klenke

The black areas must be for people who... 100% don't give a shit.

Did you mean 'oxymoronic' not 'ironic?'

Is this our very own Off White... ...

Nicely said, David. And since you, as a proclaimed moderate, failed to equally berate the democratic party, Jay's article has done so for you in an equally cogent manner. I'm a lot like you. If the Kerry camp had won I could see its benefits from a "healing the global wound" point of view. Nonetheless, Kerry just didn't do it for me on a personal level. Neither candidate did it for me, really. Where are all the slam dunk candidates in the democratic party? I respect Hillary but I have issues with her. Plus, the fact that she's a woman makes her less likely to be elected. I have no problem with seeing a woman as president but 225 years of history is working against her. If the dems nominate her in 2008 the GOP better have a poor candidate itself else she will lose. For instance, if McCain wins the GOP ticket, he will surely beat Hillary. Frist vs. Hillary is a better match for her.

Can a squid get a compound fracture? Could you fall down the ocean fast enough?

Good point. I guess I should have put victim in quotes. Some state just made it a crime to screw the dead. But in general it may not be illegal in the eyes of the law. In the eyes of maddened crowds jabbing pitchforks and shovels into the air, it may be illegal enough.

I tried watching them last night but got bored at around halfway through the first quarter when they were already down by three touchdowns and a three-pointer. I chose to finish my night by spraying at will.

Say, isn't he in med. school or something? Does the victim have to be alive?

The dark blue county at center is Williamson Co. just north of Austin. Travis Co. (Austin's county) is the next one south. The dark-green I-35 corridor then runs SSW toward Bexar Co. (San Antonio's county), which is the circular mid-green county. The Hispanic reasoning makes sense--most especially for the deep south of Texas. But also, in terms of median income, the corridor counties are near metropolitan areas where more money resides and land values and the cost of living are higher.

Dryad: that Texas swathe is Austin-San Antonio corridor. Dallas is farther north; Houston is to the east. It's not surprising the democrat counties are the city counties. But why do you have to be elitest liberal assholes about it? I thought it was liberals that worked for the common man and it was the conservatives who are into big money and riches.

No, but you do discredit him by undercased tactics. It's Jay_B, not jay_b.

