text:
As humans were evacuated from the area 20 years ago, animals moved in. Existing populations multiplied and species not seen for decades, such as the lynx and eagle owl, began to return.Does this story make you ashamed of what human beings have done to the world? For the animals, a nuclear disaster is preferable to life with us.
There are even tantalising footprints of a bear, an animal that has not trodden this part of Ukraine for centuries....
There is nothing to disturb the wild boar - said to have multiplied eightfold between 1986 and 1988 - except its similarly resurgent predator, the wolf....
[T]he benefits to wildlife of removing people from the zone, have far outweighed any harm from radiation.
April 20, 2006
"A lot of birds are nesting inside the sarcophagus."
66 comments:
- Sean said...
Why would that make me ashamed? People are more interesting than animals. Culture is more interesting than nature. Etc.
- Simon said...
Mainly it makes me wonder why birds, bears and boar would be immune to radiation where humans are not?
Perhaps they are not immune, and they are unaware of the need to leave, while we wring our hands about whether to interfere?
- peter hoh said...
Or perhaps whatever one doesn't have is more appealing than what one has.
I don't find myself feeling ashamed by stories like this. I find them heartening in a rooting-for-the-underdog sort of way.
- MadisonMan said...
I would say that the aftermath of a nuclear disaster is preferable for animals than life with humans. The animals died during the disaster, too. I don't think this story makes me ashamed -- it just underscores man's extremely large impact on local ecologies.
This is also a fascinating story of adaptation to mitigate the effects of radiation. What a treasure trove of data!
Here is the website from a lady who journeyed to Chernobyl. It is eerie
- Bruce Hayden said...
Perhaps it isn't a question of the animals being more resistant to radiation than humans, but rather that we are willing to let them take their own chances with it, and we aren't willing to let our own kind.
In CO here, first it was the Rocky Mtn. Arsonel, filled at one time with chemical weapons. Then it was Rocky Flats, filled at one time with plutonium. Both have turned into wildlife refuges (ok, Rocky Flats is just getting started).
The Arsonel is located between Denver's old and new airports. They built the new one because they wanted a 4th (or 5th?) runway, and some were worried that landing over all that polution at over 100 mph might endanger the passengers. Well, today, all you see there is wildlife. A lot of it, as you drive by on the back way to the new airport. And, surprisingly, none of the deer you see have two heads.
There aren't a lot of preditors in the Arsenal, since it has a pretty good fence around it (to keep humans out). Rocky Flats may be better for that, and is right by some mtn. lion habitat - though both are more wolf (which are just reentering CO) than lion territory.
Sure, all that radiation may slightly increase birth defects. But the absense of humans in all these areas is even more important than that in allowing these wildlife species to flourish.
After all, how bad can a 1% increase in birth defects, or a month or so off the end of a life, be to animals where 50% attrition of the young is considered exceptionally good?
All those Russian swine running lose? They probably see 75% or better attrition their first year. Always have in nature. They just have big litters.
So, I think in the end, I don't feel guilty here, but rather a bit ambivalent.
- Slocum said...
There are even tantalising footprints of a bear, an animal that has not trodden this part of Ukraine for centuries....
I have to say I'm skeptical. Hasn't wandered this part of Ukraine for centuries? Then how did they get to Chernobyl--did they fly in?
In general, I'm not sure how any of this different than any nature preserve -- given that the level of radioactivity has declined to low enough levels that the effects on the animals living there are minimal.
- Icepick said...
Simon, the lower radiation levels present now (as opposed to during the disaster and it's immediate aftermath) might have less impact on animals with shorter life-spans than it would one humans. Also, since most animals breed more often than humans, the can probably deal with more birth defects and still maintain population levels, especially with the absence of the most successful predator.
- SippicanCottage said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- Icepick said...
Slocum, large fauna that were extinct in New England since before Thoreau's time (1840s) have since returned to the area in force. Large animals can roam fairly widely, so it wouldn't be a total surprise if one bear wondered in from parts unknown.
- Freeman Hunt said...
Sure we don't feel guilty now, but when all those creatures mutate into supervillians from the radiation and come to exact their revenge, we'll probably feel differently.
- Icepick said...
And now to amswer Ann's question.
Does this story make you ashamed of what human beings have done to the world? For the animals, a nuclear disaster is preferable to life with us.
Ashamed isn't the right word, not for me. Homo sapiens are just another animal. Our particular adaptations are such that we change the environment to suite our needs. And most of those that came before us couldn't be fully aware of the consequences of their actions. (I doubt that we are really aware ourselves. We're jsut more aware.) Frankly, if you move into a new area, killing all the bear before the bears kill you is a pretty damn good survival strategy!
But the greatest problem for other life has been the invention of agriculture, and all that that allowed. Agriculture requires large amounts of land, which means habitat destruction, which means the moose will flee the area even if you don't hunt them to extinction. And the arts of civilization, which occur naturally from agriculture, serve to further increase the population of humans, requiring more land, etc, etc.
And it's not just land. There are growing deadzones in the oceans too, which are linked directly to large agriculture.
Fortunately, as society's grow richer, they can afford better environmental policies. The return of moose to New England is a result of improved environmental policies. Another would be the improved air quality in places like Pittsburgh over the last 60 years or so. Unfortunately, most of humanity isn't wealthy enough to afford a better environment, and may never be so.
So I'm not ashamed. People are products of nature too, and they are doing what comes naturally. I am concerned, however, about the overall level of habitat destruction we have caused, and continue to cause. But eventually that will sort itself out one way or another.
- Icepick said...
Freeman Hunt wrote: Sure we don't feel guilty now, but when all those creatures mutate into supervillians from the radiation and come to exact their revenge, we'll probably feel differently.
We'll feel differently, but we'll feel stupid instead of guilty. Why didn't WE move there? We could be supervillians too!
- vbspurs said...
Does this story make you ashamed of what human beings have done to the world?
Not being a granola Vermont hippie, I would say the answer is a squishy "no".
Although I do very much hate that hunter who killed Bambi's mum.
- Dave B said...
I'd feel ashamed if the animals knew about the radiation and still chose to live there. But the animals just think they've found a cool place where no humans interfere with them. They're not making the choice between radiation and humans. They're making the choice between humans and no humans.
And even that choice is a stretch. Most of them probably don't even care.
- AJ Lynch said...
This is gist for a good sci-fi movie... I can see it now- Bears and birds gone wild due to radiation combined with a bunch of good Russian vodka left behind.
- SteveR said...
Do I feel ashamed? If animals were allowed to flourish without human intervention, they would be a lot more of them killed by other animals, dying for lack of resources etc. all that natural stuff, its not like a Disney movie where all the animals live in peace until man shows up.
That said we need to be good stewards and learn how to not waste resources yet allow for human progress. Its unrealistic to think we should abandon great swaths of land to the animals, however romantic the idea of millions of buffalo roaming the plains might be. (please ignore the Native Americans running them over a cliff, in the corner of your screen)
- Kirk Parker said...
"Although I do very much hate that hunter who killed Bambi's mum."
Me too, but for different reasons: after seeing the devestation Bambi wrought on our young espalier apple trees, I think the guy shot the wrong deer! :-)
- PatCA said...
"Does this story make you ashamed of what human beings have done to the world?"
Heavens, no! Sentimentalize nature at your own peril (See Grizzly Man, Open Water).
I think they have thrived because the after effects of the incident turned out to be less severe than we thought.
- Marghlar said...
Does this story make you ashamed of what human beings have done to the world? For the animals, a nuclear disaster is preferable to life with us.
What is with everyone here? Is there no ability to step back and say, wow, as a species, we behave like a pretty nasty plague?
That's not to say we have to stop doing it...but an adaptationist species can be very scary, when it expands to occupy nearly every biome on the planet in a way that is pretty hostile to pre-existing ecologies.
I'm not anti-progress, and given the choice between starving a human or shooting a deer, the deer goes every time. I just think it is valuable, in the context of figuring out sane environmental policies, to reflect on such issues every now and again.
- Meade said...
I do think Walt Disney should be ashamed... for traumatizing sweet little children like Victoria.
- Meade said...
What kind of monster sets up innocent children for such anguish?
- CB said...
Contemplating man's impact on nature is fraught with paradox. Scippiancottage wrote, "nature has no opinion." I agree, and add "nature has no morals." Floods and forest fires do not care how many living things they kill, beavers do not do environmental impact studies before building dams, predators don't feel bad about ripping their preys' throats out, and viruses think nothing of killing their hosts.
Obligatory Mr. Burns quote (from memory): "Mother nature started the fight for survival, and now that she's losing, she wants to quit."
- Sanjay said...
Actually I gather the Korea DMZ is a natural paradise. Lots of mines, nobody walks around there, nobody wanders in ... it has become one big wildlife refuge.
- P. Froward said...
For rabbits, Australia is preferable to places where things eat them.
What does that tell you about places where rabbits get eaten?
It tells you that somebody eats rabbits there, and not a heck of a lot else.
That having been said, if you're not having enough trouble sleeping at night, Mick Hartley found a photo essay on Chernobyl last month that'll make your hair stand straght up and quiver. The purpose of the essay is to scare people too silly to think straight about nuclear power, which is sad, but you can ignore that.
- Jonathan said...
What is with everyone here? Is there no ability to step back and say, wow, as a species, we behave like a pretty nasty plague?
Absent human intervention many animal species experience population explosions when food is abundant, followed by periods of mass-starvation during which a lot of these same animals die horrible deaths. Man isn't the problem and anthropomorphising nature isn't a good way to understand natural events.
- Marghlar said...
Contemplating man's impact on nature is fraught with paradox. Scippiancottage wrote, "nature has no opinion." I agree, and add "nature has no morals." Floods and forest fires do not care how many living things they kill, beavers do not do environmental impact studies before building dams, predators don't feel bad about ripping their preys' throats out, and viruses think nothing of killing their hosts.
Are you really suggesting that we have no moral or ethical duties via a vis other species? We are not nature, we are ethical beings.
I'd say that the amount of harm we are causing to other living things is something that should be factored into our decisonmaking.
- Troy said...
Wolves??? Peter better watch out... I hear the distant, but growing rumble of Prokofiev's hunters.
- Abraham said...
Are you really suggesting that we have no moral or ethical duties via a vis other species?
I'll suggest that. From where would such a duty come? Now, it may be prudent, in our own best intersts, for us to preserve flora and fauna. But an ethical duty? That's a stretch.
- Marghlar said...
abraham: so, would you say there is nothing immoral or unethical about torturing a dog? How about an elephant, or a dolphin? A gorilla?
Do you really think that there is nothing wrong with deliberately harming higher animals, even where a human will not profit by it? I'd say that's a pretty extreme position.
- Simon said...
Icepick - the lifespan point hadn't even ocurred to me. I think you're probably right.
AJ Lynch said...
"This is gist for a good sci-fi movie... I can see it now- Bears and birds gone wild due to radiation combined with a bunch of good Russian vodka left behind."
Or at least, if not a sci-fi movie, a recurring SNL skit. Perhaps the tile music could proceed thusly: "bear city / bear city / bear, bear city / bear city!"
- Harkonnendog said...
Prefer implies choice, so there's some anthropomorphism at work. Really they prefer a nuclear disaster to humans the same way lichen does. They just fill a niche.
Also, some people say low doses of radiation can be beneficial...
Not too sure if that applies to this or is even true, but it is interesting.
- Marghlar said...
Harkonnendog: I'm not sure of the basis on which you say that people have the ability to choose, but animals do not. Surely, my cat decides whether to play with a toy v. groom itself to the same degree that I decide between going to the store and going to the movies.
I'm not sure whether I'd agree that human beings make choices (in the sense of an uncaused cause, at least), but I'd say that to the degree that they do, it is hard to see why it would be a faculty limited to homo sapiens.
- SteveR said...
I lived in the Marshall Islands for several years and a novel was written involving a mutated species with human/dolphin characteristics caused by all the nuclear testing of the early cold war. Not a great book but interesting for local interest. The real effect of radiation on the Marshallese is not so nice to consider. Of course we are talking about Hydrogen Bombs not a reactor leak, not to mention setting off the explosion when the wind would blow the fallout over inhabitants (and the weatherman!) instead of the open ocean.
- Freeman Hunt said...
"... Dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!"
- Troy said...
SteveR -- wasn't that the Man from Atlantis? tongue in cheek...
- Robert said...
Does this story make you ashamed of what human beings have done to the world? For the animals, a nuclear disaster is preferable to life with us.
Ashamed? Please. One good meteor strike and 90% of the ecosystem scythes off the planet like dandruff off a greasy teenager. If anything, we should be embarassed that our worst depredations have so little long-term effect.
On this planet, nature routinely exterminates the biosphere as casually as you clip a fingernail. Worrying about our impact on the environment for the environment's sake is a bizarre combination of arrogance and irrelevance.
We SHOULD worry about what we do to the environment - on the specific and sole grounds of our own selfishness and the pursuit of our own interests and pleasures. We enjoy clean air and fields to run through; therefore, let's keep the air clean and refrain from paving every last field.
Screw the birds and the trees, save as they are convenient to our interests.
- SteveR said...
Troy, here's the description from Amazon of "Fish Heads' (and they aren't rolly polly fish heads)
In the peaceful waters of the Pacific Ocean near Bikini Atoll, a Marshallese fisherman's motorboat suddenly strikes a mysterious object. Moments later, the horrified fisherman retrieves what seem to be human body parts. Back on shore, Jodi Larsen, a young American physician working in the Marshall Islands, tries to find a logical explanation for the fisherman's grotesque find. After reporting what she suspects may be some unknown effect from American H-bomb testing, Jim Newell, a specialist in genetic disease research, arrives to assist in an investigation. Against a backdrop of their growing love for one another, Jim and Jodi are soon drawn into a dangerous web of cover-ups, murder, and intrigue that changes their lives forever.
- SteveR said...
Robert to your point I give you the Manson Impact Structure in what is now Iowa from 74 million years ago. Anybody ever heard of it?
"In the fraction of a second that it took the meteorite to penetrate about one mile into the ground, the shock wave created by the initial contact with the surface reached the back side of the meteorite and its potential energy was transformed to kinetic energy, the equivalent of about 10 trillion tons of TNT. An electromagnetic pulse moved away from the point of impact at nearly the speed of light, and instantly ignited anything that would burn within approximately 130 miles of the impact (most of Iowa). The shock wave toppled trees up to 300 miles away (Chicago, Minneapolis, and St. Louis), and probably killed most animals within about 650 miles (Detroit and Denver). The blast left a crater over 24 miles in diameter centered in an area of unimaginable death and destruction."
- knoxgirl said...
"Is there no ability to step back and say, wow, as a species, we behave like a pretty nasty plague?"
Is this inspired by the "humans are a virus" speech from "The Matrix"?
Seriously, even if we have no particularly romantic notions of nature, it is in our own best interest not to go screaming willy-nilly over The Environment" with no thought to the consequences of our actions...
At the same time, past attempts by humans to positively effect the environment (by say, protecting a certain species, or stopping/starting forest fires), have themselves had unanticipated and sometimes negative long-term consequences.
- Marghlar said...
I hadn't thought about that movie...my point is just that we are really, really good at moving into new ecosystems and destabilizing them. Because we are smart, adaptable and mobile, which most species are not.
I agree with you that it is in our self-interest to think carefully about our impact on ecosystems...I'd also agree that we need to think carefully before trying to postively intervene in such complex systems. Most of our interventions are negative, of course.
I think this is an area where our self-interest (think of too succesful pathogens which kill off too much of their host populations and suffer a die-back) meets up with our ethical duties not to harm other living beings beyond what is reasonably necessary to our survival and prosperity.
- CB said...
Are you really suggesting that we have no moral or ethical duties via a vis other species? We are not nature, we are ethical beings.
Strictly speaking, yes. Any ethical decision we make regarding other species will be based either on self-interest or sentiment. It is good and virtuous to treat nature well, but I don't want to raise it to the status of a duty. There is much more to my argument, but that's the gist of it.
Besides, there's the thorny possibility that our sense of morals is merely a survival trick our genes have played on us.
- knoxgirl said...
"beyond what is reasonably necessary to our survival and prosperity."
I agree--except that this is where people disagree! "reasonably necessary" is a very, very debatable phrase.
I was just kiddin' about "The Matrix," btw
- Marghlar said...
CB: engage with my above thought experiment. Do you think we have no ethical duty not to beat a dog to death, when we are in no danger from it? Can I torture monkeys just for fun? Nature is very impersonal, but what you are saying would seem to imply that consequence.
I'm just not willing to say we owe no ethical duty not to needlessly harm sentient animals -- and I think the more sapient the animal, the higher our necessity ought to be before we hurt it.
- Harkonnendog said...
I think animals can make choices, like the example you gave, but not this particular choice. Animals will live where they can live, and won't where they can't.
- CB said...
I believe that beating a dog to death or torturing a monkey is repugnant; I would never do it and would hope that anyone who did would face criminal sanction. However, that belief is based on sentiment, so I hesitate to bring in the concept of a duty. "Duty" to me is a more rigorous concept that involves rules and concepts that only work with humans. Granted, this is ultimately just wanky philosophy-major stuff.
