looked like black and white velvet.  

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "New and experienced climbers over 50 #37"

Log In to Reply
Welcome

Join the Community! It's FREE

Already have an account? Login to close this notice.