DEBRIS.COMgood for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm

The SUV/terrorism debate continues. The Chronicle reports on reactions to the ad campaign: Gas-hogging SUVs aid terrorism, new TV ads say / Columnist Huffington starts campaign

Still more news from the front lines in Huffington’s recent column, How Corporate Greed And Political Corruption Paved The Way For The SUV Explosion (thanks to Bim for the link)

SUVs: you either own one, or you hate them. To anyone who has no opinion, I extend an invitation to sprout a backbone. Take a stand! It’s good for your circulation, or pancreas. One of those.

I am personally against SUVs for these reasons: they are the least fuel-efficient vehicles on the road, and therefore responsible for a disproportionately large percentage of the pollution and environmental toxins generated by automobiles; therefore these vehicles are poisoning me. They purport to be safe, but in fact are less safe in some respects (e.g. single-vehicle rollovers) than standard passenger vehicles; therefore they represent a victory of marketing over common sense, which always gets me down. They’re difficult to see around on the road, making driving less safe for others. They sit higher than passenger cars, which reduces the surviveability of collisions for anyone in a regular car who hits an SUV. (While in general I’m not against allowing citizens with means to fortify their environments against perceived risks, I do not condone any such measures at the expense of the neighbors’ safety. So, go ahead, build a bomb shelter if it makes you feel better, but don’t install an electric perimeter fence on my property line, where my family might bump into it.)

In America, automobiles are used for much more than personal transportation. Big cars are practical in some cases, and required in others. Moreover, American society embraces the right of its members to express their individuality by purchasing fancy cars.

But it seems unusual for society to accept such a destructive expression of individuality. I can think of a few examples of self-destructive behaviors that are legal but restricted — restricted specifically to not endanger people in the vicinity of the person who has decided to risk his or her health or safety in pursuit of individual expression. One: drinking is legal, but drunk driving is not. Two: smoking is legal, but (in California) not in any public area. I think SUV driving should be treated the same as alcohol and cigarettes: legal but restricted. Maybe that will be a new business model for when the oil executives leave the White House… offroad parks where citizens can safely exercise their rights to drive big-ass trucks without endangering the rest of the population.

The inspiration for today’s rant was this story in the Chronicle: New TV commercials link gas-guzzling SUVs to terrorism funding. The ads were created by the Detroit Project, aka http://www.americansforfuelefficientcars.org/, whose website currently contains the two commercials in question.

I’ve just watched them. They’re not brilliant. I guess I should not have expected too much from the creative team whose mighty grasp of form-over-function saddled us with “Got Milk?” Still, I like the concept, eloquently summarized by Arianna Huffington in her introduction: “Why not turn the tables and adopt the same tactics the administration was using in the drug war to point out the much more credible link between driving SUVs and our national security?”

Billed as “moderately strenuous,” the hike to the Upper Emerald Pool contained the most difficult few feet of trail I encountered all week: a five-foot stretch of ice on a mild incline. Theoretically I could cross it in two steps, but every time I’d lift one foot the other would slide backwards, and I’d flap my arms and twist around in a spastic attempt to keep my weight centered above at least one leg.

The vistas were remarkable; my photos didn’t capture the majesty. Here is the view of Red Arch Mountain (or, possibly, the Great White Throne).

The trail leads to several pools and waterfalls, most of which were frozen. I’d like to return here on a warmer, sunnier day.

Another neat image: a ledge of rock hanging over a long fall. Remember the stick figure!

The cold weather presented this interesting juxtaposition: snow on a cactus.

News and spoilers (and tantalizing stills) in today’s Newsweek: The Matrix Makers

There is also a ton of content at WB’s Matrix website.

Zion National Park is not a ski resort, so most people don’t go there in the winter. We did because, frankly, we needed a vacation and all the flights to warm places were sold out. The idea that the park would not be teeming with people appealed to me, as well — personally I would rather hike through snow than sit in warm weather in a parade of overheating RVs searching for a parking spot.

A few of the trails were closed, but we found these warnings to be arbitrary. Some of the trails that were officially closed were easier to traverse than the trails that were officially open. Conditions probably change faster than the rangers are able to update their lists. And we were not the only visitors to hike past “TRAIL CLOSED” signs, although I’m sure the signs did dissuade the people who hadn’t dressed appropriately for the environment, e.g. anyone not covered forehead-to-toenails in brand-name synthetic-fiber “high-performance” clothing (Dacron, Thor-Lon, Thinsulate, Gore-Tex, etc.).

Our first hike in Zion was the Hidden Canyon Trail. This trail seems to me to be typical for the park, in that it is characterized by steep climbs, stunning views (see the panorama I posted earlier), crazy rock formations, and sheer cliffs. The language on the sign at the trailhead reads, “Trail is hardened much of the way, but is very steep, rising 850 feet in only a mile. Severe dropoffs make this trail unsuitable for anyone fearful of heights.” And then it shows a little stick-figure flailing his arms as the edge of the cliff crumbles to dust underfoot — an iconographic warning of certain doom should anyone fail to heed the warning and try to “hang ten” over the edge of the cliff. I’m not fearful of heights, but I kept my distance from the edges all the same.

The ascent was less difficult than we expected, considering the grade and altitude (~4000 feet). The so-called “hardened” trail was buried in snow, but the snow was still crunchy enough to provide adequate footholds.

A few sections of the trail cross rock outcroppings. Chains bolted to the rock provide a handrail of sorts. These passages were the most difficult in the park, because the footing ranges from “uncertain” to “treacherous.” My feet shot out from under me at one point, and the only thing preventing me from dropping 15 feet into a ice-crusted pool was my grip on the chain. My wife had a few near-spills as well.

On the descent, we ate frozen Clif Bars. That’s the other thing about winter hikes — we learned to store snacks inside our jackets.