- Marghlar said...
Hmmm...I find it really disturbing that you think it appropriate to impose a criminal sanction on conduct you wouldn't think carried an ethical prohibition. The implications kind of scare me. Is mere sentiment enough for a criminal prohibition? I hope not.
What is it about animals that you feel makes it impossible for them to be the objects of ethical duties? Insufficient sapience? Communication skills? Would we have ethical duties vis a vis intelligent, communicating non-human aliens?
Just trying to get a handle on your position here.
- SteveR said...
The modern use of the word ethics tends to how people treat eachother (e.g. a professional code of ethics) But going back to Aristotle it was about what was good for society, the common good. So it could be a differnce of what ethics means. To me what CB said is wrong about toturing a dog in our society, would make it unethical to Aristotle.
But then again, I could be full of B.S.
- Icepick said...
Are you really suggesting that we have no moral or ethical duties via a vis other species? We are not nature, we are ethical beings.
What do you mean by moral or ethical responsibilities? You've mentioned beating a dog to death for the hell of it, or torturing a monkey.
But what about neutering or spaying a day? If you did that to a person, it would be a far worse crime than mere genital mutilation. But for a dog? These days you're considered a bad person if you don't!
And what about the problem of rabbits in Australia, to choose one example? Those rabbits should really be exterminated. Genocide if done to people, but a necessary step to restore the balance for Australia's native habitats.
And I haven't even gotten into medical experimentation, or raising animals for food.
If you want to talk about the ethics, fine. But you need to provide some sort of working definition of ethical behavior to start with. And I can guarantee that if it runs into strictly utilitarian problems, it will be shot down by humanity as a whole.
- Johnny Nucleo said...
Marghlar said: "I'm not sure of the basis on which you say that people have the ability to choose, but animals do not. Surely, my cat decides whether to play with a toy v. groom itself to the same degree that I decide between going to the store and going to the movies."
You are anthropomorphizing your cat, Marghlar. Animals do not choose to do anything. When your cat feels like playing with a toy, he does it, unless he is overcome by another, more powerful urge. There is no gap between urge and act. No choice is made. Animals do not have free will. They only have instinct.
But I agree with you. Humans are morally obligated to treat animals humanely.
- Marghlar said...
Icepick: my approach in this context is fairly utilitarian. I'd say that we need to be doing one of two things: we can harm other animals when it is offset by a significant benefit to our species (but not more than is fairly necessary); otherwise, we should act in what is essentially a guardianship relationship with non-sapient species.
Thus, if animals are likely to suffer greatly through starvation, or cause great ecological devasation through overfeeding, it might be appropriate to engage in population control measures. But such shouldn't be needlessly cruel, and we should never exterminate rabbits just for the fun of it.
This logic applies even more forcefully for the spaying/neutering context. It causes significantly less harm to spay and neuter, than would exist if we had a plague of starving dogs and cats in our cities.
And the comparisons with human beings fail, because I view autonomy interests as more important when humans come into the picture. I can guarantee you that it would cause me far more distress to be neutered than it did any of my cats, because I would understand the consequences of that in a way that they did not.
Summary: we have ethical duties to all sentient life -- but the degree of the duty runs in proportion to both the sapience and sentience of the lifeforms in question. The more like a person another animal is, the more we should treat it like a person.
- Marghlar said...
Johnny: a gap between urge and act, eh? Is that what free will is?
I'd say that you are wrong in the descriptive sense -- my cats often desire to do things, but do not do so, because they know they will get into trouble for it. For instance, I can visibly observe the tension felt by my cat when I have the back door open -- he knows that he would like to go outside and play, but he also knows that he is likely to get squirted with water if he does so. That sounds like a gap between urge and act to me.
Throw in a higher-order animal, and the distinction breaks down even further. For that matter, there are an awful lot of people with very little gap between urges and actions.
Indeed, I'm not even sure that such a description of free will is coherent. Why does the deliberation gap necessarily imply a choice? Maybe its just processing time, needed to reach the result that I, in my present state and given my history, would have reached no matter what.
- Johnny Nucleo said...
Your cat wants to go outside - urge one. But he does not want to get squirted with water - urge two. Sometimes two urges of equal strength will temporarly paralyze an animal, but one urge will eventually win out. But the animal will not have made a choice. To make a choice requires will outside of instinct.
If, as you suggest, human behavior works in the same way, moral imperatives evaporate.
- Marghlar said...
Johnny: I'm not sure that you can't have moral imperatives without having uncaused causes. We can still say that certain actions, for certain reasons, are wrong to undertake, on the basis of external judgments about what makes for good or bad behavior in a society. Those judgments then become part of the behaviorial influences on any decision.
Calvinists dealt with this at great length -- it essentially underlies the predestination problem. Just because we do something inevitably, doesn't mean that what we did was necessarily proper.
Ultimately, I am agnostic on the free will question -- I have no idea how we'd tell the difference. I'm just not sure that there is any principled way that you can just automatically declare that animals do things because of "insticts" but we do them because of "reasons," which are different, somehow. They both seem like propensities to me. They both can be changed and modified by experience. Whether or not they are predetermined, I still don't see the basis for such an arbitrary distinction.
Do apes ever do things for reasons? How about dolphins or orcas? By contrast, do profoundly retarded human beings (the kind who can't use language or function above a pretty basic animal level) act based on reasons, or based on instincts?
Can you give me any way to distinguish between reasons and instincts, other than by reference to the species of the animal engaging in the relevant behavior?
- Johnny Nucleo said...
"Do profoundly retarded human beings (the kind who can't use language or function above a pretty basic animal level) act based on reasons, or based on instincts?"
Ultimately, this is the question isn't it? Otherwise who cares? Who thinks animals are humans? Other than PETA wackos?
Free will is will outside of instinct. It is free, unbound. Reason has a lot to do with it, but it isn't the main thing. The main thing is the human spirit. That's corny, I know, but what do you call it? Or do you deny it? Do you know what it means to deny it?
And perhaps I was unclear. The gap I refer to is functional, not temporal.
- Marghlar said...
Um, I don't think the question is whether animals are human...it's whether they are people, or quasi-people. Put like that, it's a harder question. I would be willing to say that some animals are sapient enough that I want them to be considered as people -- that is, we shouldn't arbitrarily kill them, or hurt them, or take away their liberty.
As to the severely disabled, I think there personhood may in fact be questionable. As for your question, I am a materialist, so I don't know what a "spirit" would be.
- Johnny Nucleo said...
Quasi-people? Good God.
- Harkonnendog said...
"some animals are sapient enough that I want them to be considered as people -- that is, we shouldn't arbitrarily kill them, or hurt them, or take away their liberty."
Does that mean we can't eat them? does that count as arbitrary?
Also, what if they would eat us if they could? Are we allowed to eat them then. Like lets say a Kodiac bear.
Also, does that mean you think zoos and aquariums should not exist?
- Marghlar said...
Yes, I think it is wrong to kill very intelligent animals for the purpose of eating them -- e.g. dolphins, great apes, bears, elephants -- unless it is a crisis situation for the human, where the choice is between starvation and killing. Then, our needs take precedent.
No, I don't think that the mere fact that such an animal might eat me (and most of these don't hunt and kill humans) would affect the calculus. I could of course kill it in self-defense if need be, but I don't generally think that I can go out and freely kill other people, just because people occasionally kill and eat other people. The same holds true for higher animals.
I have no problem with either hunting or killing less sapient animals, such as large herbivores, etc. There is a threshold of intelligence, beneath which I think it ok to kill other living creatures, as long as it isn't needlessly cruel and as long as it serves our interests. However, I would still say that torturing such an animal, or killing it for no reason at all, is unethical.
And finally: I have no problem with the existence of zoos per se, although they do often depress me. I do find it questionable to keep great apes, etc., in zoos, unless it is necessary to ensure their survival (b/c of habitat destruction, for instance). I think we should only lock such creatures up if it is in their interest, not just because we think they are pretty and we'd like to stare at them.
- Johnny Nucleo said...
Marghlar said: "However, I would still say that torturing such an animal, or killing it for no reason at all, is unethical."
As a materialist, where did you get your ethics? Didn't you just make them up? Or was your source "various smart guys" who made them up?
Let's say I too am a materialist and I make up my own ethical system which, like the ethical systems of all materialists, amounts to this: What I dig is good. But let's add a twist. Unlike smart guy materialist ethicists, I don't give a shit about the greater good. I dig torturing and killing dolphins for fun. I also dig having sex with them. (Dolphins can't say no!) Explain to me why my ethics are wrong and your ethics are right. We are both materialists. We both made up our own systems. You made up a system that suits your taste and I made up a system that suits my taste. What is the difference?
Also, are dolphins capable of immoral behavior? Are there evil dolphins? Can dolphins consent to sex? Can one rape a dolphin?
Also, if a building was on fire, and you had to choose, who would you save, a dolphin or a retarded person? If you had to eat one, who would you eat? (Mmmmm, retarded person.)
- Abraham said...
To clarify my position: I do not believe we have any ethical or moral duty not to beat a dog or some such, because ethics and morals are the exclusive domain of humans. The very concept does not exist for animals, despite our best attempts to anthromporphize them. They would exterminate us if they could, and feel not a twinge of remorse.
Now, I do think that a desire to do such harm to animals speaks poorly to a person's character, and suggests they harbor similar attitudes toward people, to whom they do owe a moral duty not to injure unnecessarily - and by way of desensitization, it can probably lead to a degradation of human-human socialization, so I guess I have no problem making it a misdemeanor crime. But I don't think there is any duty to the animal.
- Marghlar said...
Sigh...if you want to do materialism or not, this is going to take a lot more space than we have on this thread. There is a lot of writing (and I mean a ridiculous amount) on ethics that doesn't presuppose souls or such things. You can take your pick between Kant's categorical imperative, a utilitarian approach or Rawls's veil of ignorance as a source for ethics in a materialist society where no one gets the trump card of truth. The commonality one usually sees between all such approaches is the need for generalizeable principles -- that is, I can't call a principle legitimate unless it can be applied to all persons equally.
What I would say makes your ethical approach wrong is that it arbitrarily subjects beings with few significant distinctions from humans to pain and suffering. I am generally a quasi-utilitarian, in that I find it very hard to imagine that a society that permits such sadism as you describe could ever be happier, overall, than a society that doesn't. So I'd say that your principle isn't generalizeable in a useful way.
Overall, your tone makes me not want to talk to you. You accuse me of just "making things up," but what source of ethics exists that isn't just somebody making things up? I would broadly include religious ethics as having been made up, either by humans, or by a hypothetical more-powerful entity. That's still just making it up -- it's just a different source of authority. It still all comes down to persuasion in the end -- which is the only power of any ethical system.
Do you really want serious answers to the questions at the bottom, or are you just trying to be a sarcastic jerk? Let me know. If you do, I can try and parse out those issues. But I'm not interested in going through the effort if this conversation can't maintain a civil tone.
- Marghlar said...
Abraham: I just can't go there with you. It seems that such a position would imply that we no longer owe ethical duties to people who can't or don't share our ethics. I think we still owe ethical duties to criminals, to the insane, and to the severely disabled. Ergo, I think we owe limited ethical duties to highly sapient animals as well.
By the by, I don't really believe that most of the type of animals I am describing would "exterminate us if they could...." Generally, most mammals don't kill for no reason, and none of the species I would describe as highly sapient subsists even in significant part upon primates. Regardless, I'd say that even if what you alleged was true (that they would seek to exterminate humans when there was no immediate benefit to them), I'd still say we have ethical duties to the animals (which wouldn't preclude us from preventing any such animal-on-human atrocities).
As for your criminalization explanation -- I don't know, a lot of conduct that doesn't affirmatively harm others might be viewed as an inidicator of anti-social tendencies that could lead towards more traditional criminal behavior. I don't like the door it would open to say that such behavior can be appropriately criminalized -- I'd prefer to keep a larger space of liberty than that. Thus, I'd generally like to posit an ethical duty before I permit the state to criminally punish conduct.
- Marghlar said...
To clarify: the 11:09 comment is to Johnny, not Abraham. I didn't see the additional post until after I had posted, so I didn't realize that the lack of salutation would be ambiguous.
- P. Froward said...
Marghlar, you wrote...
I can't call a principle legitimate unless it can be applied to all persons equally.
Why not?
I find it very hard to imagine that a society that permits such sadism ... could ever be happier, overall, than a society that doesn't.
So what? What does a happier society have to do with the price of tea in China? Can't be because it's the ethical thing to prefer; that'd be circular.
There have been very popular and successful ethical systems which didn't give a crap about the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In fact, I suspect they've been in the majority, overall. How would you argue for the superiority of your ethical system over that of the Romans, without bringing essential parts of your system in as axioms?
(Heck, I'd go further and suggest that greatest-happiness ethical systems are unique to dying cultures, if that weren't off topic and, for all I know, gratuitously inflamatory as well).
I assume Rawls et al. have standard answers to these questions, but I figured it's easier to annoy you than to do all the reading.
- P. Froward said...
I think what I'm driving at here is that it's meaningless in principle to talk about ethics other than in terms of personal preference. You can talk about the practical utility of given ethical systems in achieving certain goals (appeasing the volcano god, rural electrification of the Ukraine, you name it), but the goal-selection is just a matter of whatever floats your boat.
That's true even if you go with religion: God's personal preferences are likely to be enforced more spectacularly than mine (if He exists), but I fail to see how that makes them "more true". He's just got heavier artillery.
- Marghlar said...
PF: Well, I'm afraid I don't have a great answer to the "why generalizeable" question...that is often taken as an axiom of political philosophy, or defended on purely rhetorical grounds. At root, the best I can offer is that I can't expect another to conform with a restriction that I wouldn't impose on myself in the same circumstance. To a large extent, political philosophy concerns itself with creating rules of generalized applicability, presuming that such rules are better than others.
I can offer, if you like, a utilitarian defense of such an idea (that people are generally happier if they live in a society that treats them equally than in societies that treat them unequally, for a variety of reasons) but that presupposes that utiltiarianism is the correct way to analyze the question, which I grant you is entirely circular.
As for your second question: it is asking a lot to make a coherent defense of utilitarian theory in a comments thread. I'll try to sketch in an outline, but I guarantee you that it will be inadequate. So, keep reading at your peril.
Utilitarianism proceeds relatively straightforwardly from the prospect that we would rather be happy than not, and that likewise other people would rather be happy than not. (Happy here is standing in for a deep philosophic debate about what a "utile" truly is -- whether what matters is pleasure, or happiness, or preference-satisfaction, but that is too much to go into here.) Proceeding from a premise that assumes no access to philosophic truth apart from this sort of mundane observation, utilitarism posits that a good measure of the sucess of any legal or ethical regime is whether people benefit under it, or not. Utilitarianism eschews the concept that we can tell people what ought to make them happy, and instead seeks to define and justify principles which are likely to improve the utility of the most people.
Why ought we to endeavor to make people happy, rather than some other goal? Mainly because it is hard to further any other goal without having access to a criteria by which to tell other people what is good for them. Bentham and his heirs largely eschewed notions of natural law, and hence did not feel that there were objective answers to those questions (or at least did not presume that they or anyone else had privileged access to such answers).
I can't answer your question about how utilitarianism compares with Roman ethics, unless you are willing to sketch out what you feel are the key components of that ethical system. I know little about Roman (as opposed to Greek) ethics, and I certainly don't know of any coherent single system that can be described as "Roman" ethics. Do you mean stoicism? Something else? Fill in the gaps, and then we can compare and contrast.
Lastly, I'd just note that Rawls wasn't any kind of utilitarian philosopher -- rather, he proceeded more from principles of fairness and hypothetical contract. I cited him as a modern, and influental, version of a non-religious or natural law political philosopher (in contrast to both Kantian and utilitarian ethics, which are other such philosophies, but which proceed from different premises).
As to your more recent post: ethics generally seeks to determine what we feel we ought to do, in different situations, given certain premises we feel we can prove or agree on. It is not fundamentally about power or about goals (although goals certainly are one way to justify an ethical principle). Thus, I'd disagree that ethics is merely personal preference -- rather, it is the search for, and discussion of, normative philosphical principles.
Now I have to get back to actual work...which is sad, I know, at midnight on a Friday night. But such is my life, for the moment.


