UKC

...on Planet Fear: http://www.planetfear.com/article_detail.asp?a_id=1019&dm_i=150895712 Anyone else read it? Is it just me or does it strike anyone else as both unnecessarily elitist and hypocritical? Before launching into an all out assault on the piece, I should start by saying I've always really enjoyed Dave's articles in the mags before. Great pictures of interesting places, allied to far more thoughtful words that your average climbing travelogue article. It's the fact that Pickford normally writes sensitively and with obvious interest about the countries he is visiting that made this piece stand out in the opposite direction.

He decries the fat tourists who are bunging up the Valley with their disneyfied tourist crap, having presumably just flown a third of the way around the world to... ummm... be a tourist in the Valley. I'm not sure why wanting to climb rock rather than just look at it from below puts the climbers into some higher moral category.

Pickford writes:

"It is hard to avoid questioning the ideology of the decision-makers who have allowed this mushrooming of a mass-tourism infrastructure in Yosemite. Yet as with the usurpation of so many other environmental management and preservation issues elsewhere in the USA, here too it has been the substantial revenue generated by the undesirable that has driven the process of ’Disneyisation’ and consumption-centric tourism."

I don't know what Dave does for a job, but from the number of articles he has had in Climber and on Planet Fear, publicizing where he has traveled to climb (on an emissions emitting plane presumably), he clearly has at least a sideline in the commodification of the climbing experience himself. As the old saying doesn't quite go, those who live by the commodification of hobby, should throw normative statements carefully. As a case in point he says of Astroman that it: "is high on every serious climber’s list of world classics". A snow globe from the gift shop or a tick in a guide book - what exactly is the difference?

So that's the hypocrisy, then we move on to the elitism:
"reminding us that climbing is still an essentially anti-establishment, subversive activity, suited to those who have chosen to resist the pressures of conformity or those, like abovementioned acid-heads, who have long forgotten what conformity means"
But I guess even the non-conformists have to eat, hence flogging articles to the climbing mags with a link to Ryanair cheap flights at the bottom? I particularly like: "all mixed in with good dose of vagrant European eccentricity". I've never before heard having a gap year made to sound so cool.

I thought we had got past the whole "climbing as refusing to bend to the man" thing back in the 1970s? If you want to non-conform today, get a pitbull and sell crack or join Hizb ut-Tahrir, either of them will scare your granny much more than a few VSs at the weekend. Climbing as rebellion seems to be a thing that us middle class white boys at university tell each when we're feeling bad that their aren't more chicks in the climbing club.

I've got nothing against people writing articles promoting places that they have enjoyed and they think fellow climbers would also enjoy. Indeed Dave's excellent photos in the piece just remind me that I have to climb in Yosemite before I die. But climbing is fantastic as it is, is doesn't need to made out to be something more than it is, and neither does it put us on a some different moral plane. If we want to talk about tourism, don't forget climbers are tourists too.

In reply to TobyA: Firstly, thanks for pointing me to this interesting article.

Secondly:
As a recent visitor to Yosemite, I can only wholeheartedly back Dave's sentiment. If we as climbers enjoy the wild places for what they are - wild, without the need to plague them with gift shops and t-shirt stands, 1 way systems and park & ride schemes - then I actually believe that we can take the moral high ground.

The huge debates and strength of feeling that go in to criticisms of ascents in the high mountains regarding the use of bolts and the leaving of small amounts of fixed gear surely signify an amazing sense of protection over natures wonders. These small actions pale in to insignificance when confronted with the large scale urbanisation of the once wild Yosemite Valley.

I urge you to visit this place and to reflect on Dave's words. I would prefer a Hueco system, reducing numbers in the area, instead of the Yosemite system, increasing numbers and trying to make every last dollar out of them.

And don't forget to but the 'I made it to the top' half dome T-shirt. Minimum waist size 42".

AF

In reply to TobyA: Have you been?

In reply to AaronF:

Ah, but there you go - even as someone who has never climbed in Hueco (or indeed the US) I remember the huge fuss - international letter writing campaigns to the park authorities, declarations of parks fascist tendencies in the climbing press, etc. etc. when the ban was first announced. Maybe it has worked out better in the long run, but at the time it was seen univerally by climbers as huge imposition limiting our 'freedom' to climb and hence a disaster.

