Maybe Bob is right—maybe the big MSM outlets (CNN, NYT, MSNBC) are obsolete and no longer deserve to exist. I was certainly one of the MSM’s holdouts, believing that traditional media still has an essential role to play in covering news…and then this happens: the almost-total failure of the MSM this past weekend to report on what’s happening in Iran.

For those of you who are understandably wondering just what the hell I’m talking about, Andrew Sullivan’s coverage has been outstanding. Sullivan has even re-themed his blog in green to show solidarity with the Iranian people as they demand that their votes be counted.

I don’t know what the outcome of this story will be, but I feel that same sense of energy in the air as I did when the old-guard Soviet regime staged its death-throes 1991 coup that resulted in the end of the Soviet Union and the rebirth of the Russian Republic. Events in Iran today, I believe, are no less significant and could well be no less consequential for the world.

There are widespread reports of Iranian leadership shutting down traditional communication channels. The result? People have been using Twitter and other internet-age modes to tell their story. This has always been the ultimate promise of the internet, hasn’t it? Make it impossible for any person or government or organization, however possible, to control the information. As I say, I don’t know what the ultimate outcome will be, but we’re thinking GREEN over here too!

Is there skiing in Iran? Yes — Andrew McLean had a great visit & skied 18,000′ Mt. Damavand.

UPDATE: ARS Technica reports the US State Department has asked Twitter to postpone a scheduled system update to prevent disrupting services in Iran. Astonishing.

UPDATE:

‘I’m always a little reticent to draw lessons from things still unfolding, but it seems pretty clear that…this is it. The big one. This is the first revolution that has been catapulted onto a global stage and transformed by social media. I’ve been thinking a lot about the Chicago demonstrations of 1968 where they chanted “the whole world is watching.” Really, that wasn’t true then. But this time it’s true … and people throughout the world are not only listening but responding.’

— NYU professor Clay Shirky on TedBlog

The Los Angeles Times has an article on efforts to rename North Palisade as “Brower Palisade.”

With an elevation of 14,242′, North Pal is California’s fourth-highest mountain and the Sierra’s signature mountaineering objective—Whitney nothwithstanding.

The name change, intended to honor David Brower, environmentalist and first Director of the Sierra Club, has some powerful backers, including (according to the Times article) California U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia, and climbing-guide author Steve Roper.

As you might suspect, many others are not so pleased with the proposal.

In the U.S., renaming mountains is generally made prohibitively difficult by the USGS, though there are exceptions. Arizona’s Squaw Peak was renamed Piestewa Peak after Army Spc. Lori Ann Piestewa, the first Native American woman to die in combat in the US military.

While that effort was not without controversy, it was eased first by the fact that Piestewa was a war veteran, and second that it was less a renaming than a name adjustment. For many people, “Squaw” was a slur both gender and race-specific. Changing the name to Piestewa was a nice way to remedy that issue.

In contrast, renaming North Palisade after Brower addresses no such inequity.My first thought, hearing of this, was: don’t they have something better to do? Given the myraid environmental challenges, issues, crises current facing not just the Sierra but the US and world beyond, can’t those who carry on the legacy of David Brower find a more important—more relevant—way to spend their precious time, money, and energy?

It just seems so…inappropriate.

There are plenty of unnamed peaks in the Sierra which could have been chosen to honor Brower instead. How does it honor the memory of one of our nation’s pioneering preservationists to ram a name change down the throat of unwilling climbers and mountaineers all across the globe?

In attempting to strip North Palisade’s name, supporters of the effort imply that nothing less than a peak of seminal importance will do for their honoree—and it doesn’t matter if that peak already has a name with a rich history. The ‘Brower Palisade’ proposal thus calls exactly the wrong kind of attention to the man. It is self-serving, self-important, arrogant. It ignores the bigger picture. It is wrong.

That’s my opinion, at least.

What an extraordinary moment in our nation’s history. I have never felt so proud to be an American. I am proud that so many Americans chose to exercise their right to vote—many of them first-time voters (and many of those young voters).

I am proud that our country has once again affirmed to itself and to the world that we are a people of unlimited potential and possibility. And I am proud beyond words to have lived to see our Nation’s first African American President. I am touched by Eugene Robinson’s emotional words last night, as the results came in: for the first time in our Nation’s history, all fathers can say to their sons, “You too can be President someday.”