text:
Follow Us
View of vineyard near Summerland
(Kevin Arnold photo)
Summerland provides lots of scope for foodies interested in good dining.
Expect to find an easy-going atmosphere in a wide range of restaurants including downtown cafés and bistros, wineries, mountain-view and lakeside patios, even an historic stone house.
Many chefs now emphasize seasonal menus featuring local ingredients and wine lists that showcase Okanagan vintages. Summerland also offers a range of casual fare and ethnic eateries, and fast food staples are readily available.
Summerlanders love a good cup of java. Forget the generation gap, young and old gather downtown at The Beanery Coffee Company (13016 Victoria Rd North) where the brew is blended and roasted on-site from organic beans. Sip a cup on the patio with fresh baked goods or daily lunch specials.
Read More
Start the day with a big breakfast at the Deli Café (9909 Main St) or fuel up at lunch with a stacked high corn beef on rye – and a side of Birkenstocks. This deli doubles as a shoe shop. The style and fare is more uptown at Victoria Road Deli & Bistro (13615 Victoria Rd North). Check out the yam fries with homemade smoked tomato and cherry ketchup. Chef Roger Gillespie grows his own heirloom tomatoes and changes the menu to suit seasonal produce. Save room for made-from-scratch desserts and ice cream at Sweet Tooth Temptations (13211 Victoria Rd N). Locals rave about the cheesecake.
The Vanilla Pod Restaurant (9917 Main St) is the place for tapas and wine. Sample tastes from around the Mediterranean and the chef's signature sushi pizza. Must try. For special occasions, locals head to the Cellar Door Bistro (17403 Highway 97) where the wines of Sumac Ridge Estate Winery are matched to the regional flavours of the menu. Soak up some local history in a 1916 landmark at Zia's Stonehouse Restaurant (14015 Rosedale Ave). The food at Zia's (Italian for 'aunt') reflects the name, just as if it was from an Italian auntie's kitchen.
Local Lounge & Grille takes full advantage of its lakeside location. Arrive by car or motor up and dock at the marina, then soak up some rays on the patio or scan the views of mountains and Lake Okanagan. Food, wine and brew selections showcase local sources.
For do-it-yourself gourmet dining, the Summerland Farmer's Market presents products from local vendors on Tuesday mornings, April to October, in Memorial Park downtown. Find produce, preserves and home baked goods at farm fruit stands like Dickinson Family Farm and Blossom Fruit Stand. Roadside fruit stands include Granny's, Roberts Fruit Stand and Big Mac's Country Market, while Summerland Sweets offers fruit jams, jellies and syrups. Check with the Visitor Centre on Highway 97 for seasonal opening times.
Read Less
Accommodation Rates
Accommodation Rates
View all locations
We value your privacy and never share your information, and you may withdraw your consent and unsubscribe at any time.
Privacy Policy