In reply to woolsack: Like I said in my first post (or at least alluded to) no I haven't, but like just about every other climber in the world, I want to.

In reply to TobyA: I think he summed it up reasonably well. Yo$emite is doing well. I don't know how well climbers fit into the plan since they don't tend to spend very much.

In reply to woolsack:

They fly from all round the world to get there, they rent cars or take buses to get to the valley, they probably stay for longer periods of time even if their daily spend is less than non-climbing tourists, they buy portaledges and loads of cams (made by US companies), they take lessons with mountain schools in the region to learn how to aid climb etc.

Foot and mouth showed how valuable climbing is to the UK tourism industry, just because we're not actually spending money when we're climbing doesn't actually mean we don't spend money. In Yosemite I'm sure they look for diversified revenue streams from tourism just like anywhere else, and climbers (and hikers, and mountainbikers etc.) are one part of that.

In reply to TobyA:

If you visit Yosemite I am sure you will discover that we are far from 'free' whilst a visitor in the 'Park'. And a park it is.

I thought that Dave's article was one of the better reflections on a modern Yosemite. His meanderings on the subject of non-conformity conjure images of white trousered, red bandana clad new routers, with long hair and long run outs, 'sticking it to the man'. The man in this case being the Park Warden.

His reflection on "the ideology of the decision-makers" and "so many other environmental management and preservation issues elsewhere in the USA" seems to be an interesting point emphasising the financially motivated way that the national parks of the USA are run as opposed to a direct criticism of the tourists themselves.

And I don't really see where carbon emissions come in to it!

I would really recommend a visit to 'the valley' it is shocking beyond description.

AF

In reply to TobyA: Climbers and Camp 4 is the lowest form of life in the valley and one that the planners would probably like to shift out of the park if they could

In reply to TobyA:

Yosemite valley is only a small part of the national park. Seems climbers are as guilty as any of thinking of Yosemite as just the valley and nothing else.

Yes, I think the valley is a mess, but climbers use the roads, the shops, the services just like everyone else. A shop that sells tat or a shop that sells climbing gear. I'm sure plenty of climbers would think the latter was fine whilst moaning about the presence of the former, yet from a development point of view is there really any difference?

And it's laughable to mention placing restrictions, there's already restrictions in Yosemite, and I'll bet that there's more climbers that break them than anyone else - search these threads and you'll find plenty of talk about getting round the minimum stay in Camp4 for example.

So no, I don't think climbers are more worthy. They are tourists the same as everyone else, they just have a different hobby that's all.

In reply to AaronF:

Do you wear your T-Shirts as trousers?

I'm confused.

The Ent ™

In reply to AaronF:

I must admit I think the balance is about right in Yosemite.

It's an awesome sight/place and everyone is within their rights to see places like this, there aren't that many that are so easily accessible to tourists. Why some of us feel people need to have this absolute passion/commitment/lifestyle/have earn't it/ worked for it..... etc... to be ALLOWED to engage in it beats me. There is plenty of wilderness for the ones who want it when you want it....just take Yosemite for what it is.....a little bit of a circus, but still a wonder.

500ft up in the valley and its a different place, your not really too aware of all the "hulabaloo" below. No cable cars, no great piste scars on the hillside, no funicular's, no snowdon railway!

Granted, a road or two, a bus service, a bit of organisation and a few gift shops. But it's pretty well camouflaged & done quite well!

I think some of us still hold this torch that climbing is a bit anarchic....bollocks....its just climbing!!

Yosemite is a the whole experience!

For greater wilderness there are other places on the West coast, The Needles, Whitney etc.

In reply to TobyA:

Come on Toby, WTF is this tired old rant? You've got the brains to work out the answers yourself if you want, so go away and do it.

Some kind of existential crisis going on over in Finland?

jcm

In reply to TobyA:

I don't have much to add other than to agree with all of your initial points.

There was an article in a similar vein in Summit (I think?) a few months ago. It was equally poorly written. I was actually going to write into the magazine to complain, but other things in life were more important at the time.

If it's that horrible - boycott it!

Shesh, for such anti-establishment people the two authors certainly do whinge enough.

In reply to TobyA:


PMSL ... nice!