Those words are now true. There will be many challenges ahead. The problems we face are real and complex. But today, at least, our burdens seem lighter, our national spirit stronger, our future brighter. We have turned the page, and the next chapter remains to be written.

For the past few days I’ve debating whether or not to make any personal endorsements for the upcoming election. This is, after all, a mountaineering website, and with all the competing campaign messages bombarding us, it’s been nice to keep SierraDescents as a sort of non-political safe haven (illusory or not).

That is, until I happened to browse my site today and found political ads running all across it, including a particularly contemptible ad run by the Prop 8 proponents, courtesy of Google.

I’ve pulled all Google advertising from my site, and will keep it pulled through tomorrow.

Let me also state my strong opposition to Proposition 8, which would amend California’s state constitution to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Since California’s constitution guarantees people equal treatment under the law, the only way to deny same-sex couples the legal right to marry in our state is to specifically single them out in our constitution and exclude them from equal protection.

That’s called discrimination.

Normally, we write laws—and especially Constitutions—to prevent discrimination; not codify it.

Same-sex couples already have the right to marry in California. Since they’ve been doing so, it doesn’t seem to have undermined my marriage. It doesn’t seem to have undermined anything, in fact.

The fabric of our society has not unraveled.

As the Los Angeles Times writes:

Look at what Proposition 8 is actually about: a group of people who are trying to impose on the state their belief that homosexuality is immoral and that gays and lesbians are not entitled to be treated equally under the law.

This is not who we are. Vote NO on Proposition 8.

UPDATE: I should clarify that Google the company is not paying for these ads; Google is simply running these ads on its ad network. There was apparently a spirited internal discussion at Google as to whether or not to carry pro-Prop 8 ads on its networks (Google itself has a strong anti-discrimination policy). Google did not, however, offer its publishers (like me) any warning that these ads would be coming, nor any easy way to quickly opt out of running them—except pulling all Google advertising, which I have done.

It’s been hard to come up with a subject to write about this week. Every backcountry skiing or hiking related topic I’ve thought of just seems a little…off topic.

So I will go off topic to stay on, and relay a dream I had last night, in which MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann was moderating a joint emergency House and Senate hearing on the current financial crisis, and the proposed bailout.

Politics Alert dear reader: (more…)

Could any other city in the world have staged an Olympics opening ceremony to match the scale and spectacle of Beijing’s debut Friday?

I doubt it. My jaw kept dropping as I watched what will surely be remembered as one of the most awe-inspiring opening ceremonies in Olympics history.

Any one of the many set pieces would have been the centerpiece of any other games. But ceremony director Zhang Yimou (China’s celebrated film director) delivered one ground-breaking moment after another, flowing easily from symbolic imagery to sublime artistry on a scale that Olympic audiences have never before seen (more…)

The Island of Forvik is now accepting applications for citizenship. Qualifications? Apparently all you have to do is pony up one Forvik Gulde (approx. £60 pounds sterling).

Never heard of Forvik? It’s a small island off Scotland owned by Stuart Hill, who recently declared independence from the UK. Mr. Hill (who also happens to be Forvik’s only resident) wants the island to be a crown dependency ala the Chanel Islands or the Island of Man.

If the idea of being king of your own country, however small, appeals to you, you’ve got to admire Hill’s moxie. But maybe we should wait till we learn more about Forvik’s backcountry skiing opportunities before sending over the cash for citizenship.

Meanwhile, I’m going to have to look into getting my own island…or maybe I’ll just declare my block in West L.A. an independent territory.

Tired of getting tongue-tied when the subject of Benito Mussolini comes up? Looking to impress your friends with your knowledge of the roots of Fascism? In the interest of public service, here’s an amusing little history lesson.

The funny thing is, initially this didn’t even strike me as that big of a milestone. I mean, oil has been hovering around the $70-80 per barrel price for so long (relatively speaking), that I’d gotten used to the idea.

But wait a minute—only a few years ago, I believe the OPEC nations were saying that the ideal price would be in the $30 per barrel range, and that they would adjust production as needed to keep the price there.

In case you’re wondering why OPEC would want to keep prices down, the thinking at that time was that higher prices would lead to unwanted consequences, such as conservation, people driving less, buying more efficient vehicles, and turning to other energy sources. So OPEC wanted to keep the price of oil in that sweet spot where they charged as much as possible without damaging consumption—those old ‘maximize the function’ problems that you hated so much in college math class.

So why are oil prices now some three times higher? A big part of the answer has to be growth in the developing world… (more…)