December 17, 2012

The Sixties: Wilderness v. recreation, educated v. affluent

Continuing to consider the Sixties ... let's take a look at the Sixties through the lens of class, using the long battle in the 1960s over Mt. San Gorgonio in Southern California, which was a harbinger of the coming class wars between the educated elite, the prosperous upper middle class, and, mostly as bystanders, the masses.

The single best place to downhill ski in Southern California would be the north slope of Mt. San Gorgonio, near Big Bear Lake, 80 miles east of Los Angeles in the San Bernardino Mountains. It's 11,500 feet high, and, due to the extreme elevation, about 3,000 vertical feet of skiing would be usable well into spring each year. (Most SoCal ski mountains top out at around 8600 feet, which is about where a San Gorgonio ski complex would start.) And Old Greyback is a more rounded mountain, more like volcanic Mammoth in the Sierras, better suited for non-lethal skiing than most of the alarmingly steep SoCal mountains. 

But, it also has a lovely alpine wilderness below the peak that's well-watered and not too steep, especially around the two natural lakes at about 9000 feet. (Despite the name of Los Angeles's main NBA team, natural lakes are extremely rare in Southern California.) Here's Dry Lake, which actually isn't dry most of the time:

I found this 47-year-old Sports Illustrated article written just before the Ecology Age kicked fully into gear in the late 1960s that discusses the political struggle between skiers and wilderness enthusiasts in the early 1960s. Obviously, this isn't terribly relevant to the latest breaking news out of wherever, but it offers an insight into educated American opinion just before the Sixties broke over everything.
February 01, 1965 
The Battle For A Mountain 
Sportsmen are fighting sportsmen in the conflict over beautiful, rugged Mt. San Gorgonio, a lofty wilderness near Los Angeles which conservationists want to keep wild and skiers long to penetrate 
Coles Phinizy

In southern California, east of Los Angeles, where yellow tongues of smog lick the dusty feet of brown mountains, there is a rocky giant called Mt. San Gorgonio. It is 11,502 feet tall—a half a head higher than the other peaks flanking it in the San Bernardino range. By early spring, when most of the range and the crests of the adjacent San Gabriel range have lost their kiss of snow, big San Gorgonio often still shines white—the one true jewel of the lot. It is also the least spoiled today, because 34,718 acres of it above the 7,000-foot contour have been set aside by Congress as a wilderness area where there can be no road or building, or any use of land vehicles or planes. 
San Gorgonio is a product of dramatic geologic faulting; in its upper faces there are vast cirques that were gored out long ago by glaciers. Although it is today, by law, supposedly a place of emptiness and little noise, for the past quarter century it has been a critical battleground. On and off since the late 1930s skiers have been trying to open up the San Gorgonio wilderness so that tows and lifts for downhill skiing might be built on its hoary upper slopes. As anyone might guess, all manner of conservationists and outdoorsmen have rallied to defend the wilderness against the ambitions of the skiers. It has been a peculiar battle. Both sides feel strongly on the matter, but even in the most crucial moments, there has been little uncontained anger. Indeed, the only thing that has been expended at all recklessly in the long fight has been talk. 
The battle is, in fact, only worth considering at this time because, sooner or later, similar fights will break out in other areas.

That turned out to be true, and in a hurry after 1965.
In the U.S. there have been many quarrels over land before, the miners, railroaders, loggers, cattlemen, sheepmen, farmers, industrialists, sportsmen all scrambling for a proper share. Now for the first time, on the high ground of San Gorgonio, we have sportsmen against sportsmen in a major fight. 

Skiers v. backpackers was something of a class battle of the upper realms, with skiers tending to be affluent and wilderness enthusiasts extremely well-educated Thoreau quoters. The family snow play crowd (see below), in contrast, is mass-market and wasn't much represented in these debates as the 1960s went along. Their interests generally sided with the skiers in terms of making use of roads and other facilities.
The one real reason such a battle is taking place and that others will follow is that the U.S. population is becoming a burden.

Boy, that's something you seldom read anymore.
We are fast running out of room for working, decent living and playing. By present, crowded standards, almost all outdoor sports require an exorbitant amount of space—a large factory and housing enough for all its workers can be built in the same space needed by 18 men to play a game of baseball. In the U.S., east and west, there are wilderness tracts far larger and more precious than San Gorgonio, and there are other snowy mountains better for downhill skiing. San Gorgonio has become the first battleground of sportsmen simply because it is located near greater Los Angeles. In municipal Los Angeles and in the tangle of contiguous cities that lie with it under a blanket of smog, there are now more than 10 million people. The air they breathe on inversion days is only slightly better than the old foul breath of Pittsburgh. The particular virtue of the megalopolis is the complex of freeways by which ordinary men escape in their off time, some of them heading for the water, some for the deserts, some for the mountains, some for the ball parks and horse tracks, and many simply leaving home to find a louder jukebox playing a different tune. 

This passage reflects the Era of the Common Man thinking that would die out as the Sixties went on. Within five to ten years, you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody in the fashionable sporting press extolling freeways for providing freedom to average guys.
... In winter many "go to the snow," as they say, even when there is no snow. They often go to bare ski slopes simply to ride the chair lifts, to hike about, to breathe clean air and to gaze across at Palos Verdes and Catalina Island floating on the distant horizon. 
Any New Englander reared in a cold, nubbly land where belly-flopping, ice-ball fights, tobogganing and bundling were taken for granted would be amazed to see the use southern Californians get out of a ski slope. If the slopes have any meager snow cover at all, the desperate Californians engage in what they call "snow play." For the benefit of old Down Easters who are not hep to modern recreational terms, by "snow play" a southern Californian means all the usual trivial, thrilling and dangerous pleasures of winter. For example, three weekends ago on the Mt. Baldy ski slopes, the highest in southern California, there were about four inches of intermittent glaze and slush on the upper reaches. Although all slopes were closed to skiers, the main chair lift still carried 1,800 snow players and sightseers to the 7,800-foot level. ... at the base of the lift Greg Zemenek, 9, Steve Madison, 9, Ricky Traynor, 9, Dale Traynor, 8, and Darrell Traynor, 7—all of El Monte, Calif.—were battling with brown snowballs. It was not altogether clear who was siding with whom, but all five participants were carefully mixing one part mud to one part snow in their ammunition so that the sparse patches of slush would last for the duration of their small war. 
While these small boys battled, in the main parking lot Darlene Bryan, age 10, of Santa Monica was weeping because her uncle would not let her put a three-foot snowman in the back seat of the car. Some families came to the slopes carrying garbage can tops, inner tubes, crate tops and air mattresses, and when denied access to the lift with such dangerous vehicles, they climbed part way up on foot and slid down tree-studded, rock-rubbled slopes that would have scared any sensible belly-flopper out of his wits. ... 