subset: commoncrawl


text:
As of July 4, bacteria sampling at North Overlook Beach at Lake Red Rock showed extremely low bacteria counts. The beach will no longer be posted "Swimming Not Recommended." Test results from the main body of the lake continue to show low bacterial counts.
The following recreation areas are closed at this time: Whitebreast Beach, South Overlook Boat Ramp and a portion of the Volksweg Trail near Marina Cove. All other Corps of Engineers recreation areas around the lake and below the Red Rock Dam are open at this time.
For the most current lake level, dam outflow and forecast information, check out www.rivergages.com
For questions, contact the US Army Corps of Engineers at (641) 828-7522 or (641) 628-8690.


text:
Let There Be Light Arranged and Orchestrated by Bradley KnightType: Musical Voicing: SATBGenre: Contemporary Age Level: AdultSeason/Theme: Christmas Difficulty: ModerateLENGTH: 60 Minutes
From the beginning the Father had a magnificent plan for the redemption of man. And on a still, starry night in Bethlehem, the Light of the world was born. We are called to spread the Good News so that one day the presence of Jesus will shine in every heart and every home. Perfect for Christmas productions, Living Christmas Trees and Christmas choir concerts!
SATB Choral Book


text:
A bi-partisan Senate immigration policy plan has won support of many key political leaders. But some within the African-American community say it could hurt low wage black workers. Guest host Celeste Headlee discusses the issue with Harry Holzer of Georgetown University; and Lesley Jordan, a food industry worker from Los Angeles.
Could Immigration Reform Plan Hurt Black Workers?
By editor • Apr 29, 2013


text:
Building infrastructure for direct action anti-fracking camps. If you need something post here maybe we can help
You need to create an account and be logged in to make full use of this site. As this is part of the OMN, depending on how you create your account you might have to click the small "join this site" link under red "Activisttech" top centre after creating the account.


