El Capitan

El Capitan. The Nose is the prominent buttress on the sun/shade line.


Sam and I racking up. Our haul bag was about 100lbs on day one (48 lbs of water, plus bivy gear, plus clothes for storms, plus food).


Picture of me leading in the Stoveleg Cracks taken from El Cap meadow - telephoto lense. (The guy on the right is from a different party. They are bailing down the rap route after getting soaked in a thunderstorm.)


Picture taken from El Cap meadow of Sam and I with a huge telephoto lense.


Mmmmm...breakfast on El Cap Tower. This was our bivy for the first night. Top of pitch 14.


Nother shot of El Cap Tower.


This is me lowering out for the King Swing (top of pitch 16). I lowered out about 80 feet, then ran back and forth like mad to get over to the next crack system. It took me about 7 tries. I finally made it after running as hard as possible and screaming out at the top of my lungs; Ahhhhhhhh, got it.

Sam leading pitch 17.

Sam leading the pitch below the Great Roof.

Camp VI bivy. This ledge was the size of a small kitchen table.

Looking down from Camp VI. My shoulder basically hung off this during the night, but I slept well (securely tied in). The Nose route begins on the buttress sticking out way below.

Sam leading the second to last pitch.

My yellow helmet from a belay.

Me leading the last pitch and looking down 3,000 feet.

We were benighted on the route down and bivied here on the East Ledges desent.

Most awesome rock route I've ever done. It ended up being a little harder than I thought, but we did free about half the route. We were rained on (+ hail and lightning and 35 mph gusts) on the first day, and on the 2nd-4th days we were climbing by 6 am about every day, but had to climb late every day. We didn't reach Camp VI until 11pm.

Beautiful route. Probably the hardest physical thing I've ever done. It wasn't easy to wake up on day 3 and 4 and still have thousands of feet to climb.

Loved it. I have wanted to climb the Nose since I first heard about it as a teenager.

3 days, 3000 ft, 21 pitches led, two sleepless nights thousands of feet high, bloody/bruised/swollen hands, and a successful attempt on El Cap?

Brian bagged it. Good job babe! You're a real ROCK star!!

Needless to say I am OVERJOYED to have B-honey back at rocky. Despite the lack of privacy, our new home has actually really grown on me! I'm loving it-- plus I had an anonymous doner offer me a few dollars for a rug and some flowers. Amazing the difference that can make!

Too much

I arrived Saturday night to my "home" in Rocky Mountain National Park after a marathon week. It was a good week, but I arrived exhausted. I moved into a little house built in the 1930s (you know it's not a good sign when you have to sign a waiver before moving in). I think with a little work I can make it livable. My job started this morning. I found out I can get a cat. I think I'm going to-- for company and for the mice. Pictures of my trip to Yosemite to follow and our new place.

Brian is climbing the nose today- thurs. Looks like thunderstorms and I feel sick to my stomach.

All good things

So this was my last day as a River Ranger. Short lived, I know, but here are some highlights from the last few weeks as well as a photo of the "boat shop"-- I'm sure ya'll are somewhat confused when I keep saying that, but after seeing the photo that might clarify.

While I was on a four day patrol of the Green River (54 miles through Canyonlands). Clay, Leslie and me hiked to the Confluence of the Green and Colorado right in the heart of the park.

This is from my four day patrol down the Colorado River. Brian got to come for the first three days and then he switched with Krissy and she came for the rest. It was also a 50 mile trip. We had awesome weather the whole time and ate like kings! One of the perks of a river trip vs. backpacking.

The boat shop!

National Debt

Is anyone else alarmed about our huge national debt?

Here are some facts:

The national debt is currently a little more than 11 trillion dollars. That's about $36,000 per citizen of the United States. This isn't credit card or home loan debt. This is the debt that the federal government has run up through operating the federal government and its various departments and services.

The total US debt (federal, state, and local governments, plus businesses, and private debt like credit cards, mortgages, and car loans, is about 57 trillion dollars). That is $190,000 per citizen.

To put that in perspective, in 2008 the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the United States was 14 trillion dollars. That's about $47,000 per citizen.

So, on average, each person makes $47,000 per year, and owes $190,000. Wow.

I understand that some debt is necessary to build buildings, start businesses, obtain education, and even to boost the economy at times, but I think America borrows excessively.

Currently, the plan is to expand that debt by trillions more dollars in the next few years. This has already happened with the bailout and stimulus bills, and will continue to happen as the federal government expands socialist programs.

The purposed federal budget is 3.4 trillion dollars for fiscal year 2010. Two thirds of that are paid by taxes. The remaining third will be borrowed.