Agree with you on the moralising half of that article. But I suspect DP dashed it off as a bit of filler. In fact I think at least one line "the odd acid casualty still springs up from time to time, clutching a bottle of whiskey and jumping around wrapped up in a sleeping bag at seven in the morning" is lifted verbatim from someone else's article or book (Simon Carter?). I thought the meat of the article - the photos and captions - was good and reminded me yet again of the deep flaw in my nurtured self-image as well-travelled-climber: that I have never climbed in Yosemite.

In reply to TobyA:

Excellent - I like it!

Yosemite does invoke a strong ambivalence - the tourist tat, and then you look up...wow. But a 20 minute walk and you're away from the tat, and from above it's well hidden. As someone point out above, can you imagine what the Swiwss or Victorians would have done? Maybe it's better as a honeypot, keeping other places for a wilderness experience. At least in September Tuolumne meadows was a different world and in the Eastern Sierra we hardly saw another soul.

In reply to TobyA: 'I've never before heard having a gap year made to sound so cool'

The US is very different from Europe in its work ethic, the average employee only getting two weeks holiday a year rather than the 4 to 6 that are common in Europe. For a committed climber this is a significant difference and means that it is far harder to hold down a sensible full time job while getting a reasonable amount of climbing in. A lot of the anti-establishment climbers that he talks about are in fact adult Americans.

On a different tack, am i to take it that you approve of dumping garish Disnified tourist attractions in the midst of breathtaking natural beauty?

In reply to John2:

John, he says "European vagrancy", which I take rather clearly to mean not Americans. Although in the article he does mention Americans holidaying elsewhere in the valley and that it: "...now spawns great swathes of in-situ tents, inhabited through the summer months by budget tourists from all over the United States, the post-modern refugees of a cloying, urban America."

Couldn't that be any busy campsite anywhere? Are all people who want to camp for their holidays "post-modern refugees"? And is there something wrong with people who want to go to one of the most impressive places in their country for a holiday?


You mean like Ambleside?

And clearly I didn't say that I do or don't approve of it. My point is that to write travel articles, where you fly half way round the world yourself, and then get paid for suggesting other people should do the same, and then bemoaning that other tourists beat you to it and spoiled your enjoyment isn't a very logically consistent position. It's like people buying a cottage in France, then writing for the Sunday Times moaning that half the bloody village is English-owned holiday homes.

Everybody knows that part of the attraction of Yosemite is its accessibility allied with decent weather. That's why most climbers from all around the world go there for the first big wall and not to, say, Baffin Island. It is, relatively speaking, cheap and easy to get to which is exactly why it is popular with both climbers and non-climbing tourists.

In reply to TobyA:

Yosemite, like any other national park is a resource that has to be managed. As such there is indeed a genuine discussion that can be had about the nature in which it is managed and the sort of "tourists" that are catered for (i.e climbers, walkers, drivers, fat people). Unfortunately any attempt at debating such issues amongst climbers tends to prompt rather elitist comments that suggest that anyone who's fat and isn't going to hike for miles is therefore sub-human and should be kicked back to whichever shitty city they arrived from.

Personally, I love Yosemite and have spent a lot of time there. I do find it somewhat surprising that the most spectacular national park I've visited is also the least sensitively managed. No other national park in the US has quite such an imbalance in the extent to which it caters for people who aren't prepared to walk anywhere and are instead provided with more of a theme park ride experience. Look at Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon as possible sources of comparison.

The desire to cater for car use is an inherent part of US culture, yet you have to wonder at the state of Camp 4 (the only walk-in campground in the valley), and compare that to the numerous drive in sites with full RV facilities etc. The endless queues for Camp 4 (even in it's disgraceful state, 1 tap and 2 bogs for about 500 campers) would suggest there was a huge desire for more walk-in camping, yet the park actually planned to get rid of Camp 4 a few years back. This was only stopped by a huge campaign amongst US climbers that managed to prevent Camp 4's demise by getting it classified as a site of historic significance.

Yosemite is a place of truly "outstanding natural beauty" and it's management should focus on the ability of visitors to take appreciation of it (regardless of their weight), rather than manufacturing artificial amusements that pander to consumer culture and detract from the entire experience.

ps. for those interested these issues get debated ad infinitum on supertopo.com.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:


Is the theme park ride experience the shuttle bus?