text:
There were eyes watching her as she made her way across the open space between the barn and the house; of that she was certain. The feeling of unease had been growing for days, ever since the men had gone off to confront the army that threatened from the south, from the Land of Stone.
"Ervig..." She called his name softly as she entered the low timbered house. She halted just inside the door, taking a moment to let her eyes adjust from the brilliant sunlight to the dim illumination of the interior. On the hearth, which occupied the center of the room, a fire burned, pale tongues of flame lapping hungrily at the nearly spent wood.
A boy appeared in the doorway to her left. Hands and feet that were overlarge for his lanky frame showed him to be at that age where he was more than a child, but not yet a man. His features too displayed the awkward proportions of youth, yet they held a handsome promise for his maturity.
"Has Mother returned yet, Sunilda?" he asked.
"Not yet," she answered. "Birthing a child is slow work ¢ even more so for the first one." There was a distinct note of pride in SunildaÆs voice, for their mother was accounted the best midwife in the tribe, and it was well known that the chieftainÆs young wife would have no other attend her lying-in.
Sunilda walked past Ervig to lay the bundle of wool she carried on the rough planked table. Sunlight streamed through the still open doorway, and the young woman returned to stand in its warmth, gazing out at the forest that loomed ominously close to the homestead. Most of her people avoided the forest, mistrusting the power that was said to dwell there, but her grandfather had scoffed at their fears, deliberately choosing this house in which to settle his family. Sunilda and Ervig had been born in this house, and it was they to whom their father had entrusted its protection while he and their elder brother were away.
Sunilda stood in the open doorway, watchful and listening. There was no movement, no sound that might cause alarm. All was quiet. Too quiet, she thought as she turned to close the door.
Abruptly she arrested its movement. Stepping back into the open, she watched as a lone wood grouse erupted from the underbrush at the edge of the pasture that lay just to the north of the barn. Then, with deliberate movements, Sunilda turned and closed the door, and reached for the heavy crossbar to set it firmly in place.
Ervig watched his sister, a look of puzzlement on his face. "Why are you barring the door?"
Raising a hand to her lips, Sunilda signaled for silence. "There are men in the woods," she whispered.
Grimald watched the young woman as she strode across the yard to the house that he had once called his home. Her confident walk emphasized the gentle sway of her hips, momentarily distracting him. Berenga had had that same look about her, the same fall of red-gold hair that draped over full round breasts to swirl about her waist and hips. Even after birthing a child her waist had been slender enough for him to wrap one arm around. If he closed his eyes he could see her still, just as she had been that morning, laughing in the golden sunshine as she waved goodbye, their young daughter balanced on one of those softly curving hips.
He forced himself to put the memory aside. That had been more than forty years ago, in another life. Now he made his home under MirkwoodÆs canopy; his family the desperate men and women who had managed to escape their servitude under the conquerors, those invaders from the East whom they named the Wainriders. There was not one amongst them who did not bear scars from their captivity; whether physical or emotional, it mattered not. Vengeance was the desire that burned in every breast.
Fortune had at last presented an opportunity to reclaim, at least in part, what the interlopers had stolen. That past winter Marhwini had called Grimald to his council, and together with the other chieftains of the ╔othķod they plotted to drive out the hated Easterlings and reclaim their former lands. But the men knew they could only succeed if the enemy went to war against the Men of Gondor. Schooled to patience by the long years of exile, Grimald bided his time, watching, waiting for a sign, all the while organizing the outlaws, doing what he was able to train them to fight.
Rumor had come at last of the WainridersÆ intent to raid Calenardhon, meaning to cross over the Great River at the Undeeps. Grimald wasted no time in sending Hagan to the chieftains of the ╔othķod, bearing word of the anticipated raid. MarhwiniÆs messengers had in turn hastened to warn GondorÆs king, not forgetting to give him word of the outlawed NorthmenÆs planned uprising. The Easterlings would have to fight three foes at once, and if all went as planned, the element of surprise would be on the side of the allies.
It was not long until the ╔othķodÆs mounted scouts brought word to Marhwini that King Calimehtar was moving northward from Ithilien at the head of a great army. Hagan returned to the forest eaves bearing the news, and Grimald greeted his report with grim satisfaction, knowing that the time long awaited had come at last.
ōThe king has made no secret of his armyÆs approach,ö Hagan told him. The strategy had apparently worked, for the Wainriders had gathered all the fighting men they could, marching south to intercept the advancing army. There would be naught but old men and younglings left behind to defend their homes. ōThe scouts have reported that GondorÆs army is giving way before the enemy, moving toward the plain the Men of Gondor name Dagorlad, and,ö Hagan added incredulously, ōthe Easterlings are pursuing them.ö
Grimald was well pleased with the news. Marhwini should even now be leading the ╔othķod across the Undeeps to join forces with the cavalry of our southern allies. That the battle would likely be joined where Marhari, MarhwiniÆs father, had fallen in defense of GondorÆs army seemed to him altogether fitting.
The snare has been set; time to close the trap, he thought grimly, and then destroy the lionsÆ den. There would be no homes, no families for the enemy to return to ¢ if any were left alive to return.
A wood grouseÆs complaint sharply recalled GrimaldÆs attention to the present. ōMaraulf is in place.ö HaganÆs softly spoken words sounded harsh in the unnatural silence that had descended once more on the forest.
Grimald looked around once more at the men who waited anxiously under MirkwoodÆs eaves. They were a motley band, some armed with ancient swords or spears that they had obtained from the ╔othķod, and there were a few bowmen, skilled enough at hunting game.
How will they fare in battle, where the hunted fight back? Grimald wondered. And what of the others, many of them but recently escaped slaves, armed for the most part with pitchforks and axes, and some few with naught but staves? We must be madmen. Even with the fighting strength of the enemy away, he knew his outlaw band was ill-armed, ill prepared for the task ahead. Nor were any of the outlaws who were set to attack other camps and settlements along the East Bight any better armed.
And yet, as he looked at the faces of his men, the fire in their eyes could not be denied. This might be their one chance to take back their own. Steeling himself, Grimald raised his hand to signal the attack...
ōBreatheģö Amalfrida prompted her patient. Sweat beaded the young motherÆs brow as she concentrated on the calmly voiced directives of the midwife. For twenty years and more Amalfrida had been ushering children into the world; in the early years she had worked at her motherÆs side. There had never been a better healer than Berenga, and though she was gone there were times when Amalfrida could still feel her presence, hear her words of encouragement and advice.
Berenga had been there to help Amalfrida birth her own children, two fine sons and a daughter. For a time they had hoped that this granddaughter would follow the same path as mother and grandmother, but Sunilda had shown no interest in the healing arts. Her talents lay elsewhere. Still, grandmother and granddaughter had enjoyed an enviable relationship, spending much of their time in one anotherÆs company.
ōAlmost time,ö Amalfrida reassured the young mother. Calmly, steadily, the midwife did her job. It could not be allowed to matter that the child might well be the next chieftain ¢ after having four daughters by his first wife, Sarus desperately desired the birth of a son. She would do everything she could to ensure that the child made its way safely into the world regardless. Her mother had never failed to do so, despite how badly she had been treated by her captors. But that had all changed when Gunteric claimed Amalfrida as his bride, and had taken her mother into his home. Though she suspected pride had been the chief motivation for Berenga's emancipation, Amalfrida was still grateful for the peace and security her new status had ensured for her mother.
ōWhat is all the commotion outside?ö the mother of the laboring woman asked as the sound of raised voices and running feet penetrated the wainÆs interior. She stepped outside, returning moments later with Sunilda close behind her. Amalfrida made note of the skirt that was hitched up, tucked firmly into the leathern girdle that hung low on SunildaÆs hips. In her hand was an ancient sword.
My fatherÆs sword. Though Amalfrida could scarcely remember the man who had been her father, his sword remained, a prize claimed by the people who had adopted her as one of their own. Now her daughter, a true child of her people, carried that sword as though it were a natural extension of her hand.
ōThe settlement is under attack,ö Sunilda told her mother as the other woman returned to her own daughterÆs side.
ōHow long?ö There was no mistaking AmalfridaÆs meaning.
ōNot long. They follow hard upon us,ö Sunilda answered somewhat breathlessly. ōWe gathered those we could along the way ¢ our defense is surest here.ö She looked toward the chieftainÆs wife, who was only a year or two older than herself. ōSarus will find his family safe when he returns.ö
The young woman nodded, squeezing her motherÆs hand as another contraction came and went. She knew Sunilda well, for they had been schooled together, and as she trusted Amalfrida with the life of her child, so she trusted her daughter with all their lives.
ōErvigģ?ö Amalfrida spared one moment to inquire after her youngest child.
ōHe is with the others at the barriers.ö
The othersģ Old men, young boys ¢ some even younger than Ervig. Amalfrida knew she could not allow herself to think of that now. She had a job to do, as did her son ¢ and her daughter.
ōGo. They have need of you there.ö
Mother and daughter looked at each other, both knowing that the worst might befall one of them before this day was over, but unwilling to say the words before they turned away, each to her appointed task.
Smoke rose, thick and acrid, as the wool in the burning storehouses caught fire. Higher the smoke-cloud rose in the clear blue sky, its shadow meandering across the sun-drenched meadow.
The house had been empty; Grimald made sure of that before he allowed his men to fire it. She must have sensed something was wrong and slipped out an eastern window. And was no doubt raising the alarm. No matter. After all, what could one young woman do?
Moving on toward the great wain camp they passed another homestead ¢ deserted, they thought, like the first. BrocardÆs farm. Forty years ago Grimald had been the one who found the old man sprawled facedown in the dustģ
Facedown in the dust before the barn lay a grey-haired figure. For a moment Grimald thought he was seeing once more the body of his old neighbor, left there by his murderers for the pleasure of the carrion crows.
The appearance of a rail-thin youth dispelled the vision, and Grimald noted for the first time that the old man wore the garments of an Easterling. The bloody scythe in the young slaveÆs hand bespoke his revolt. He would not be the last to join their band as they forged a path of blood and fire toward the wagon-camp.
Sunilda had seen the billowing smoke that rose at the forestÆs edge. The house ¢ the livestockģ
She shook her head, admonishing herself for the tears that had threatened to cloud her vision. Houses could be rebuilt. Even the livestock could be replaced. Her grandmother had taught her what was important; all that truly mattered was here, sheltered within the fortified enclosure of the camp. She looked around at the grey-haired men and stripling youths who stood ready, some armed with ancient swords, others with bows or spears.
ōVittamarÆs place is burning,ö the greybeard standing next to her said, the anger in his voice suffused with sadness. Vittamar had refused to leave his home, though he had insisted on sending his sonÆs wife and children to the shelter of the camp with SunildaÆs hastily gathered band of refugees. They knew he would never have allowed his barns or house be fired ¢ not while he lived.
ōLook!ö another shouted. Across the open meadow came a throng of men. They looked like wild men, brandishing their swords and spears. Sunilda could see that some carried torches, their tongues of flame wan reflections of the blazing sun.
TheyÆll be brought down long before they reach the barriers. Ervig and the other archers would see to that.
An arrow flew past her. Horrified Sunilda realized that it too bore fire. Dozens more came whizzing over the barrier. The wain behind her caught readily, the flames greedily consuming the well-seasoned wood of its roof. Soon fires had been ignited all along the barrier as more wains caught fire with each new flight of arrows.
Sunilda assessed the situation pragmatically. There was little hope they could extinguish the fires here; for one thing, the stream that flowed through the camp was too far away. Furthermore, there were too few of them to fight both the fire and the armed men, even though the latter were advancing more slowly now. Ervig and his fellows had exacted a hefty price for the initial assault; the attackers had learned caution.
The smoke was growing thicker, and the flames perilously close when at last the signal was given to fall back from the barrier; there was little they could do to save this part of the camp. They abandoned the burning wains to the flames, helping the women and children carry those few possessions they were able to salvage toward the other side of the camp, closer to the flowing stream. There they might be able to protect the remaining wains from both fire and foe.
Grimald led the outlaws through the gap in the barrier where a rough-hewn gate had stood; the broken timbers hung crookedly against the protective wall. The flames had all but consumed several of the wains close by; more were catching fire as the flames were fanned by a strong westerly wind. Still the defenders at the gate had decimated the forward ranks of the attackers, fighting determinedly before the heat and smoke had forced their retreat.
Through the camp the vengeful outlaws sought the hated interlopers. Brief skirmishes were fought here and there along the way, until at last the enemy was brought to bay beside the low-banked stream. A handful of old men stood their ground on the near side of the stream, while on the opposite bank ranks of youthful warriors now stood between the outlaws and the remaining wains.
The lads raised their voices in challenge, shaking their spears and beating their sword hilts against their shields. The outlaws halted only briefly, astounded by the unflinching courage of these younglings. And for the first time it could be clearly seen that among them stood female warriors, young, proud and resolute.
Why did I not see them before? Grimald wondered, even as he realized that they must have been there all along, fighting side by side with the old men and stripling lads who had made them pay such a costly toll to gain admittance to the camp.
Diminished though their ranks were, the outlaws were still determined to exact retribution from their oppressors. Surging forward, they quickly overwhelmed the greybeards to splash across the shallow waters and clash with the younglings ¢ beardless youth or soft-cheeked maiden, it mattered not whose hands wielded a bloodstained sword.
Strange how faceless the enemy becomesģ All Grimald saw was the flash of a blade or the thrust of a spear as he fought his way through the serried ranks. Streaks of blood and dust masked his features, broken only by the rivulets of sweat that washed down his face and neck. Time ceased to exist; there was only the rise and fall of his sword arm to mark its passage.
And then the battle-spell was broken as he found himself face to face with her ¢ the maiden from the forestÆs edge. He hesitated. His sword was poised, ready to add to its vengeful tally, yet he could not will himself to strike.
Not so the warrior-maid. Her blade cut the air with deadly purpose. Instinctively Grimald parried the blow. The hilts caught, locking the pair in a desperate embrace. Grimald could not take his eyes from her face; so close at hand the maid was even more like the wife for whom he had ached these many years.
Unbidden, her name fell from his parched lips. ōBerengaģö
ōWhat means that name to you, knave?ö
The voice was not hers; this one spoke in the harsh tongue of an Easterling, a tongue he had learned to despise during his years of servitude. No, this was not his Berenga. He had known all along it could not be so, though foolishly he had wanted to believe.
Yet the name is not unknown to herģ
ōYou know her.ö
The maid did not mistake his words, though he spoke them in his own Northern tongue. ōI knew her,ö she answered. ōShe was my grandmother,ö Then, before he realized what she was about, the warrior-maid had freed her sword, whipping it about to press against GrimaldÆs throat.
ōWhat was she to you?ö Her voice sounded harsh still, though to his amazement the maid now spoke in GrimaldÆs own tongue. The point of her sword nicked his flesh, drawing a fresh trickle of blood. ōSpeak, rogue!ö
ōBerenga was my wife.ö
SunildaÆs sword wavered. His wifeģ? Then this must be my grandfather ¢ Grimald ¢ that was how Grandmother named him. Her grandmother, who had died still believing that he would return for her one day. Now at last he had come, but he had come bringing only death and destruction. The anger Sunilda felt at these dual offenses was to her young mind insuperable. Once more her blade pressed hard against his flesh.
ōShe said you would come back ¢ she even made me believe it. But Mother was right. You didnÆt come back for her. Men care only for their own pride, their own honor.ö The scorn in her voice was unmistakable
ōIf you believe that, then kill me ¢ kill me now.ö Grimald dropped his bloodied sword on the ground at her feet.
Again Sunilda hesitated, unable to read the look in his eyes. Was it despair? Resignation? Either way, it was clear that this man was prepared to die. Do I grant his wish? Perhaps the greater punishment would be to return him to a life of bondage, along with the others who had dared to rise against her peopleģ
There was a barely perceptible change in the manÆs expression, but it was enough to decide SunildaÆs course of action ¢ that and the movement she sensed behind her. She ducked, avoiding a crushing blow from the shield that was wielded by a fair-haired young outlaw. But quickly though she moved, the sweeping blow still caught her sword arm, knocking the weapon from her hand.
Thrown off balance by this assault, Sunilda fought to keep her footing, even as the young man aimed another savage blow, this time with his sword. Her own lay just out of reach. She looked up, seeing her impending death in the young man's eyes. Incongruously her next thought was how like in appearance to the older man he was. They might even be father and son...
The thought was banished as she felt someone grab her arm, pulling her sharply aside. Sunilda heard a heavy grunt as she stumbled and fell to the ground. Frantically she scrambled after her own weapon, and seizing it, turned to face her assailant.
But all she saw was the older man ¢ my grandfather, she reminded herself ¢ crumpled on the ground at the young manÆs feet, the young man whose sword was buried deep in GrimaldÆs flesh. Desperately pulling the sword free to fling it aside, the younger outlaw fell to his knees as ashes, carried on the wind, began to fall like a winterÆs snow.
ōWhyģ?ö The young manÆs cry was one of confusion and pain, mingled like the ashes and blood that quickly covered the earth at SunildaÆs feet. She too dropped to her knees beside Grimald.
ōWhy?ö she echoed softly. ōWhy would you save me?ö
ōFamilyģcannot lose familyģagain.ö The words came out slowly, labored like his breathing.
ōFatherģö The younger man began to speak, but Grimald paid no heed, reaching out to touch Sunilda's face.
ōForgiveģö Grimald kept repeating the word. She tried to quiet him, but he would not listen. ōA man becomes lonelyģand she was lost to me.ö
"I do not understand..."
ōFatherģö The younger man was weeping openly, heedless of the scattered fighting that continued around the trio.
Father? Sunilda heard the word at last, and finally comprehended the meaning of the dying manÆs words. Gently she touched the young outlawÆs arm. ōI think I understand. He sees his wife, Berenga ¢ my grandmother. To him I look like my grandmother.ö And seeing Berenga in her, had been torn between saving the family he had lost and his son, a son whom he had obviously fathered in the years spent as an outlaw in the forest.
And with that realization all the scorn and anger she had directed toward her grandfather drained away. She had thought to punish him, but now she knew that there could be no punishment of her devising that could be worse than the grief and the guilt he had lived with these many years. It was all there in his eyes, in his anguished plea for forgiveness.
Then she recalled the light that had always come into her grandmotherÆs eyes whenever she spoke of him, and she knew what she must do.
Gently wiping away the ashes that had fallen on GrimaldÆs face, she pressed her lips to his in a tender kiss. ōWe are safe now. Your daughter ¢ Amalfrida is safe too,ö she whispered. He smiled. Then a coughing spasm shook his body. Blood trickled from his mouth as he tried to speak once more.
ōI am here, Father.ö The young outlaw took GrimaldÆs hand.
ōYou must lead...,ö Grimald said, his voice now a broken, husky whisper.
Hagan shook his head sadly. Sunilda looked around, and for the first time realized that the fighting had moved back across the stream. The outlaws, those few who were not dead or dying, had fled, and the warrior-maidens and younglings were in pursuit. She knew they would hunt the outlaws to the edge of the forest, but not beyond.
There was no time to lose...
ōQuickly,ö she said, tugging at HaganÆs sleeve.
He looked at her, unmoving. ōI cannot leave him.ö Grimald lay now silent and still upon the ground. Gently Sunilda closed his sightless eyes, then turned to Hagan once more.
ōAs you love him, you will honor his last command.ö Sunilda rose, offering the hilt of GrimaldÆs sword to Hagan. Her tone softened. ōI will see that he is cared for,ö she told him, ōbut you must come with me. Now.ö
Hagan stood, reluctantly accepting his fatherÆs sword. ōCover yourself,ö she ordered, handing him a roughly woven cloak, which she had taken from another fallen warrior. He did as commanded, pulling the hood close to shade his fair coloring from unfriendly eyes. Without another word, Sunilda turned and led the way through the camp toward the southern barriers. There the stream flowed out through a low opening, protected by a rough grate. Alongside it a barred door stood. Lifting the bar, Sunilda opened the door and stood aside for Hagan to pass.
ōFollow the stream till it bends toward the west,ö she told him. ōHead due south ¢ there are no homesteads between that place and the forestÆs edge, so you should pass unseen.ö
ōWhy are you helping me?ö
Sunilda shook her head. How could she explain? The weight of years, the hardship and strife, all that divided them might be too bitter to be overcome by this sudden revelation of kinship. Still, she knew that she had to try.
ōDefending family is the first duty of a shieldmaiden. My grandmother ¢ his wife ¢ she taught me that. And as you are his, so you are mine. I know Grandmother would see you thus.ö
Hagan made no response, though he stood staring at Sunilda for a long moment, as though he would memorize her features. Then, without another word, he slipped through the open door and headed off at a trot in the direction she had indicated.
But Sunilda did not wait to see him out of sight. Closing the door, she dropped the heavy bar back in place, then turned to make her way back to the place where her newfound grandfather lay. She too had a last wish to honor.