Not a lot has changed at the Mt. Baldy parking lot other than the ethnicity of the snowball fighters.
On the January weekend when people were having such snowy fun around Mt. Baldy, only six of the 13 ski areas within 100 miles of Los Angeles were open for skiing, and all of these six were using artificial snow to supplement the meager natural fall. ... During the same period, above the 8,400-foot contour on San Gorgonio there was a foot of snow, and the conditions on the fiats and north slopes were good for recreational skiing. 
Quite obviously, for skiing or for any kind of "snow play," Los Angeles needs more room and more reliable snow, and that is why the pressure is on the prize acreage atop San Gorgonio. After a number of smoldering years, the battle for San Gorgonio broke out again about three years ago when a group of southern California ski-lift operators petitioned the Forest Service to open up 3,500 acres between 8,000 and 11,000 feet (see map).

My impression is that in Switzerland, developers typically won most of these battles, so the Alps are covered with gondola lifts, cog railways, tunnels inside the Eiger, hotels, hostels, and so forth. In the U.S., the exclusionary wilderness ethic turned out to be quite a bit stronger than in Switzerland, perhaps because the Alps were always inhabited by the Swiss, so there was a natural alliance between developers for the wealthy and the rural masses.
Although the operators and skiers will argue the point forever, the 10% of the area that they want for trails, lifts, parking lots, restaurants and so forth is an important ecological part, used by cougar, bobcat, deer, bear and bighorn sheep. It is also, from the human point of view, the esthetic heart of the area. ...
Some skiers claim they are ardent conservationists; some of the wilderness defenders claim they are ardent downhill skiers. In their nobler moments, the skiers lean heavily on the late President Kennedy's old pitch of vim and vigor.  In their nobler moments the wilderness defenders fetch up the wisdom of old Henry Thoreau, pleading that city people need the tonic of wilderness to clear their addled heads and fortify their souls. ...

By 1970, Thoreau, the spokesman for New England post-Puritan near-misanthropic elitism, was huge.
While both houses of Congress were weighing a number of different wilderness measures during the past two years, both sides in the San Gorgonio fight took their causes before congressional committees, and ever since there has been a great outpouring of emotion, needless words and confusing figures. No one can surely say how many skiers there are in southern California, but one statistician opposing them claimed that there were 61,010 in 1963. The skiers variously estimate their own strength at somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000. In any case, this means that there are still somewhere around 10 million people in the area who do not ski. According to the Forest Service, last year there were 53,900 visitors who rode horses or hiked into the wilderness (this total includes one lady pushing a perambulator and another carrying a straight-backed chair). 
This means that, despite the publicity the battle for the mountain has received in the local press, there were around 10 million people in the area who did not bother to visit the wild battleground. 
... There is no doubt that if the high ground of San Gorgonio were opened up to skiing, the area would get far greater use than it does now. The sport of skiing flourishes in the U.S. wherever there are slopes, lifts and reliable snow close to heavily populated areas. On their side the skiers have the old and often valid doctrine of the greatest good for the greatest number. But weighed against this are two equally logical considerations. First, the American wilderness is disappearing, and we grieve already at its passing. Second, as soberly put in a committee hearing by a geologist named Barclay Kamb, "It is argued that the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number compels development because the downhill skiing facilities would attract so many more people than presently visit the area in its wilderness state. This claim takes us back to the basic question of values at the heart of wilderness preservation. It is like arguing that we should convert our churches to roller-skating rinks because that would get the attendance up." 
The battle for San Gorgonio will continue—that is the only thing certain about its future. As long as the mountain is wild, it will have defenders, and as long as it shines with snow in winter, there will be skiers wanting it.

It's interesting to see that back in early 1965 a writer felt he had to explicitly argue against majoritarianist utilitarianism -- "the greatest good for the greatest number" as the moral default. One of the key changes of the Sixties was that the default assumption of who was in the moral right flipped from the majority to just about any organized minority.

Since then, the wilderness advocates won completely at San Gorgonio. There has been no development at all of the high country. Backpacking became highly fashionable around 1970, as part of the anti-materialism ethos of the hippie era, although its popularity would seem to have receded much in recent years, perhaps in part because it's hard to get started in it.

A big change since then is the emergence of small but well-networked extreme sport enthusiasts. Individuals will climb San Gorgonio in the dead of winter to ski down once. (My dad would go skiing in the Sierras that way back before WWII, but was quite happy when somebody finally got an old Model T up to the top of the run, flipped it over and attached a rope tow to the engine.

Whereas at one time, if you thought spending 6 hours climbing a mountain to get 15 minutes of skiing was a good idea, you'd pretty much have to be a Caltech student to know similar individuals. (The Caltech Alpine Club has been around for decades.) But, now the Internet helps individuals with unusual tastes get together.

In fact, besides implementing a wilderness permit quota system to manage crowds, wilderness activists succeeded in closing the last three miles of road to the trailhead to make the region less accessible. Back in the 1970s when I hiked to the top of San Gorgonio three times, it was only a six mile roundtrip to Dry Lake with 1200 feet of elevation, which made it an ideal weekend backpacking trip. Now it's a 12 mile roundtrip with 2400 feet of gain. At that altitude, it sounds daunting for a decayed physique like mine.

My guess is that the result at San Gorgonio is fairly representative of the developments of the 1960s: the tastes of the highest class won the legal war over those of the next highest class. 

Meanwhile, the masses get fatter.

80 comments:

elvisd said...

Good to know there's some places where the rabble has to break a sweat to get to.

Karen said...

Umm, you really think backpackers are richer than skiers? I ski in New Mexico and Colorado -- both kept in business by middle-class Texans like me -- but even there the skiers are generally wealthier and preppier than wilderness trekkers. The really high class types hell-ski to extremely remote areas and ski and backpack down from there.

Anonymous said...

Lakers got their name before they moved to LA from Minneapolis

HAR said...