Climb: The Rockies/Mt. Elbert-Rockies from Trail, Elbert from South Date of Climb: 10/31/2004 Trip Report: Okay, the South Cascades Forum needs an apolitical TR (and so does this site, really). So here's one little ditty 'bout Jack 'n Diane... This trip was done with my dad. We first set out for Huffaker Mountain (3640+FT, 2320P) down by Randle, WA. I won't go into detail about this little peak with big prominence, but here is a picture of a cool pinnacle I tried to climb near the summit: After Huffaker we were off to climb The Rockies & Mt. Elbert... We approached The Rockies and Mt. Elbert from the south via the road up Wallanding Creek (gotta love that name!). No gates seen. Distances from where FR-73 (this road number being a coincidence after having just completed my 73rd of 144 2kP peaks) leaves Hwy 508: 1.6 miles --> cross Tilton River c. 900 ft; 6.6 miles --> cross Wallanding Creek (rough road through here; small car may have problem); 9.5 miles --> reach 3,600-ft saddle between Rockies and Elbert (turn left to go to The Rockies); 10.0 miles --> spur to Rockies ends at berm (c. 3,800 ft). A view of The Rockies from near that saddle: With me running ahead, we walked the remaining road a few hundred yards to its end. The old trail (to the former lookout) goes off to the left just before the road end. You can take it all the way to the summit but the last quarter miles winds up the overgrown final slopes. My thighs were soaked after brushing past snow-laden bushes and trees. The summit of The Rockies (4320+FT, 720P) had about 2 inches of snow on it. It is a flat spot where the old lookout once sat. Not much remains of the lookout: The summit sits in the heart of the small sub-range of peaks west of Hwy 7. It's an ideal lookout site. Time up = 30 minutes (max). Some views from the summit: To the south is Pk 4088, a neat looking mountain (for the area): To the north is the head of the Little Nisqually River. Thurston County's highpoint--diminutive 2,922-ft Quiemuth Peak--is visible at left-center: To the east is "Mt. Elbert", which is probably the highest point in the area at 4,327 ft: While my dad visited the summit (for his second time in about 15 years) I went down to the 4,080+ ft rock promontory east of the summit (see picture looking east above). Here is the view of The Rockies from that promontory. After that it was on to Mt. Elbert to tag that too before darkness set upon us. Elbert is 1.9 miles due east of The Rockies. (Elbert is an unofficial name to go with The Rockies.) Here's a closer view of Elbert. Poor thing has been denuded: My dad opted out of going up Elbert and that was fine with me. He kept calling it Ebert anyway. Roger Ebert? A road is shown going up the south side of the peak from the 3,900-ft saddle on that side. This road has been back-filled (decommissioned) but is still navigable: The road rounds the corner of the south rock peak. There are some short cliffs one can climb through to avoid swinging way right on the road. It takes about 20 minutes to climb from saddle to summit. Because the summit of Mt. Elbert (4327FT, 2607P) has been logged off it now has views but looks ugly for it. The Rockies and Pk 4088 south of The Rockies are much more interesting. With my dad waiting for me in the truck on the road crossing the west side of the peak, I chose to descend the west basin then small creek to get to this road. It took about 10 minutes to get down in the waning light. From there we drove north on the myriad roads leading that way back to civilization. We were looking for FR-74 (after completing 74 of 144, of course) and eventually found it. Back home by 7:30PM ready to toss steaks on the grill. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Notes concerning the heights of The Rockies and Mt. Elbert When I told my dad that The Rockies is not the highest point in that sub-range of mountains west of Hwy 7 he didn't want to believe me. Since he had been up The Rockies before he had sentimental incentive not to. I showed him my Topo map with 4,320+ for The Rockies and 4,327 for Elbert. Obviously, based on these, The Rockies could be higher. My dad produced some references giving different heights for The Rockies: 4,363 ft --> Lookouts: Firewatchers of the Cascades & Olympics, copyright 1981, Ira Spring & Byron Fish, page 197, LO# 278) 4,333 ft --> Gifford Pinchot National Forest Map (1960's map, I believe). Other: 4,322 ft --> from the USGS database (but it's hard to believe this when it is known a peak's highest point is not always what's listed in the database; example: Huffaker Mountain, which is 3,640+ ft not 3,586 ft). (Note: If the above USGS links discontinue working then you can do a search for the above names through the USGS query tool.) My dad owns a GPS so I took it along. I also took along a rudimentary hand-level but it proved inconclusive. Now I know a GPS is not accurate to within 1 foot of resolution, but here is what was shown for both summits. 4,358-4,363 ft (fluctuating range) --> The Rockies 4,348-4,355 ft (fluctuating range) --> Mt. Elbert The only triangulated value seen for "Mt. Elbert" is the 4,327 ft shown on the USGS map (and Topozone). In light of the above, if you're really concerned about bagging the "right" 2,000-ft prominence peak in the area, suggest you peakbaggers climb both. But wait, there's another piece of evidence that lends support to Elbert being higher... Below is a zoomed in photo of Elbert taken from the summit of The Rockies (with the camera held at eye level to the highest summit rock on the latter). Directly behind Elbert is Storm King Mountain. Now the line of sight data can be interpreted in a number of ways but the simplest piece of evidence is Pt. 4400+ on the south ridge of Storm King. This point could be as high as Pt. 4439 ft. Since Storm King is about 9 miles from The Rockies, the curvature of the earth over that distance at that latitude (~46.7N) would make points that distance away appear ~50 feet lower than "normal". In this regard, you could say Pt. 4400+ is really between 4350-4389. Likewise, Elbert is 1.9 miles from The Rockies and the curvature drop for it would be ~2 feet. You could subtract this 2 feet from the previous. Since the summit of Elbert is above Pt. 4400+ (Pt. 4350+) in the picture and since neither The Rockies nor Elbert are as high as 4,350 ft (if you believe one or more of the triangulated values), it could be concluded that the sight line from The Rockies to Elbert is uphill in that direction, ergo Elbert is higher. In another way to look at it, if Elbert's triangulated value of 4327 ft can be taken as accurate and if the point directly behind its summit is at least 4350, which it is since it is quite obviously higher than Pt. 4400+, then The Rockies has to be less than 4327 ft. Note that none of this proves which is higher with a certainty. It is only more evidence supporting Elbert's position. Was my camera perfectly level (tilted about the sightline axis) when I took the photo? This could skew the analytical results a minor amount. Gear Notes: These peaks are hikes. There is an old overgrown trail to The Rockies. Mt. Elbert is open country. No need for special gear. Approach Notes: The roads around these peaks are labyrinthine. The approach up Wallanding Creek on the south is simplest but the road is rough at about halfway to the destination at the Wallanding Creek crossing (low clearance cars not recommended). The roads on the north (from FR-74) are better but there are more turns/junctions. You had better have a map or a good sense of direction. The uphill fork doesn't necessarily mean you'll go up. The downhill fork may be the right way to go "up" the mountain.