text:
May 15, 2012 > Crossroads: Intersections of 20th Century Music and Film
Music at the Mission presents a multi-media performance and film screening. If there's any art form born of the twentieth century, it is cinema. Along with this new genre came the film score. "Crossroad" explores the music of four composers who wrote for both the classical stage and the silver screen: Dmitri Shostakovich, Erich Korngold, Bernard Herrmann and Nino Rota. This program will present both classical chamber works and viewings of film excerpts accompanied live by our chamber players, and will explore the huge effect these classical composers had on the art of movie making.Performers include: Robin Mayforth Violin, Karen Shinozaki Sor, Violin, Mike Corner, Clarinet, Emily Onderdonk, Viola, Michael Graham, Cello, Bill Everett, Double Bass, Aileen Chanco, Piano and Loren Mach, PercussionThe program includes:Nino Rota Clarinet Trio op.28 Erich Wolfgang Korngold Quintet op. 15Bernard Hermann Souvenirs de VoyageDmitri Shostakovich String Quartet no. 8With Film Excerpts from: Battleship Potemkin (1926), The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), Psycho (1960), The Godfather (1972)Crossroads: Intersections of 20th Century Music and Film is made possible through the Musical Grant Program, which is administered by the San Francisco Friends of Chamber Music, and supported by the Heller Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the San Francisco Foundation and San Francisco Grant for the Arts.Crossroads: Intersections of 20th Century Music and FilmSaturday, May 197:15 p.m. Pre-Concert Talk8:00 p.m. ConcertMulti-media performance and film screeningOld Mission San Jose43300 Mission Blvd., Fremont (510) 402-1724www.musicatmsj.orgTickets: $25 General, $20 Student/Senior