In reply to TobyA: The full quote is 'all mixed in with a good dose of vagrant European eccentricity', which implies that the Europeans are in a minority. I suspect that the post modern refugees are the sort of climbing drop outs that I referred to earlier.

I take it that he's contrasting the trashy tat sold in the tourist shop with the approach taken in a place like Lake Louise in Canada, where the main ski reception building is an impressive structure built from pine trees felled in the area. The first is an eyesore, the second at least attempts to blend in with the natural surroundings.

In reply to people:

And here's the Summit article where Dave first discussed Yosemite:

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=2094

You can also download the whole issue for free as a pdf here:

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Download.aspx?id=137

And see ChrisJD's El Cap panorama in all its double-page glory.

In reply to AaronF: Climbers are the worst kind of tourists in Yose. All along the valley bottom there isn't a single piece of litter. Even the 16 mile round walk to the top of half dome, for lazy fat people (!) is completely without litter, however as soon as i started climbing a route (NW Reg) it had bolts, tat old caribiners (which are now mine) water bottles cans and all-sorts of junk.

I dont quite see your problem with traffic management, this should surely be a greivance for one of those lazy americans with a monster truck not some fit young climbing dirtbag with plenty of time on his hands. Park and ride systems are great; free and less polluting.

Also Ranger genrally love the parks they work in and work not through a greedy capitalist desire for money but so they can protect the park.

Climbers should like all other forms of tourists stop there obsession with the valley alone which make it the slighly urbanised but still utterly beuatiful place it is today and got to other places in the park such as tuolumne or the sierra, i suppose you did if you went this summer rather than cooking in the valley?

So instead of having a go at other users of the valley who provide climbers with cans to make money and free left-overs look at your own actions and youll find they are as if not more damaging to the park than those you despise so much.

ta
Joe

In reply to JoeL 90:

This simply isn't true, you don't see any litter in the vallery as lots of people are employed to pick it up. I took part in the valley clean up when I was there lasy year and collected a full bag of rubbish in the short walk from Curry Village to the Pines.

Tat and crabs are part and parcel of aid climbing, and are hardly an eyesore (especially from the valley floor!). It does seem that climbers have become more responsible in the last few years in taking their waste down from the big walls, which was a major issue.

In reply to TimS: A chute full of rubbish or a crack filled with rusting cans isn't beutiful when your up there. It doesnt matter whether its cleaned up or not its still not there. Also nice one for helping keep it clean, i was going to try on half dome but was too knackered/scared.

In reply to TobyA:

Good post and topic.

In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:


Thanks Alex for the link. That is a much better article. I would still argue a bit about the climbing-subversiveness idea, but that's not very important compared to Dave's larger point which he makes much more clearly in his Summits piece. I would be interested to know why the State and Federal Park authorities have allowed this monopoly on service provision to have formed in Yosemite?

The Planet Fear article clearly use chunks of the Summits article, but then mixes them with a travel/climbing guide. In the Summits article Pickford is just considering the the downsides of tourism in the valley, but in the planet fear article he is trying to have his cake and eat it, by promoting go there at the same time as bemoaning those who do for other reasons. I guess that's what seemed to jarring to me when I read it, a sense I don't get at all reading the Summits article.

In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC: The guy seems completely deluded, has he ever been to the lakes, N Wales, peak or the alps, All these places have been stripped bare of trees by loggers, Have minimal traffic management and completely sell out to any form of tourism. Yose strikes a perfect balance by confining those who want to indulge in less active things to a 15 mile loop of road (which is well looked after) while leaving a million acres? to those with the energy for it.

He also seems to think climbers are superior beings even though they indulge in a selfish irrational sport.

In reply to TobyA:

Have to say I see some sense in your argument.
Tourist facilities like the Midi station are pretty brutal intrusions into wilderness (how can a Yosemite T shirt n' trinket shop ever compare to that!?), but because they make the alpinist's workload a bit easier they are tolerated. Our softshell and Camalots make us more important than the tartan gonk collectors of the world?

Davie

In reply to TobyA:

Thanks for the thought provoking post Toby.