Where does all that borrowed money come from? The government borrows money from everyone; us citizens, foreigners individuals, foreign governments, basically anyone that wants to buy treasury securities.

Asia holds about 60% of the public debt.

I don't really see how running the government like this is sustainable. Right now, about 9% of the annual federal budget goes to pay interest on borrowed money. 9 percent of all the taxes the federal government collects goes to pay interest! It goes down the tubes!

Wouldn't it be better to save money, and earn 9% interest per year by loaning that money to other countries?

This problem will never be solved, or even seriously addressed in the current system of government. Politicians have no motivation to balance the budget. In fact, if they tried to do so by cutting spending and raising taxes, we'd all vote them out of office!

I think that passing an ammendment to the constitution which requires the federal government to balance the budget and pay off the national debt is the only way to ever solve this problem. It would hurt. All of us would pay a lot in taxes. The government would have to cut spending. We'd probably go into a huge recession. But, right now we're just making the problem worse by borrowing more and more money to pay for what we can't afford. Interest payments as a percentage of the federal budget will only increase.

This plan would at least cut the political adgenda out of the picture. All politicians would be unpopular because they'd have to cut spending and increase taxes. Right now, there is no incentive for any politician to address this issue.

Maybe we should turn the whole mess over to Google. They'll be running everything soon anyway :)

Brian

Traditional Marriage

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I support proposition 8 which passed in California last fall.

Here are the reasons I feel strongly about this issue:

Secular arguments in support of traditional marriage:

1. Traditional marriage is an institution as old as history itself. The very definition of marriage is "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law". The institution of marriage has always been, and continues to be, a societal institution designed to priviledge and limit the procreative power shared by a man and a woman who desire to be united together. This institution has existed unchanged for thousands of years as the very basis of society. (Yes I recognize that arranged marriages and plural marriages have also existed at various times and in various cultures. The point is still that they are male + female = marriage).

It is not the right of gay people to re-define this most basic of all societal institutions and to force that definition upon the majority of the world. If marriage is re-defined legally, it will have broad societal impacts that will take away freedoms from people who support traditional marriage. For example, same-sex marriage will be required curriculum in schools, private adoption services will be forced to give away children to same-sex couples, and churches and other private facilities will be forced host both traditional and same-sex weddings, even if building owners do not want to host same sex weddings. Those in favor of traditional marriage will be labeled as bigots, when in reality, they are only trying to protect their fundamentals beliefs and values. Changing the definition of marriage would not simply allow a segment of the population to do as they wish. In reality, it would re-define the most fundamental societal unit for the rest of the population, and force that changed definition upon them in numerous ways.

In summary, marriage has always been a union between man and woman designed to priviledge and limit procreation. Individuals of the same sex should be allowed all the legal benefits of marriage through civil unions, but the definition of marriage does not apply to those unions because they are obviosly non-procreative. Same sex couples fall outside the category of marriage. Marriage is not a union between two people in love who desire to commit to each other. That is part of it, but the very basis and bedrock of marriage is the procreative power. That power only exists between a man and a woman.

2. The preponderance of social science research shows that raising children in a home with a father and a mother is the most ideal situation. Too much to list here, but if you even break the surface of researching this issue, science clearly supports traditional marriage families.

3. Gay health issues. I won't go into detail, but there are a host of medical ailments associated with sexual activity between individuals of the same sex, the least graphic of which is HIV and AIDS.

4. Every human being that has ever lived was created by a man and a woman, and the majority of that procreation has occured within the bonds of marriage. Same-sex couples cannot create human life. They should not force their definition of marriage onto the very society that was created by procreation between men and women.

Spiritual arguments in favor of traditional marriage:

1. Genesis chapters 1 & 2: God created man and woman, Adam and Eve. He married them, and charged them to multiply and replenish the earth. Thus, the first institution in the world was marriage between a man and a woman; an institution designed for procreation.

2. "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html

3. The scriptures denounce homosexual conduct as a sin. Many scriptures cover this issue, but the city of Sodom is a good example. Genesis 19.

4. Christ taught that marriage between man and woman is designed by, and ordained of God. Matthew 19:4-6.

In summary, I realize that this is an emotionally charged issue, and a very challenging one for many people. I also realize that it is not a black and white issue. Some people are born with both male and female reporductive organs, and their parents and doctors "choose" a sex for them. Later in life they may experience same sex attraction through no real choice of their own. I recognize that this is a broad issue, which encompasses biology and how people are raised, as well as agency.

I think that gay people should be loved and treated justly.

However, I do not believe that marriage is intended, healthy, or applicable to same-sex couples. I support them having legal priviledges through civil unions, but do not support re-defining marriage and changing the fundamental unit of society into something it is not.

Thoughts on the issue?

Brian