text:
The Recent Changes to Google AdWords
The Recent Changes to Google AdWords
Just when you think you have the latest Google changes figured out, something new teeters through. When you're a small business owner, the last thing you want is to have your current strategy and approach taken for a roller coaster ride. Luckily when it comes to technology, you'll often find that your strategies and approaches are improved and things go smoother than before.
The recent changes to Google AdWords called for an adjustment of advertising campaign styles. The good news? Small businesses seem to benefit the most and fare the best in the face of these changes.
Here's why: Many of the changes to AdWords work to consolidate and simplify campaigns, which means less work needed. Small businesses with fewer employees than large businesses will now be able to keep up with AdWords in the same way that their larger competitors do.
Single Campaigns
With the introduction of the single campaign structure, small businesses get a better chance to reach more people. Single campaigns group all of your campaigns, be it for mobile, or a tablet/PC, under one simple campaign. Before these changes, if you wanted to run a campaign that would reach every single different type of mobile device, each type of device would have to be individually and manually assigned to a campaign. Large businesses have the resources to dedicate to this, but small businesses often do not. This meant that only the largest businesses were able to run the most thorough and widely-reaching campaigns across all devices, while the smaller businesses had to stick to the basics, often times without mobile device campaigns.
Mobile ads are more important now than ever as more people are viewing web content on mobile devices rather than computers. To get the most out of this mobile movement, make sure your website is optimized for mobile viewing before running mobile campaigns. Otherwise you'll frustrate potential customers. Carefully plan the design of your mobile ad so it looks eye-catching on a small smartphone screen. Keep it simple!
Ad Extension Scheduling
Most small businesses don't have a 24-hour help line or around the clock customer service. A new feature of AdWords lets you schedule your ads and when they'll run. During your business hours you can advertise with your phone information, GPS location and encourage people to call or stop in. When you close your shop for the night, you can turn the ad off and turn one on that will direct people to your website. This allows potential customers to check your business out from home rather than getting your voice mail or having to peek into your darkened windows. This scheduling feature is a great addition for small businesses that have different advertising needs based on the time of day or year.
Content Over Clicks
While the new features of AdWords are beneficial to small and large businesses alike, there's something you should know. The stats on the number of people who actually click on banner ads are shocking, and not in a good way for those who rely solely on these types of ads. According to HubSpot, a typical banner ad has a 0.1% clickthrough rate (CTR) and your standard banner ad measuring 468×60 has a 0.04% CTR. Consider this when thinking through your marketing strategy. Tip: your strategy should go beyond banner ads.
You can reach potential customers many ways without direct advertising. Focusing on creating high-quality articles or blog posts that relate to your business is a classic yet innovative way to show people your business is knowledgeable and trustworthy. People like being informed, and being useful to potential customers instead of distracting them with banner ads will get you far.
Quality content leads to more customers clicking their heels – not on ads. With the banner ad information presented above, this is a good thing. Potential customers will feel like they've landed in a magical world where value (not ads) is delivered regularly. And they'll keep coming back because there's no place quite like it.
Small businesses that currently use or wish to use Google AdWords will find the process far less complex and flexible with the recent changes. But a good mix is the most beneficial to your business and it's the most efficient way to reach the widest range of potential customers. Check out and test everything, but don't limit your business to just one approach.


text:
For the next few weeks, "Cats" will not only prowl the stage at the Flat Rock Playhouse, they'll be in the parking lot of the Playhouse Downtown.
HENDERSONVILLE, N.C. – For the next few weeks, "Cats" will not only prowl the stage at the Flat Rock Playhouse, they'll be in the parking lot of the Playhouse Downtown.
The Broadway hit "Cats" premieres tonight at the Hendersonville theater at 125 S. Main St., and for nine of the shows, Blue Ridge Humane Society will hold cat adoptions in the parking lot adjacent to the venue.
The Humane Society will offer adoptions from 3:30 to 5 p.m. at the "Catinees" — matinee performances scheduled for this Thursday and Saturday, Sept. 12, 14, 19, 26 and 28, and Oct. 3 and 5.
"The Blue Ridge Humane Society is thrilled to have another opportunity to showcase our animals through the generosity of the Flat Rock Playhouse," Lutrelle O'Cain, director of the Blue Ridge Humane Society, said in a news release. "We have many beautiful cats and kittens waiting to find their special someone. Flat Rock Playhouse has been extremely helpful to us in providing a venue at The Rock and now downtown with the production of 'Cats.' Like the cats in the musical, our shelter is full of animals looking for a second chance."
The partnership is a natural fit, said Playhouse Managing Director Hillary Hart.
"We are so thrilled to have the opportunity to deepen our relationship with our fellow nonprofit, the Blue Ridge Humane Society," she said. "They are such wonderful community partners and we simply could not pass up this natural fit. We hope that our audiences will leave Playhouse Downtown uplifted by the story and music of 'Cats,' and they will then take the opportunity to walk next door and consider adopting a real one."
Since "Cats" first opened on the West End stage in 1981, it has grossed more than $1 billion. The plot is based on T.S. Eliot's "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats," and the award-winning music was composed by Andrew Lloyd Webber. "Cats" is the second-longest-running show in Broadway history.
Performances will be staged Wednesday through Saturday at 8 p.m., with matinees at 2 p.m. on Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays. Tickets are $40 and can be purchased by calling the Playhouse box office at 828-693-0731 or at www.flatrockplayhouse.org.


text:
Farmers Markets for Whom?
Upcoming talk addresses issues of gender, class and race inequality in the local food movement
- 09-06-2013
- By Alison Nihart
We're all familiar with efforts to support local food economies through farmers markets and participation in the "green economy." But what is the real opportunity for social and environmental change through these alternative markets? And how do people's race, gender or social class affect their experience of farmers markets? Sociologist Alison Alkon will address these questions this Thursday, Sept. 12, during her talk "Farmers Markets, Food Justice, and the Green Economy." The talk will take place at 3:30 p.m. in the Livak Ballroom of the Davis Center.
Alkon's work delves into the food justice considerations of the local food movement through her research on farmers markets in white and black neighborhoods in California. Her work highlights the sometimes contradictory nature of using market-based strategies as a means to achieve social and environmental justice.
Alkon's research also provides a nuanced analysis of the "green economy" and how certain efforts, while founded in an ethic of sustainability, rely on economic growth as a means to success. This talk is sure to challenge assumptions held by some that "voting with your fork" is enough to change the food system.
Teresa Mares, UVM assistant professor of anthropology, has collaborated on several publications with Alkon and organized this talk to help open the dialogue on food justice within the community of food systems scholars and students at UVM. "Alkon's work is really at the forefront of food justice scholarship, and her visit will give us at UVM a lot to think about as we move forward with our food systems work," says Mares.
Alkon is assistant professor of sociology at the University of the Pacific. She is the author of Black, White, and Green: Farmers Markets, Race, and the Green Economy, which examines the environmental and racial politics of farmers markets, and co-editor of Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability with co-editor Julian Agyeman. She has published numerous articles on food, race and environmental justice.
Attend the talk
Thursday, Sept. 12 at 3:30 p.m.
Livak Ballroom, Davis Center, UVM Campus


text:
This first one doesn't fit into a category, but if you can donate to our friend and radio host Nicole Sandler at RadioOrNot.com, you'll be helping the cause of Progressive radio and one of the best programs on the Internets. She often substitutes for Randi Rhodes, but that's not enough to keep her afloat.
Charitable Organizations-
Pet Refuge- My local no kill shelter. They are incredibly dedicated folks who volunteer to save the huge numbers of unwanted, abused and homeless animals. They also sponsor a low cost spay and neuter clinic on donations only. Good people doing good deeds.
FOB IAVA (Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America) need your attention every day. They are a non partisan group that lobby for and supports our returning soldiers.
The founder of Trucking Santas was a child that grew up in a single parent,
impoverished house. If it wasn't for donations from others, her family would've never known truly holiday joy. She decided to found a group effort to take the missing presents to the families by having truckers and trucking supporters (yes, she's in the trucking industry) help not with just toys, but necessities; such as clothes, shoes, bedding, towels, dishes, etc. Through three years, they have adopted 5 facilities totalling 300 people, and several dozen families, totalling around 200 people.
Silverwork By Wings is a traditional Pueblo silversmith (as were his father and grandfather before him). He also does other art, too, including photography. I've got to spend some time browsing at this site.
Shawn Shea is an artist by trade and sell prints, note cards, etc. You can check out his stuff at Fine Arts America.
Anna Leahy has some cool jewelry, art and memorable t shirts at her Etsy and Cafe Press stores!
FOB Bob has some exceptional photography at his link WizardPix Photography. I'm rather fond of the Nashville skyline seen above.
Our own David Garber has a delightful read he'd love you to enjoy, Hollywood Huckster. I laughed, I cried, I kvelled.
Um, I think this book looks interesting... Profiles In Courageousness . Reader Jack Kimble has a way with words. (Note: Rep. Kimble is a satirical, fictional conservative Congressman, a character a la Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report)
FOB Kevin Peddicord has written a delightful children's book based on his experience with his own son, Time To Walk The Frog. I'd be curious to find out where they found a leash!
Gary Lamaster's The Teapublican Book of Lies: 50 Myths and Outright Lies Originated by the Republican Party and their Tea Party Allies (Volume 1) looks like a killer read, with many more volumes to come!
Bubble Genius, a stalwart Progressive supporter, should be a regular stop on your gift shopping trek. Great products for everyone on your list!
Surprise the kitties this year with the unique herbal blends from The Way of Cats.
Bacon soap. Just bacon soap!
If I thought my SIL would let me bro put these up, they'd so be on the way to his house. From Geeks Are Sexy.
Monty Python's Killer Rabbit slippers.
BuyDirectUSA.com was started in 1998 as a way to promote companies
that made their products in the USA. This was well before the scares
about toys made in China that contained lead and toxic ingredients.
I want to note that your charitable organization, book, product or site will get daily promotion to over 168k eyeballs for the holiday month. For free. This is what one of last years looked like. Bribery helps, I still need about 15 interesting Holiday cards.
So send us rec's about worthy or interesting possibilities for holiday shopping, plus we'll just add in stuff we like. If you have any suggestions, drop us an email here (subject line- Cool Things), or email me at 'Paddy AT thepoliticalcarnival DOT net'