Does Sailer start thinking about golf architecture and mountains as a defense mechanism when a white male does something wrong? This is like the left ignoring a politically incorrect story. We know you'll get around to it, but it really calls out for some commentary before any political writer talks about other stuff.

Five Daarstens said...

Off Topic:

The BBC released the archive of Desert Island Discs to the public, I listened to the one with Elvis Costello, very good stuff:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/desert-island-discs/find-a-castaway#

Five Daarstens said...

Europeans do not think much of Thoreau and Emerson. To them the Continental thinkers were much more relevant.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Sailor thinks it's the Christmas season. I appreciate it. Robert Hume

fnn said...

Does Sailer start thinking about golf architecture and mountains as a defense mechanism when a white male does something wrong? This is like the left ignoring a politically incorrect story. We know you'll get around to it, but it really calls out for some commentary before any political writer talks about other stuff.

Auster and Vox Day have been all over the story. Also, Roissy:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/older-moms-and-divorced-moms-raising-generation-of-psychopaths/

AllanF said...

You need one of those pictures of LA on a day when there's no smog.

I've never lived there, but my understanding was the joke was that LA had so much smog for so long that people forgot it had mountains worth skiing.

Anonymous said...

"Lakers got their name before they moved to LA from Minneapolis"


Steve knows that.

Anonymous said...

Does Sailer start thinking about golf architecture and mountains as a defense mechanism when a white male does something wrong? This is like the left ignoring a politically incorrect story. We know you'll get around to it, but it really calls out for some commentary before any political writer talks about other stuff


God, you lefties are such fucking morons.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 1 - trust me Steve knows the Lakerrs got their name from Minneapolis. His dad went on a double date with George Mikan

Anonymous2 - Steve talks about things that interest him and us. If there was an intelligent angle to Newtown not talked about, you'd read it here.

Dan in DC.

beowulf said...

"Despite the name of Los Angeles's main NBA team, natural lakes are extremely rare in Southern California."
That may be most inappropriate (post-relocation) team name... Well, the New Orleans Jazz becoming the Utah Jazz, that's pretty bad.

"Umm, you really think backpackers are richer than skiers? I ski in New Mexico and Colorado -- both kept in business by middle-class Texans like me -- but even there the skiers are generally wealthier and preppier than wilderness trekkers"
More elitist is a better term. You don't see skiers trying to fence off hiking trails or lobbying Congress to stock campgrounds with wolves.

Veracitor said...

Since Mexicans don't go for skiing much and tourists are not going to travel from afar for mediocre skiing in a small hypotheticall San Gorgonio resort, there probably won't be a ski resort there in the next hundred years even though the nordic white conservationist types will be as extinct in California as the grizzly bear memorialized on the State flag.

Auntie Analogue said...


Sometimes "These Boots Are Made For Walking," and sometimes they're made for skiing. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Anonymous said...

Here's a deal. Take guns away from the government and we will disarm. If a lone nut can kill 28 with a rifle, imagine what the government can do with a million rifles.
If US government can invade nations and drop bombs all over the world, who's to say the government won't treat us like it treated Iraqis? I don't want to be shocked and awed.

Btw, if guns are so evil, why is Obama's administration funneling guns and bombs to the Syrian rebels to overthrow the 'tyrannical' government of Assad? Seems like providing guns to the people to overthrow governments in Libya and Syria has been cool with so many people who support Obama. If guns can aid a people against tyranny, why shouldn't we have guns?

Also, I keep hearing that NRA is behind the sensationalization of guns in American culture, but most Americans never saw an NRA ad. The main purveyors of 'guns are cool and great' message are Hollywood, US Military(part of big government) with its recruiting ads and joint ventures with Hollywood(in movies like Transformers), violent rap videos on MTV, violent video games designed by liberal nerds in Silicon Valley. In fact, NRA doesn't have to spend a penny to promote guns since liberals who own popular entertainment have been glorifying guns--and other weapons in movies like Hunger Games--forever. And the Leftists love images of Che Guevara and Malcolm X brandishing assault rifles, and in the 60s, liberals romanticized gun-toting black panthers. And today, gun-toting rappers are treated like royalty.

Most conservatives own guns for home defense, to hunt game, and to defend liberty from the government. It is the liberals who have promoted the image of guns as nihilistic instruments of mass mayhem. Most TV shows drenched in gun violence are written, directed, and produced by liberals. In many such shows, guns are not so much tools but rock guitars to be used for self-expression. NRA did not make Hunger Games or Django Unchained. Liberal Hollywood did.
Guns are deadly weapons but they don't influence minds. Minds are influenced by ideas, images, sounds, propaganda, sensationalism. And most of those things are controlled by liberals. For every kid who'll come across an NRA ad, a million will come across something as vile and ugly as Pulp Fiction or Hunger Games. Or Django Unchained. Guns didn't order Russians to kill millions of people under communism. No, communist control of propaganda and government did that. American society is seeing the breakdown of family, rise of foul popular culture, and increasing dependence on medication. Something's gotta give, but all these cowards wanna blame the NRA.

Nick Diaz said...

@Steve Sailer

"It's interesting to see that back in early 1965 a writer felt he had to explicitly argue against majoritarianist utilitarianism -- "the greatest good for the greatest number" as the moral default. One of the key changes of the Sixties was that the default assumption of who was in the moral right flipped from the majority to just about any organized minority."

"SIGH"

Majorities and minorities are not mutually exclusive categories. Everyone, whether belonging to a majority or minority, is an individual who's rights must be respected. You make things to be about majority vs minority, when in reality neither categories are bearers of rights. Only individuals can be the bearers of rights.

Majority rule only applies to the sphere of executive political power. In the legal sphere, a majority is a non-entity. Majorities CANNOT use their power to disenfranchise individuals. Equality before the law is THE most cardinal principle of the entire legal system. A majority cannot:

- Put people in chains because they belong to an undesirable ethnicity.

- Deny people their right to marry because of their sexual orientation.

- Force one gender to have a lower legal status than other.

All these things violate the principle of equality before the law.

A society ruled by the principle of legal majority rule is barbarism. Consider the following scenario: you have a cushy life because you belong to the majority, a life much better than a member of a minority. Now, suppose things change and you no longer belong to the majority. Suppose that the majority of the population of your country adopts a religion that goes deeply against your beliefs, and assume this religion preaches death to the infidel. You now must either convert or die. This is what you get with legal majority rule, rather than individual rights legal rule. Would you want that? Now imagine the majority has adopted the belief of eugenics, and arbitrarily decides that people with the weird trait of red hair must be killed. Your beloved son has red hair and must now die. This is what you get with legal majority rule, rather than individual rights legal rule. Would you want that?