I guess to an extent that you would be in a stronger position if you had been there but I agree that's not the whole thing. I went a couple of years back, as in we did a bit of a climbing road trip in the area. Toulumne (sp?) was what I had imagined and was pretty great to be honest. The Valley proper has some of the most stunning scenery (and rock, of course) but is a very strange set up. I don't quite see that it is like Disney but it is managed to give tourists an experience, as opposed to allowing lovers of the outdoors appropriate access to the playground around them. The way it is managed almost acts like a buffer and stops you getting in touch with what the Valley could really offer. We didn't stay long and, apart from the views, didn't take much away with us. A bit of an empty experience compared even to Toulumne Meadows. But then we didn't really try that hard to break past what the Park authority wants you to see and get out into the vast areas which appear to be relatively untouched (and I think you have to applaud them for that at least). I've always promised myself I'd go back and make the effort to see what it can really offer.

I agree that the article smacks of hypocrisy but I can understand why the Yosemite experience upsets people.

In reply to ebygomm:

There are the valley tours on the magic dragon, or whatever it's called. Donkey rides, horse rides, raft rides down the Merced river etc. I don't particularly object to any of these individually, I'm simply questioning the balance of how Yosemite is managed. At present Yosemite village does have rather an Alton Towers feel to it.

I would agree that in terms of littering climbers are the worst culprits in Yosemite. This is particularly so on popular aid routes where climbers seem to feel it's ok to stash or abandon all sorts of rubbish.

In reply to TobyA:

Hi Toby

Thanks for pointing up the article.

On the whole I'd agree with you.

I've been twice...and it's easy to slip into the belief that the rocks were put there solely for climbing and that no one else's enjoyment of them matters quite as much. Easy but wrong.

Camp4 is interesting and fun for a while, but I wouldn't want to *live* there!

J

In reply to JoeL 90:



Well Joe, I'm not having a go at anyone, and I certainly don't despise non climbing park visitors. I am merely pointing out the fact that I enjoyed Dave Pickford's article as it conjured wonderful memories of climbing in Yosemite in the Seventies and also dealt with the quite difficult topic of National Park management in the USA. I can obviously use a few jokey expressions and poke a bit of fun at fat people (I am getting on a bit and the middle age spread is spreading!) whilst I'm at it.

When I said I was a recent visitor, I actually meant within the last 8 years. I have visited several times over the last 30 years or so.

I took Dave's writing not to be elitist and damning of tourists, but to outline the current state of play in regard to park mismanagement.

Also I'm in no way an expert on this subject, I just took the article from a different view point than TobyA, who hasn't visited the park - I advised him to do so, as it starkly contrasts many other wilderness areas that I have visited in the US.

AF

In reply to TobyA:

How to write an article about the US by D Pickford: -

Mention Americans being fat

Mention large RVs

Mention Americans being fat

Mention Americans being only motivated by money

Mention "cloying urban America" - he must be a Desperate Housewives fan

Use "undesirable" to mean "things I disagree with"

Mention Americans being fat

Use loaded words such as "ideology" instead of "approach", "consumer-driven" as opposed to "people-driven" which leave the reader in no doubt about the author’s opinions and with no room for their own ones

Mention Americans being fat

Mention how cool "us" climbers are as opposed to "them" tourists (hint Dave, climbers are tourists as well, why do you have a God-given right to the place?)

Mention climbing as "anti-establishment" (tip, could have used "anarchic" as well and maybe even just plain "crazy")

Mention Americans being fat

Daub "Europe good, US bad" on any available wall

Finally and most importantly, write really, really badly

PS

Mention Americans being fat

I was prepared to overlook the Summit article as ill-judged and rushed, but here is the same gunk rehashed.

I do however wonder why he failed to mention Bush at all - schoolboy error surely, no?

In reply to AaronFielding:


Hi Aaron, I take you point but I didn't want to comment on whether Yosemite is good or bad because as you rightly point out, I haven't been there. My main point is it just seems a bit ridiculous to bemoan tourism in the Valley, in an article promoting tourism to the valley. I'm glad though it has sparked debate on how a place that is obviously attractive to millions should be managed to satisfy as many as possible.

Wee Davie - exactly, the Cosmiques Arete would be a rather minor route with a thousandth of its current ascents if it didn't happen to be next to a bloody great cable car. But of course I've done it, and I didn't walk up the Mer de Glace to get there! Part of Yosemite's attraction has got to be how easy it is to access.