text:
From what I have read here, the Legacy 5 speeds use a similar setup to the RX, which is a pinion shaft inside a tube which has half the gearset on it, so theoretically the pinion and ring gear should swap (actually the entire front diff for that matter). The trick is to get the locking RX center diff to work with the Legacy pinion shaft, as Ive heard the legacy shaft is a good bit longer than the RX shaft. Ive begun taking apart one of my RX trannies tonight, and although I was quite dissapointed when I poured rust colored water out of it :-\ the bearings all look to be ok. There is a lot of rust on other parts though, but if I cant salvage this tranny I have the one from my old RX that I know is a good trans.
Ill be going back out to drain the fluid out of the Legacy trans after I post this, but now, for your viewing pleasure, pics of the insides of an RX trans!
The tailhousing off
Inside the tailhousing
The locking center diff mechanism
The inside of the main trans body
The other half of the case
pulled the gears out
the pinion gearset
the pinion shaft/gear
the input shaft/gears
I also dicovered the speedometer gear is siezed. Unfortunately, I rotated the tranny input not knowing this, and it stripped it (being plastic and all, it didnt take much) so if anyone has an extra layin around, I could sure use it, although I dont need it as the speedo will likely be so far off with my 31" tires that I'd be better off judging speed by RPM's anyway.
Edited by The Beast I Drive, 27 November 2009 - 12:23 AM.


text:
observatory 0.1.0
Observatory is a simple gem to facilitate loosely-coupled communication between Ruby objects. It implements the observer design pattern so that your objects can publish events that other objects can subscribe to. Observatory provides some syntactic sugar and methods to notify events, filter values and allow observing objects to stop the filter chain. Observatory is inspired by the Event Dispatcher Symfony component.


text:
|Thread Tools
|Display Modes
|25th August 2006, 03:06 AM
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2
Begintermediate on an X-186 Formula (2002 Vintage)
This question is a bit out of vintage so I apologize for not being current but hopefully someone can allay my fears or give me some advice -
The Question - can a 95kg 180 cm begintermediate sailor sail an Formula X-186 (2002) with a 7.0 Neil Pryde V-8? if not, will more sail be enough or should I turn around and sell this board in search of a more appropriately sized GO board?
Skill Background -
I haven't windsurfed in a few years and wanted to get back on the water again. I have a 7.0m sail and a 5.9 that I used with an old Mistral Equipe until a few years back. At the time I was able to waterstart and get on the plane but never got into the straps (I know - weird) so I was some kind of beginner to 'begintermediate' in sailing skills.
Current Situation -
I had in mind to get a GO board if I could get my hands on a used one, then I recently ran across a 2002 X-186 formula at a local board swap and rashly purchased it thinking it would be something like a GO board. I only found out after that the board is not 186 Litres but is actually 155L. I haven't had a chance to get out on it yet but from what I have read in here from posts made way back in 2003, I've made a grave mistake in that bigger sails than I have are likely needed, and a 155 L formula board probably isn't the best place to start learning to sail again. I'm 95kgs and 180 cms tall.
|29th August 2006, 08:24 PM
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 237
RE: Begintermediate on an X-186 Formula (2002 Vintage)
Hi Windrider,
Since no one from the team has answered, I thought I might try.
My opinion is that the formula board will not be very good for you, especially with those sized sails. For one thing, the volume and length of that board are relatively low, so it will be very slow and ungraceful through the water when you are not planing. Another thing is that the footstraps are way out on the rail, with no inboard options, which will make it hard for you to get in the footstraps even if you do get on a plane, which I think will take at least 15 knots with the 7.0.
If I were you I would keep the Equipe for winds less than 15 knots, and use a GO, START, or RIO to try to plane with the 7.0 when the wind approaches 15 knots. If you want to lower the planing threshold down to around 10 knots on your GO, START, or RIO, invest in a 9 or 10 meter sail.
I don't know if there is a local windsurfing club in your area, but if there is, I would strongly recommend joining it. My local club helped me a lot with equipment choices and techniques that would have taken me a lot more time to figure out on my own.
|1st September 2006, 11:10 AM
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 108
RE: Begintermediate on an X-186 Formula (2002 Vintage)
I'm not a team member either, but I do have an '02 X-186, a '91 Equipe XR, and an '01 Start. My weight is 80kg. My most exciting rides so far were on the X-186 with a 5.0 sail and with the 40 cm fin from the Start.
My advice is give the X-186 several whirls before you decide. The X-186 is not the right board for a beginner. You, as someone who could get an Equipe to plane, are a long ways from a beginner, even if your skills are rusty now. You may love the way the X-186 pops up on a plane. A DRAM X-186 weighs just under 22 lbs. It will plane sooner than any other of the other wide boards mentioned in this discussion. The X-186 is 100 cm wide, like a 2001 Start, and only about 4 inches shorter than a 2001 Start. The X-186 is tippier than the Start because of its lighter weight (but planes alot sooner).
I agree with James that Yes, re-learning your skills would be faster on a Start or Rio or GO. But I think you can re-learn your skills on an X-186. I am guessing based on your past skills that your weight is low enough the X-186 won't be too tippy for you. If your weight was 100kg I would guess it would be too tippy to use as your board for re-learning.
After your skills return you will want larger sails for winds under 15 knots. Based on my weight I think your planing threshhold with a 10.0 sail on the X-186 will be more than 10 knots. I'm not a footstrap sailor either.
Welcome back to windsurfing and especially to the planing joys of wideboard windsurfing.
|1st September 2006, 10:10 PM
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4
RE: Begintermediate on an X-186 Formula (2002 Vintage)
Hi Windrider!!
I like you handle! I have a *board formula 147, a *Board GO Friendship and a '93 Mistral Equipe XR, I also have owned and sailed a variety of NP V8 sails, including a '98 7.5 m which I still have. I weight ~80Kg.
Having read both James and Del's replies, I kinda agree and disagree with both!
The reasons that the Formula is not good for relearning are as James stated, plus it's construction is not meant to withstand numerous mast strikes,catapults, etc. that a learner will subject it to. The Non-skidd will be rough on your skin and if it came with the stock (70cm) fin, it will require you to use it in fairly deep water, which maybe frustrating depending where you sail and how good you are at waterstarting.
The formula will, in comparison to the Equipe, have a different static and dynamic stablity. The X-186 will be more stable in the across the board axis (100 cm gives you that) but it will be much more sensitive to your fore/aft body position. But being a 2002 formula board its less this way than say James's F158. (L=264cm vs 227cm)
You will have to honestly access your skills to figure if you would be successful relearning on the X-186. If you envision yourself stuggleing to maintain your balance and constantly having the rig catapult you or slamming the board, then you might be better off getting something more appropriate to a progressing windsurfer. If you picked-up the sport fairly quickly you might find yourself in the fast lane to "the planing joys of wideboard windsurfing." with the X-186.
One last peice of advice, You should tune your V8 with more leech twist (i.e. more downhaul) when sailing with the X-186. Your board speed and req't for low end sail power will be different than when sailing the Equipe Longboard.
I hope this helps you.
|2nd September 2006, 11:47 AM
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2
RE: Thanks!
First off - Sorry for the delay on replying but I?ve been having some troubles communicating to the site from work.
James ? Thanks for the reply
I?m worried that you?re right. Unfortunately, the Equipe was a loaner from a Friend who wasn?t using it (still isn?t but its now locked up in his parent?s garage) so its no longer an option and now I just have the X-186 and the shredder.
One thing that you mentioned is getting into a 9 or 10 meter sail. Do you find that these sizes are much heavier or more difficult to uphaul than a 7.0? my 7.0 is a NP V8 and is the biggest sail I?ve used so the bigger sizes seem daunting? Finally ? there is a club in Toronto and I think I?m going to take your advise and join up at the club.
Del ? Thanks for the warm welcome back to Wideboard windsurfing!
I?m glad to see the X-186 can be fun with a smaller sail (5.0) in higher winds From what I was seeing in the previous posts, it seemed like this board couldn?t be sailed on anything smaller than an 7.5?
WindriderVA74 ? nice handle!
Thanks for the Leech twist tip ? I?ll try that. I agree that if I can?t sail it reasonably competently, I?ll probably be better off selling it and getting into a tuffskin GO or Rio. For now, I?m crossing my fingers that I can do something with what I have.
I?ve been ridiculously busy of late but this weekend is promising some wind so I?m going to get out tomorrow and give it a whirl, finally. Since I did learn to waterstart in deep water (in a stiff breeze mind you), I think that I still have a prayer of making this work. To echo what I said to James, I?m hoping that he?s wrong and that you?re right. If I do glimpse the fun you?ve been having on yours, I?ll definitely consider getting a big sail (10.0)+rig for the lower wind days.
Thanks again - I?ll post again to let you know what happens.
?93? 130L Mistral Shredder
?02 155L X-186 Starboard
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
|Thread Tools
|Display Modes
Linear Mode
All times are GMT +7. The time now is 05:18 PM.