There are cities in Mississippi and Alabama where, if left to majority rule, segregation would be reinstated. I have asked Steve Sailer many times if he would be in favor of this, and he never replies this question.

It is so frustration to address these topics over and over, just for Sailer to repeat the exact same points a few days later with no acknowledgement of what you replied. It's like Sailer blogs only to himself and his sycophants.

Anonymous said...

Nick Diaz - It's like Sailer blogs only to himself and his sycophants.

Arent we lucky to have all those liberal/left bloggers out there then. Always ready to speak truth to power, to stick it to The Man. After all, its so difficult for gay marriage advocates to get their message out, for oppressed minorities to get a fair hearing in the media etc etc

Nick, you're priceless.

Anonymous said...

@ Nick Diaz

What's with the hostility? One either agree or disagree with Steve's views. Most people who disagree give counterpoints or move on. Your posts seem to have an undercurrent of hostility without much substance. Bitter much?

Is your hostility an admission? Of course not, what am I thinking?

dearieme said...

While you're making your fascinating comments on the sixties, do consider this.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100194585/it-isnt-redneck-gun-culture-that-causes-mass-school-shootings-its-the-culture-of-narcissism/

Anonymous said...

Hey Little Nickki, there are many towns here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts that would also segregate in a gnat's blink, given the option. It would be easy for them to justify; it's for the children!

But libertards are so focused on those they consider racist mouthbreathers that they seldom notice the same, and much more virulent, traits in their Fellow Travelers.

slumber_j said...

A couple of points on skiing and social class:

Interestingly, the postwar rise of alpine skiing in the US mostly resulted from the enthusiasm of demobbed members of the Army's 10th Mountain Division. For example, a wonderful backwoods Ozark type from Missouri who worked for my grandfather in Colorado for most of his adult life joined the 10th Mtn. Div. during WWII and returned the most unlikely gung-ho skier in the history of the sport up to that point. A lot of his fellow soldiers went on to found ski areas and other skiing-related businesses across the country.

But it's also true that a more elitist element had a hand the sport's Stateside development. Paul Nitze's brother-in-law Walter Paepcke and friends (including my grandfather) founded the Aspen Skiing Company in maybe 1950. And James Laughlin--steel heir and New Directions publisher of Ezra Pound, William Carlos Williams, Wallace Stevens and everybody else--founded the Alta ski area in Utah.

Steve Sailer said...

10th Mountain Division

Right. Mammoth was started by a guy who got out of the 10th Mountain Division and got a job with the State of California crosscountry skiing around the Sierras measuring the snowpack to see if they should let more water out of the reservoirs. He discovered that Mammoth Mountain got the most snow and had the best terrain, so he bought it.

Anonymous said...

"Deny people their right to marry because of their sexual orientation. "

No one is denied a right to marry because of their orientation: a homosexual man may marry any woman who will have him; a lesbian may marry any man who will have her.

"Force one gender to have a lower legal status than other"

Actually, they can: such a thing is variously called apartheid, affirmative action, Nuremberg laws, minority set-asides, and are very popular in the US as elsewhere.

"All these things violate the principle of equality before the law."

That's right, they do. And as soon as disparate impact, hate crime laws, and anti-discrimination laws are abolished, we can have equality before the law.

Anonymous said...

Fuck that. Most of the system is back country inaccessable to anyone not both young and in perfect shape. The jackasses that make the decisions don't want anyone in their little playgrounds, instead they pretend they can create a pristine wilderness through human intervention. The park system is for everyone not just the elite.

Hunsdon said...

Nick Diaz said: A society ruled by the principle of legal majority rule is barbarism.

Also, "SIGH."

Hunsdon reproves: Sir, it must be convenient to look back over the magnificent sweep of human history, and then dismiss every society that has ever existed BND (Before Nick Diaz!) as barbaric. How very precocious of you!

If only the Sassanids had embraced "marriage equality!" Or Aragon and Castille! Or the Qing dynasty in China. Or Baibars in Egypt, or the Poles, or the Hungarians.

Barbarians, every last one of them. Oooh, is "majoritarianist" a slur yet? Maybe you could flog that horse?

Also, the whole sigh thing? It doesn't really work here.

Anonymous said...

Because that is not a rational point. You are an ass. Your weird little scenario deserves no attention. You would have to believe 'Austin Powers' was a documentary and evil geniuses were champing at the bit to ressurect Hitler to take your idiot question seriously. Grow up.

aisaac said...

The misanthropic style of wilderness advocacy is ultimately doomed. Hardly anybody can use wilderness areas so hardly anybody cares about them. That makes them prime candidates for selling off when there's a budget crisis. If these mountains were LA's playgrounds, it would be difficult politically to strip mine them or sell them to exclusionary developers, but as it is, just a few members of the white minority would get upset.

I'm in favor of wilderness preservation but I'm willing to compromise to get hunters, skiers, Jeepers and others on board.

Anonymous said...

Well, I look at want ads for fun. And in Corona a job that pays just 12 dollar for production lead in a factoy you also have to have clerical skills like microsoft word, outlook, and excel. This means that immirgants from Mexico or Central America can't do thejobs their kids would qualify since they are more likely to have had that in high school. Maybe one reason for the Inland Empire's high unemployment rate.

Anonymous said...

"Does Sailer start thinking about golf architecture and mountains as a defense mechanism when a white male does something wrong? This is like the left ignoring a politically incorrect story."

I'm assuming Steve doesn't think he has anything particularly interesting to say about that story, just like he doesn't write about every single black on white home invasion, multiple homicide, or gang rape.

This shooting is not genuinely a national interest story, and the coverage of it is insanely overblown. At best it should be a one-day blip on the radar, reported as "a tragedy today..." and moving on, rather than 24 hour round the clock coverage for a week. Even Michael Jackson's death was a more legitimate news item than this thing.

The other reason this is not "like the left ignoring a politically incorrect story" is that Steve is one man with a blog. Nobody expects every single news outlet to cover every single story, politically correct or not. What's objected to is the unified wall of silence by the media against stories fitting certain categories and trends. A somewhat fair comparison would be if the entire HBD-osphere was ignoring the story, which is obviously untrue as many other blogs in this realm have covered this story as obsessively as the 24 hour cable networks.

stari_momak said...