In reply to TobyA:


Exactly, and that is how American land managers feel. When I was working with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Bishop, California, on access issues, I soon got schooled by the BLM managers. I too was initially of the opinion that climbers where somehow special but as they pointed out climbers are tourists too, along with sightseers, campers, bird watchers and off-roaders etc......

In reply to TRNovice:

I quite enjoyed the article in Summit. The paragraph that stuch out the most to me was this one:

"DNC owns and runs The Ahwahnee Hotel, Curry Village, the Yosemite High Sierra Camps, Housekeeping Camp, Tuolumne Meadows Lodge, Wawona Hotel, White Wolf Lodge and Yosemite Lodge. To set this in the context of a UK national park, it is the effective equivalent of a single multinational private company owning and running all the Youth Hostels in Snowdonia, Plas y Brenin, all the climbing and outdoor shops in Betws-y-Coed and Llanberis, Pete’s Eats and all the other pubs and restaurants in Llanberis, all the smaller accommodation facilities in the Llanberis Pass area, and the Heights Hotel."

I think Dave's central point is that having a single company (who's primary goal, no matter what their press releases say, is to make money) controlling everything to do with the park raises the possibility of that company exploiting (and potentiall ruining) the magic of the place.


The second point that I want to make is with regards to the "climbers are tourists also, so what makes them so special?"
Different places around the world are unique for different sports and pastimes. e.g. the Great Barrier Reef is a special place for scuba diving, the Alps are a special place for mountaineering, just like Yosemite is a special place for rock climbing. To me, such places have to be managed carefully not because divers/mountaineers/rock-climbers are special, but because the places themselves are particularly special for those pastimes.

Dave's point was that the park authorities in Yosemite have made no effort to acknowledge the fact that the park is special for climbers, in their rush to make more money out of the 'average' park visitor.

(edited from a previous reply)
>

Actually, it patently is true to someone who regularly visits Yosemite (and by regularly I mean approx one weekend a month during the season) that no other user group is allowed to get away with the kind of behavior common amongst climbers.

1) Climbers drive everywhere, contributing to traffic congestion. Most others (including hikers) are happy to take the bus that you all seem to deride so much.

2) Gear stashes - Can you think of any other user group that intentionally leaves equipment around the place? Sometimes this stuff is left for months at a time and in visually obvious settings, like halfway up El Cap. Although strictly speaking illegal, it is 'somewhat' tolerated by climbing rangers.

3) Waste, organic and otherwise - the crags are littered with pink and blue slings and rotting hardware. Even after rain every single ledge in Yosemite stinks of piss. You could do a fairly decent vertical recycling run just collecting discarded water containers.

4) The moral superiority of climbers - During high climbing season I wouldn't leave anything unattended in Camp 4 unless it was nailed down, there's too many sticky-fingered little bastards. No doubt they too subscribe to the view that they are somehow superior because they aren't conforming, and unfortunately some of them interpret this as deserving of a free ride. Camp fees unpaid, pilfering from other climbers who apparently have more money, pilfering from shops..... I have never come across this in any other US climbing area. or even any other campsite in Yosemite.

Obviously, some of these issues are difficult or impractical to resolve e.g urine on routes or hardware. We shouldn't forget however that for the most part the YNPS are fairly pragmatic in these matters, especially for a Dept of the Interior bureaucracy. Some of them e.g. gear stashes are being currently debated amongst US climbers (as someone above said, see www.supertopo.com). A lot of them, however, are inherently avoidable and stem from the same arrogant attitude as Dave Pickford's article betrays. Someone wrote above that many Rangers would like to see climbers booted out and Camp 4 cleared. This is absolutely correct, and while I would fight such a move strenuously I can well understand their position.

Oh, and on the whole 'Europe - good: USA - bad' debate, if you want a lesson in natural resource management then take a trip to Chamonix, or the Cairngorm ski area for that matter. I'd also make the point the Dave Pickford was hardly innocent of 'honeypotting' himself: Serenity Crack, The Grack, Cookie Cliff? All he needs is a few piccies of Royal Arches and Snake Dyke to complete the Grand Tour.

On a plus note, there are some great and inspiring photos in the article that capture the beauty of the place. TobyA, you really should see it, even if it means adding to the management issues

In reply to WillinLA:

Interesting - and all too believeable. As a community we do tend to do selfish, squalid and low budget pretty well.