slothrop

I'd rather live under laws created by a deliberative process than under the unfettered rule of powerful men.

Driving slower in the left lane is illegal: http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=46.61.100&fuseaction=section "(4) It is a traffic infraction to drive continuously in the left lane of a multilane roadway when it impedes the flow of other traffic."

I am the walrus.

Why is that? Because blood will be diverted to the digestive system?

Holy crap! Where were you climbing when this happened? I'm glad you're OK.

In Fremont, Qazis as a good lunch buffet. On Queen Anne, there's a restaurant at the top of the hill behind the Thriftway(?), name starts with an 'R'. Pricier than most Indian places, but damn tasty.

You don't have to repeat last night's conversation for everyone to read, Mr. Bareback USA 1987.

Sweet Jesus. You forgot Eric Clapton.

Every sperm is sacred, Fairweather. Less access to contraception == more unwanted children == more emotionally scarred, impressionable waifs yearning for the love of Jesus == more Republican voters. Get with the program.

Oh, and on the gay tip: I climbed a couple times with a guy who has a sheepskin-padded gear sling. G-A-Y.

9/16" webbing tied in a knot. I hate the way the loops on a fancy gear sling get in the way. With a piece of webbing, you just have to reach in one place. Of course, I get my webbing for less than retail, since I'm sponsored by 9/16" Webbing GmbH of Dresden. If anyone wants a bro deal, PM me with your climbing resume and I'll see if I can hook you up. PS - I left some of my pro-deal webbing on pretty much every hard route in the Cascades. PM me if you find it. TIA.

65 and sunny everywhere.

NWMJ is online only.

I heard on NPR that The Man is phasing in the passport requirement--first for travel home from the Caribbean, then Canada and Mexico. It will be a few years, I think, before you'll need a passport to travel to Canada.

I think you have to plug most treadmills in these days. It's the American way.

I am shocked. I thought Californians were keeping snuggly warm in all those homes built next to raging forest fires.

I know I just can't hang with you Peter, but I yearn to be a better person, so I'll just keep trying (You have to admit, "disingenuous" is a really good word.) If the AP is actively supporting the insurgents, as you claim, then publishing the photo in question was not a good PR move on the insurgents' behalf. I can only judge for myself, but that photo disgusts me. It makes me think that the insurgents deserve no respect. I will even speculate that the photo made many Americans, even American soldiers in Iraq, more disposed to rain hot death upon insurgents if given the chance. Is that of benefit to the insurgents? Or are you saying that the AP is ideologically aligned with the insurgents and just thought they were doing them a favor? This doesn't make much sense, since they publish pro-Bush photos, as chucK mentioned. Or maybe they're just publishing images that appeal to "both sides"... like a journalism organization often does.

Or we Americans could all grow thick layers of blubber to retain more body heat and thus lower heating costs. Oh, wait...

Word.

Peter, you quite often tread the thin line of language between asserting something as fact and implying that it could be true, but you never own up to it. For example: There's no evidence in the passage you quoted before this comment to back up your factual assertion that the photographer is related to ("has familial and tribal relations with") the insurgents. And to answer your question: from the beginning of time, blood ties have never stopped anyone from killing or threatening someone. (Hint: this is you being disingenuous. I mean, come on!) So you backpedal in your very next statement, "summarizing" another quote: "Probably" does not equal fact. You're just speculating, but you act like you're not.

Hmm... the Rumsfeld Argument ("absence of evidence is not evidence of absence") is sure popular these days. About the original editorial posted here: according to the Senate Energy Committee, ANWR oil output would be a drop in the bucket (source: http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill/charts/chart8.pdf ). The 15 years of WA's oil needs that AK's governor says would be taken care of by ANWR is just another way to say "drop in the bucket". WA consumes just 2.3% of the oil burned in the US (source: http://www.oilcrisis.com/us/eia/StateSummaries1997.pdf). Other energy sources are much more promising, like natural gas and safer nuclear power. Solar power seems to work well, but it's expensive up front. Wind power is not scalable. Drilling in ANWR just seems like a precedent-setting battle to me (and a pork project for Alaskans).

Why a publication ban? Is this a jury trial and there's no way to sequester the jurors?

Where's the photo of cracked top-roping some sick ice in gorts?

STFU Snugtop, I'm inspired!

They're just kidding themselves, aren't they?