"Does Sailer start thinking about golf architecture and mountains as a defense mechanism when a white male does something wrong?"

As a longtime Steve fan, I've noticed this pattern too. But it's not necessarily bad. A lot of facts are still not out. Further, these sorts of events, however tragic, are so rare as to have just about zero impact on society (except maybe for the upcoming gun grab). Housing values in Newton Conn are not going to decline due to this shooting, their schools are not going to start performing any less well in the long term.

Having sai that, there is an interesting HBD angle here. Going through Motherjones list where the lefties eagerly declared that 43 of 63 mass shooters since 1982 have been white males (neglecting to mention, of course, that that 68% is just about what you'd expect given the demographics of the country -- in fact a little less (all shooters but one have been males) - I noticed that Asians are way overrepresented, to the tune of at least twice their

Given the intelligence that is attributed to many of the shooters (the last Aurora guy was a grad student, this latest guy was supposedly brilliant but weird) like there is almost a reverse situation to the usual crimes of killing. Almost, I say, because in fact black males are very slightly overrepresented among mass shooters.

Unz would be glad to know that Hispanics are very underrepresented -- though I theorize that is because

(1) it is hard for non-US citizens to get guns
(2) the murderous among them have more outlets for their urges, example gangs.

Dahinda said...

"For the benefit of old Down Easters who are not hep to modern recreational terms, by "snow play" a southern Californian means all the usual trivial, thrilling and dangerous pleasures of winter."

There was a lot of East vs. West (So. Cal) here too.

Anonymous said...

You can also trace the postwar environmental movement as we know it and the culture of recreational running to the 10th Mountain Division, through David Brower and Bill Bowerman.

Rick said...

Regarding slumber_j's and Mr. Sailer's points about the 10th Mountain Division:

I spent my time in the Marine Corps, not the Army, so I am interested in learning more about this. My understanding is, as you say, the 10th Mountain Division was full of men with plenty of skiing/mountaineering expertise in the World War II days. This included world-class competitive downhill skiers, mountain climbers, etc.

Today, however, the 10th Mountain Division is simply another light infantry unit. It has kept the 'Mountain' as part of its name for reasons of tradition.

Why is this? Wouldn't it have served the Army well in a place like Afghanistan to have an entire large unit specialized in mountain operations?

It seems that there has been a decrease of general competence in society over the past three generations. Mountaineering skills are difficult to learn and very perishable. Are we not capable of fielding a division-sized element specializing in high-altitude warfare?

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Backpacking became highly fashionable around 1970...although its popularity would seem to have receded much in recent years, perhaps in part because it's hard to get started in it.

My experience has been that to get started one has only to strap on a backpack and start walking.

BTW, Steve, I really enjoy these stories of old California. Many of my clients come from old Los Angeles families whose grandfathers and great-grandfathers bought little weekend cottages in Laguna Beach and Newport Beach decades ago, and now make their home here. I get lots of tales of early Hollywood, the oil business, and the surf industry.

Nick Diaz's friend said...

Nick Diaz said: "It is so frustration to address these topics over and over, just for Sailer to repeat the exact same points a few days later with no acknowledgement of what you replied."

I don't doubt you find it "frustration" to have your questions ignored, but I missed the part where Steve is obligated to reply to you or anybody else.

I'd guess Steve gets an awful lot of emails and can only respond to those he finds particularly insightful. Or maybe he gets very few emails, maybe just yours, but still doesn't feel like replying. Maybe he doesn't find your questions interesting. If a guy that you don't know personally ignores your questions and you find that upsetting, may I suggest that you find some friends?

David said...

Adventures in Libertarianism -- Part CVCVCVCVCVCVVCV

It's OK to crank up the music, Florida Supreme Court rules

"TALLAHASSEE, Florida (Reuters) - Motorist Richard Catalano's five-year quest to crank up Justin Timberlake tunes on his way to work won the blessing of the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday.

"In a unanimous ruling, the state's highest court affirmed a pair of lower-court opinions that a 2007 state law prohibiting loud music while driving violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of expression.

"Catalano received a $73 ticket in 2007 for violating the newly enacted law that prohibited motorists from playing music that is 'plainly audible' 25 feet away. Motorists traveling by hospitals, schools and churches were subjected to even stricter standards.

"Catalano, a Clearwater lawyer, challenged the law as subjective, arguing that determining whether music was too loud was in the ears of the beholder.

"Further, the law provides listeners with fewer protections than drivers of vehicles emitting political or commercial speech, who have more explicit protections under the U.S. Constitution.

"Calling the law overly broad, Justice Jorge Labarga wrote that noncommercial speech was also protected. Though rejecting the notion that the law was too vague, Labarga said the state showed no compelling interest in muzzling audiophiles who also prefer to feel their favorite music.

"'The right to play music, including amplified music, in public fora is protected under the First Amendment,' Labarga wrote."

***

As Napoleon Bonaparte said, "I have come to realize that men are not born to be free."

Anonymous said...

"Also, I keep hearing that NRA is behind the sensationalization of guns in American culture, but most Americans never saw an NRA ad."

I understand the point you're trying to make, but you have to admit that photo of Charlton Heston holding aloft a flintlock rifle at an NRA convention is extremely provocative.

Beecher Asbury said...

It is so frustration to address these topics over and over, just for Sailer to repeat the exact same points a few days later with no acknowledgement of what you replied. It's like Sailer blogs only to himself and his sycophants.

Nick, there is a saying that he who pays the piper calls the tunes. Do you contribute to Steve? Maybe if you and others with your views contributed to Steve, he'd blog on topics that are important to you.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of the 10th Mountain Division, leave it to the Army to muck it up. The 10th was a legit mountain division in WW2. When it was reactivated in the 1980s, it came back as a light infantry division. They continue to carry the name and wear the 'Mountain' tab on their uniforms for historical purposes even though they are not a mountain unit. It's similar to how the 101st Airborne still carriers the name and wears the 'Airborne' tab even though they are not a parachute division anymore.

robin said...

Talk of Mammoth Mountain brings back memories hot Hot Creek near there. That was a lot of fun in the seventies, but someone told me it is shut down by the park service now.

The internet tells me otherwise though...

