slothrop

Wanna, yes. Canna, no. God help me. Have fun, chuck.

The two upper bolts on p2 City Park are HUGE (and stainless, if I remember correctly). The lower bolt is pointless. The ledge is big and the belay is good, so I don't see why you'd want to even clip the bolt, which won't save you from hitting the ledge.

Anyone know of this route being climbed in the winter before?

Gary's photos are from MLK Day (17th)... some pillar near milepost 9.

^^^ That must be in Japan.

The window was not in a door, so your suggestion wouldn't work, CBS. Luckily, we had so much gear in the trunk/hatchback that we just shoved a piece of cardboard between gear and window.

The new law stipulates that 80% of the money collected at a site goes to improving the site. This regulation, combined with the "spend it or lose it" budget mentality common throughout government, will ensure that public lands get overdeveloped. RV hookups at the Stuart Lake Trailhead, here we come.

How about for a Subaru? I assume all the tires being discussed here are for light trucks.

The sponsor of the Senate bill (Jeff Bingaman, D-NM) has this to say: http://energy.senate.gov/news/dem_release.cfm?id=183861

Anyone able to find the text of the rider? Thomas says HR 3283 is the "Infant and Toddler Durable Product Safety Act"... Ok, I searched for "Federal Lands Recreation Fee Authority Act" and found the Senate version of the bill.

As long as no one's got a position of power over the other, go for it. Especially if you don't like your job.

What's most surprising is that all of a sudden Israel has annexed Libya, according to the map. And the Persian Gulf is apparently the only body of water of its kind, since it's labeled "The Gulf". Maybe MSNBC just wants us to forget that there ever were other gulfs, like "of Tonkin".

Arafat wasn't really on the scene in 1948... but the guy who could have accepted the offer of a Palestinian state out-Arafated-Arafat and refused it. The deal on the table back then was much sweeter than it has been ever since.

Jake, you make a good point. A lot of people apparently want the government to step in and legislate morality. Why it's OK to legislate morality, but not to control gun purchases, levy taxes, or regulate business, is what confuses me about the Republican platform. But let's assume that a lot of people ignored those other issues (cuz they did) and voted for Bush so he'd put some morals back into our degenerating society. So why is government better at enforcing morality than churches and families? That seems to be the assumption. I don't think that's the government's job. To me, government is for protecting the public welfare and religion and family are for teaching moral values. As for Bush himself being a beacon of moral values... sure he was born again, quit knocking back a fifth of JD every weekend, and is not sexy whatsoever. But he certainly has one major moral failing, one that damages his credibility as a leader: he refuses to admit to mistakes or accept responsibility for failures or missteps. To me, that is immoral and weak. I lose respect for a person who cannot accept responsibility for their own actions. A leader bears an even heavier burden, since he must take responsibility for his subordinates, too. Time and time again, Bush has failed to show courage and take the heat.

Unfortunately, Bush and his allies immediately label anyone (journalist, foreign leader, elected official, voter) who questions the war or its success as dangerous/meddling in our affairs/politically motivated/unpatriotic. So your statement is a tautology. It's a very effective ploy.

Rad. glacier's is my favorite so far.

PP, in his ever-so-oblique fashion, is suggesting that all we have to do lay siege to every city in Iraq until the entire populace renounces their IED-explodin' ways and spontaneously votes a Republican into office. Optimistic, yes... there is literally nothing but optimism in this assessment. The fundamental problem with fighting against a guerilla force under occupation is that the units do not identify themselves until they are firing RPGs at you. They can melt in and out of the populace and migrate from battlefield to battlefield, resupplying from numerous "base areas" as they move. When is the last time the invading force won a prolonged guerilla war without resorting to genocide? I'm seriously looking for historical examples here. Why did we do so well in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq? There's seems to be a huge fundamental difference: the people in Afghanistan never turned against their occupier with such fury and determination. The warlords never could unite against the US invader. Why did we fight for so long in Vietnam, but still never manage to close off the North's "base areas"? Why are we still unable to do it in Iraq?

There's a long and fascinating obituary in the New York Times that goes into some detail about the history of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. The thesis is that Arafat just could not pull it together strategically and missed several huge opportunities to do right by his people. He struggled to keep his own group relevant and independent while steadily losing power to more militant organizations. He spoke out of both sides of his mouth quite a lot, but for all his tactical maneuvering, he never got the job done. http://nytimes.com/2004/11/11/international/middleeast/arafatobit.html I didn't even realize that Arafat had ordered the murders of the Israeli athletes in Munich. Disgusting. Unfortunately, the guy didn't bother to name a successor. Let's hope someone reasonable takes over and is ready to deal with Sharon.

It's all relative. Warfare is clearly more humane these days than when the only way to win was to kill or enslave all the men and rape the women. Civilian (and some military) leaders have also spewed their fair share of "smart bombs are humane, safe, and clean" rhetoric, which puts people off just the same because it's clearly mendacious.

I worry that Bush's decision-making is based on a sense of moral clarity that keeps him from examining any contradictory evidence, or even being interested in such evidence. Once he's decided on something, no matter if it's patently false, he sticks with the idea. This kind of faith-based decision-making is a bad idea. I wouldn't want the guy playing navigator on a cross-country road trip, much less leading a nation.

Those improvements have only been made as a direct result of heightened public awareness of the costs of war (i.e., the "whining" that many here like to... uh... whine about). It's obviously much more efficient and cheap to level an entire neighborhood with a few daisy cutters than gather enough intelligence to accurately target a few houses with expensive smart bombs.

Why not? It is the stated goal of many conservative elected officials and interest groups that Roe v. Wade be overturned and abortion be made illegal nationwide. Now the Bush administration will soon be in the position to appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice, if not more. Arlen Specter is getting no support, from Bush or from fellow Republican Senators, for suggesting that a "litmus test" on Roe v. Wade is not an acceptable criterion for selecting a new Justice. In fact, conservatives have dogpiled Sen. Specter, demanding angrily that he be denied the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, for which he is next in line. Bush's insistence that he won't use a "litmus test" rings hollow. All of this adds up to a real threat to Roe v. Wade. Saying "it won't happen" makes it seem like you're ignoring the news.

Well, in 1945 she'd have written something like: "Aaaiiiieeee! I'm on fire and incendiary bombs just obliterated my entire neighborhood!"

That same Senator wants to give doctors the death penalty for performing abortions.

I interviewed with a software company in 2000, right at the tail end of the Internet Golden Years. This company was a real boilerroom-type operation: 100-hour weeks, sleep in your office, party hard. Not my kind of scene, but hey, they flew me out on their dime. They took us out for a fancy dinner the night before the interviews. I had a $14 glass of wine and ogled the escorts decorating the bar. This was followed by bar-hopping in downtown Austin and a quick nap (6 hours?) before five straight hours of interviews. I did OK in the first four, but I was slightly hung over and didn't fit in with the culture. The last interview was a humiliating sufferfest. I think I was borderline, so they threw me to the most condescending interviewer to see if I would pass the test. Nope. They still flew me back home the next day, though. Worst interview, most fun.