Kylie said...

"Does Sailer start thinking about golf architecture and mountains as a defense mechanism when a white male does something wrong?"

I'll take a chance here and answer for him: No.

"This is like the left ignoring a politically incorrect story."

No, it's not. Steve has said repeatedly that he likes being in a position to write about what interests him. His blog entries since Friday have been typical of his interests.

"We know you'll get around to it, but it really calls out for some commentary before any political writer talks about other stuff."

Fine. Then start your own blog.

Kylie said...

"'It's interesting to see that back in early 1965 a writer felt he had to explicitly argue against majoritarianist utilitarianism -- "the greatest good for the greatest number" as the moral default. One of the key changes of the Sixties was that the default assumption of who was in the moral right flipped from the majority to just about any organized minority.'

'SIGH'

Majorities and minorities are not mutually exclusive categories."


Stop reading what you "think" Steve wrote and try reading what he actually wrote. Steve writes that the "default assumption" of the 60's changed from majority to minority, not that he himself assumed that and then his assumption.

"Everyone, whether belonging to a majority or minority, is an individual who's rights must be respected."

Your kindergarten teacher really made a lasting impression on you the day she was explained that everyone was a special snowflake, didn't she?

"You make things to be about majority vs minority, when in reality neither categories are bearers of rights. Only individuals can be the bearers of rights."

Here we go again. Stop with the junior high civics lessons long enough to try reading the preceding explanation.

Didn't someone say this trolling would end after the election?

Revo Luzione said...

Meh, I know dudes in their 70's in Colorado who still use telemark & Randonee gear to ski wilderness areas at 14,000'.

Backcountry skiing is not for pussies. If you haven't got the legs and lungs, there are plenty of spots that will take your C-note in exchange for a day's worth of high-speed quad-chair lift access at the base of some pseudo-European "village" replete with condo's and starbucks.

The wilderness ethic was and is a stellar American tradition that was brought to the fore by a CONSERVATIVE, Teddy Roosevelt. That and the North American model of game management has provided rich hunting and fishing opportunities with a vast number of species of game animals available for sportsmen at a reasonable price. This is also primarily a conservative activity, and one that is in diametric opposition to commecial development. World-class hunting & fishing require pristine wilderness and careful habitat management, which class egregiously with condos, golf courses, fake Swiss villages, and strip malls.

Articles like this make it clear that Sailer is more of a corporatist than a true conservative. Conservation, and wilderness, are a core conservative value, as it is about leaving something for future generations to enjoy. The crass commercialization of nature and wilderness exemplified by luxury ski and golf venues seems to be more of a Baby Boomer thing than anything else. When that demographic wave crests and recedes back into dust, the world will be a better place.

Jeff W. said...

Real estate development, of which wilderness development is a subset, is a goy business. In the 1960's, real estate development, along with other goy businesses, such as farming, mining and manufacturing, began to be denounced by the left as planet-raping polluters.

The legal profession, the medical profession, banking (especially central banking), and universities (especially non-goy universities such as Harvard) all continue to be forces for good, however, according to America's non-goy media.

rob said...

HAR said...
Does Sailer start thinking about golf architecture and mountains as a defense mechanism when a white male does something wrong? This is like the left ignoring a politically incorrect story. We know you'll get around to it, but it really calls out for some commentary before any political writer talks about other stuff.


Yes. Steve, HAR will be providing you with a schedule and list of topics. Drop everything and do what he says.

kthnxbye!

Unknown said...

Steve:

You really can't use environmental or wilderness arguments to explain Switzerland. There is no wilderness in Switzerland unless you want to call a glacier wild. The valleys are fully exploited, and have been for a thousand years. Remember Heidi and Peter, running the goats up the mountain to the high pasture? Well, the chamois and other native beasts were evicted a long, long time ago to let goats and cows crop whatever grass there was. BTW, all the forested areas are planted, then cut at the rational time for harvest. The biosphere there is damn near all human-formed.

This is true of Europe generally...they haven't had true wilderness for 500 years...it's not in the culture....and they don't miss it.

JP Straley

Marlowe said...

Europeans do not think much of Thoreau and Emerson. To them the Continental thinkers were much more relevant.

Nietzsche read, admired and praised Emerson. He also spent a lot of time walking in the Alps. From Twilight of the Idols:

Emerson. — Much more enlightened, more roving, more manifold, subtler than Carlyle; above all, happier. One who instinctively nourishes himself only on ambrosia, leaving behind what is indigestible in things. Compared with Carlyle, a man of taste. Carlyle, who loved him very much, nevertheless said of him: "He does not give us enough to chew on" — which may be true, but is no reflection on Emerson. Emerson has that gracious and clever cheerfulness which discourages all seriousness; he simply does not know how old he is already and how young he is still going to be; he could say of himself, quoting Lope de Vega, "Yo me sucedo a mi mismo" [I am my own heir]. His spirit always finds reasons for being satisfied and even grateful; and at times he touches on the cheerful transcendency of the worthy gentleman who returned from an amorous rendezvous, tamquiam re bene gesta [as if he had accomplished his mission]. "Ut desint vires," he said gratefully, "tamen est laudanda voluptas" [Though the power is lacking, the lust is nevertheless praiseworthy].

Anonymous said...

While you're making your fascinating comments on the sixties, do consider this.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100194585/it-isnt-redneck-gun-culture-that-causes-mass-school-shootings-its-the-culture-of-narcissism/
--------------

It's nerdcissism. It's nerds gone wild. Loughner, Cho, the Nothern Illinois Kid, Lanza, Columbine kids, etc.

What do they all have in common?
It's like Revenge of the Nerds.
They want their place in the narcissistic sun too.

And in a way, Tarantino is a mass killer as movie maker. He's a sick bastards who turns his sick fantasies into movies. He's movie nerd who loves being cool and for what? For making stuff where people are mindless killed in 'badass' ways.

Anonymous said...

"Deny people their right to marry because of their sexual orientation. "

Are you for same family marriage or incest marriage?

Anonymous said...

60s were a weird time.

In a way, it was elitist and separatist. 'Freaks' in San Fran wanted to have their own special community of flower people... but then, the word got out and every loser across the nation came to Haight Asbury and the scene got ugly.

Woodstock was gonna be a return-to-nature sort of thing. It was gonna be beautiful... but 400,000 losers showed up and shat all over the place and the place smelled like doogie for over a decade.

So, the boomers figured that you can't have specialness and massness together.
So, there's special places and culture for special people and mass stuff for everyone else.

Anonymous said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Dann

Anyone remember Laurie Dann?

Revo Luzione said...

JP Straley said: "This is true of Europe generally...they haven't had true wilderness for 500 years...it's not in the culture....and they don't miss it. "

Then why is it that when I go backpacking in wilderness areas, I almost invariably run into European tourists who think our wilderness preservation is the best thing since Nutella?

You're conflating their lack of wilderness with lack of appreciation. Most Europeans I've met appreciate it more than the average American precisely because they don't have it.

They didn't have wilderness because they didn't have the foresight nor the political will to do so when it was still possible, which is, as you said, 500 to 1000 years ago.

Anonymous said...

"Fuck that. Most of the system is back country inaccessable to anyone not both young and in perfect shape. The jackasses that make the decisions don't want anyone in their little playgrounds, instead they pretend they can create a pristine wilderness through human intervention. The park system is for everyone not just the elite. "

I know, last time I went to Yellowstone, I had to walk a quarter of a mile across a parking lot to see Old Faithful. And when i was at Yosemite, I actually had to get out of my car to see the tops of the waterfalls. The exertion almost killed me. Those wilderness loving hippies sure have it in for us regular joes.

Cheever said...

"Despite the name of Los Angeles's main NBA team, natural lakes are extremely rare in Southern California."

They started out in the "land of 10,000 lakes"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Los_Angeles_Lakers

Nicklaus Jacobson said...

"Nick Diaz said...
...Majority rule only applies to the sphere of executive political power. In the legal sphere, a majority is a non-entity. Majorities CANNOT use their power to disenfranchise individuals. Equality before the law is THE most cardinal principle of the entire legal system. A majority cannot:

- Put people in chains because they belong to an undesirable ethnicity.

- Deny people their right to marry because of their sexual orientation.

- Force one gender to have a lower legal status than other.

All these things violate the principle of equality before the law.

A society ruled by the principle of legal majority rule is barbarism."

Nick, you really need to get out of your cocoon. In the US, its only when whites rule by minority that its considered a terrible evil. Elsewhere within the US and around the world, whenever non-whites have a majority, they take advantage of it fully. Ever wonder why cities that are 50+% black always seem to have a black mayor, no matter how corrupt and inept he is compared to a white candidate.

Hawaii, with a strong Asian demographic continues to elect Asian politicians. Daniel Inouye who recently passed away, was one of the longest standing senators in the US.

And actually they don't even have to be non-whites, just minorities- women routinely prefer female candidate (probably the only reason besides her husband why Hillary has any traction with the voting public at all), gays will pick a rear admiral, etc.

Its probably the natural order of things to prefer your own- only with white men, has it been pathologized as The Most Horrible Thing That Can Ever Be Done.

JeremiahJohnbalaya said...

Nick Diaz: [the majority cannot] - Deny people their right to marry because of their sexual orientation.


Marriage is not a right. On the contrary, you give up rights when you get married, just like you give up other rights any time you enter a contract that prohibits or requires certain things. The state (on behalf of the will of the majority) expends resources to enforce that contract (to include preventing your exercise of certain rights, namely freedoms of association, movement, and use of your money.)

The other party to the contract gets the assurance inherent in the contract, as enforced by the state. The state (and society) gets the good little law-abiing taxpaying children (which is the entire point of the marriage contract)

And you do understand what a marriage license is, right? That there are certain prerequisites for getting one?

You are welcome to contend that no-fault divorce has made all of the above superfluous. But, that doesn't change the fact that Marriage. Is. Not. A. Right.

europeasant said...

Why didn't you post this article last year when I was in the area?
I guess I'll have to make another trip!

Derek Brown said...

I like a conservative purity test as much as the next throne and alter con, but calling Steve a CINO corporatist and then name checking TR as a true con is too much.

Anonymous said...

"I know, last time I went to Yellowstone, I had to walk a quarter of a mile across a parking lot to see Old Faithful."

Old Faithful? That is so touristy. That stuff is for the philistines.

Anonymous said...

Maybe they should add pink dye to Old Faithful and call it Old Fruitful.

JeremiahJohnbalaya said...

Kylie said: "[Nick: ]you make things to be about majority vs minority, when in reality neither categories are bearers of rights. Only individuals can be the bearers of rights."

Here we go again. Stop with the junior high civics lessons long enough to try reading the preceding explanation.


While talk of minority "rights" are drilled endlessly, there is never a mention of respect for the existing norms of the majority.

Kylie said...

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Dann

Anyone remember Laurie Dann?"


Yes, I do. Plenty of blame to go around in that case.

HAR said...

As many have said, our host of course has the right to blog about what he likes. But I have to say that a lot of us enjoy the community here, and I think we at least should have an open thread as he gathers his thoughts. If I'm reading this blog correctly, Sailer seems to think that the MSM has an obligation to not ignore stories that are newsworthy and interest people simply because the facts make them uncomfortable. If one believes that they have an obligation to their readers, then by analogy we could say Steve Sailer has a similar, albeit smaller, obligation to us.

Connecticut Yankee in Orwell's Hell said...

"HAR said...
As many have said, our host of course has the right to blog about what he likes. But I have to say that a lot of us enjoy the community here, and I think we at least should have an open thread as he gathers his thoughts.

I agree ... I can't escape it where I live nearby...so it would be interesting to see what commentors have to say who visit this blog.

I don't even watch TV freqeuntly or read the local paper yet the news is hyped incessantly .... I mean Sunday Night Football has to talk about it and interrupt the game to watch O's speech on the topic?

My analysis is pretty simple.

It's the old cultural marxist "never let a crisis go to waste...." but from the comments I have read at Yahoo and other MSM internet sites the stchik is getting old. Most see the orchestrated hoopla and Bloomberg's remarks for what they are.... a gun grab effort to eliminate our second amendment rights.


Damn these poeple for ruining my Sunday Night Football

Otis McWrong said...

Anonymous Revo Luzione said..."The wilderness ethic was and is a stellar American tradition that was brought to the fore by a CONSERVATIVE, Teddy Roosevelt."

TR was not a "conservative". He was a sickly weakling as a child that grew into a bombastic, power-crazed tool. In many ways he was the first neo-con: effete dweeb who spent his adult years doing everything he could think of to centralize power. He was as "conservative" as Lincoln or Stalin.

Kylie said...

HAR said, "As many have said, our host of course has the right to blog about what he likes."

Big of you to recognize that.

"But I have to say..."
Of course you do!

"...that a lot of us enjoy the community here,"

A lot of us would enjoy it even more if you went away.

"and I think"

There you go--thinking again!

"we at least should have an open thread as he gathers his thoughts."

Open thread? Why not a vigil? Maybe some ceremonial drumming?

"If I'm reading this blog correctly,"

That'll be a first.

"Sailer seems to think that the MSM has an obligation to not ignore stories that are newsworthy and interest people simply because the facts make them uncomfortable."

Does that signify in this context? (Handy hint: that was a rhetorical question b/c I know you're too dumb to know the answer is "no".)

"If one believes that they have an obligation to their readers,"

One couldn't care less about the whorish, sycophantic MSM, their putative obligations or their readers but do, please, go on.

"then by analogy we could say Steve Sailer has a similar, albeit smaller, obligation to us."

You could. We couldn't, because, unlike you, we don't have the effrontery to tell Steve what to write about.

Chief Seattle said...

Up here in WA state we have a slightly lower population density and lots of variety when it comes to public lands. Jeep and ATV trails, public mooring, camping, back-country skiing, commercial skiing, hunting, plenty of hiking. Usually not hard to find a place to go, even on peak weekends.

Speaking of wildlife, when did it become acceptable here to feed the trolls? Let's leave the idiotic left/right debates for the newspaper comments section.

Anonymous said...

The main purveyors of 'guns are cool and great' message are Hollywood

What? You mean anti-gun Drew Barrymore who had Steven Speilberg CGI out some guns from ET glamorized guns in Charlie's Angels because the script called for it?

NOTA said...

One part of the MSM's disease is the tendency to have every news source obsessively cover the top story for a couple weeks, then move on to the next top story. Following that pattern would make iSteve less interesting.

There's not really a lot new to say about the mass shooting, anyway. A nut snapped, offed his mother, and then blew away a bunch of kids and their teachers. This is used as a lead-in for set-piece battles about gun control, which have been done to death so many times that every talking head can opine about them without twitching a single brain cell.

That's the usual pattern for the top story that every TV channel is covering 24/7--after the initial news is reported, there's not really any more informatiin worth having, but they still spend a couple weeks talking about it anyway,

NOTA said...

Two asides:

a. Neither name-calling nor categoriizong someone as a political enemy (libtard, lefty, neocon) actually responds to an argument. If that's all you have to say, perhaps you don't have anything to add to the discussion.

b. The rhetorical trick of "you haven't mentioned my pet issue yet; this is proof you don't care about it or related issues" got old about an hour into the existence of the blogosphere. Nobody is obliged to address every issue that comes up, and thinking more deeply about a few things gives better results than opining about every case and issue that comes to mind.

HAR said...

Kylie, I really don't understand why you are so upset. If you become angry at the idea that someone thinks it would be nice for Sailer to post a thread on the Connecticut shooting, I hate to see how you react to more substantive disagreements and question how you're able to live a functioning life.

Cail Corishev said...

"It's like Sailer blogs only to himself and his sycophants."

What do you think a blog is? The word comes from "web log" -- putting one's journal online. If you can't write for yourself there, where can you?

Cail Corishev said...

"I understand the point you're trying to make, but you have to admit that photo of Charlton Heston holding aloft a flintlock rifle at an NRA convention is extremely provocative."

True, that's an awesome picture. But the only reason most people have seen it is that the anti-gun media fixated on it, thinking it would scare people. (Presumably it did in blue state cities and other liberal strongholds like GOP Central HQ, but in middle America people wondered what the fuss was about.) The NRA doesn't have nearly enough money or influence to buy that kind of publicity.

Cail Corishev said...

"But I have to say that a lot of us enjoy the community here, and I think we at least should have an open thread as he gathers his thoughts."

Steve just needs to find someone who lives a different schedule to moderate his comments while he's wasting time on leisure activities like sleeping and eating. The comments here are one of the best conversations online, but they come to a halt for half of every day, and people can only talk to themselves.

I've thought of starting a forum where members could discuss posts from blogs like Steve's in real(er) time -- or especially those like Derb, who doesn't have commenting on his own blog. Dunno if it would take off.

Anonymous said...

Cail - people have suggested a forum before. I dont know what Steve's thoughts are but I'm sure the required ability and manpower to get it done and maintain/moderate it is available amongst the iSteve crew.

Kylie said...

"I really don't understand why you are so upset."

It'd be more accurate to say you really don't understand. Period. Full stop. I was in a great mood when I replied to your comment.

"If you become angry at the idea that someone thinks it would be nice for Sailer to post a thread on the Connecticut shooting, I hate to see how you react to more substantive disagreements and question how you're able to live a functioning life."

Go away and start your own blog. That way, you won't have to nag Steve to write about what you want to read and you'll spare yourself reading how I react to more substantive disagreements.

Or you can skip the hard work and just go away.

Londoner said...

In answer to Jeff W, this European feels profoundly sad that there are few if any genuine wildernesses left in Europe (the far north of Scandinavia may qualify), and envious of the vast and intensely beautiful wildernesses of the USA and Canada.

For a long time snowboarders were banned from ski resorts, so hiking up the mountain in the morning for maybe an hour's worth of boarding in the afternoon was the only way to do it. Even now there are some admittedly older) snowboarders who regard using ski lifts as a bit sellouty.

Anonymous said...

Well, what is interesting is I I came across an article about public acess to the baeaches. And believe it or not it wasn't an Californiaian but a Texan politican that created a more public acess bill for beaches. In today's world Texans are the oppose they support private property rights more but that was in the 1960's when they had Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn and other new deal type politicans. What interesting is today's liberal east coast supported owing private property closer to the beachshore than Westerners or Texas at that time.

harkin said...

I remember driving up to Big Bear every winter in the 60s where my family rented a cabin at the Kris-Kay Lodge. On the highway near Rim-Of-The-World, you'd look across at Mt San G and marvel at the amount of snow and beautiful winter sport terrain. I never knew the story of the proposed ski area.

And 1969 was the most memorable....tunnels into our cabins (tunnels into the gas stations at Mammoth that year, closed for weeks due to excessive snowfall) amazing!