Pete, I agree with what you are saying somewhat. The progressive shift of liberals further to the left over time is being done as a means to balance the conservatives shifting further to the right. When you can no longer reach out and touch the fence it leads to problems for you and your attitutes. You have become brainwashed into one viewpoint with an inability to "see" the other side. The land around the fence is foggy. The further you get from it, the harder it is to see it. Is there anybody OUT there? Liberals, conservatives: Come come come back back back to to to the the the fence fence fence. The democrats need to bring to their fore a moderate liberal. He/she doesn't have to be a fence sitter, but should at least be able to touch the fence. That's why I liked Lieberman. McCain would be a moderate conservative on the other side of the fence.

That's quite obviously a libertarian puppy. You can tell by the carefree laid back attitude.

Will... edit: hey wait a minute. You edited your post. I'm not sure I follow your "new" post.

Scott, have you noticed how all the liberals on this site have failed to be introspective? Instead, they're striking out with their blunted claws like the angry people they are, angry that they lost when they were so confident they had it won. Instead of trying to figure out what's wrong with their ideals, they can only say that the neocon ideal is wrong. Quite pathetic, really. A word about a word: "progressive" goes both ways. The opposite of progressive is not necessarily 'regressive,' the word one party would apply to any ideal of the other party. Liberals like to call themselves progressive but conservatives can be progressive too. It depends on the particular issue under discussion and the way you think about the issue. How much do you want to change or maintain the status quo? Liberals often like the status quo on matters yet they call that ideal progressive. And visa versa for the neocons.

Off, I guess I just have more respect for a man who serves his country for many years regardless of his "viewpoints." In this regard, he is more than I've amounted to in my piddly life. How his viewpoints weigh against mine is not what I was talking about. I don't shit on people so easily, like so many others on this site. Respect (your friends and your enemies...terrorists bastards not withstanding) and you will be respected yourself.

Ducknut: yeah that's right: Cantwell took 3 of 39 counties over Gorton. Thanks.

To all you wussy liberals who wanna cut and run: get in line.

Camilo: what you say is true (or would be nice) but that's not the way it works or could work. Someone has got to appoint them. And their lifetime of decisions often determines what kind of justice they may be (left, right, moderate). They are human beings like the rest of us. Upholding or interpreting The Law is not always a cut and dry thng. And yet, an ordinary judge's decisions are often less esoteric than a supreme court justice's who must interpret the law on matters more philosophical than precedential (or that they often set the precedent). Are you advocating that Supreme Court justices be elected by the people like state supreme court justices and other judges? How should they be chosen?

Health care reform incl. prescription drug policy Gay Marriage ban constitutional amendment Make permanent the Trail Park Pass system. More tax cut initiatives?

I hear he's already started working on Fickenhölle 11-2 Hmmm, no response from the Moore-is-less site yet.

Off's sig line is disrespectful to say the least. But it's a free country. Rehnquist is 500 times the man Off (or I) will ever be, and I'm sure he'd be all for allowing Off's commentary. For those who don't get it, Off is referring to how nice it would have been if Rehnquist had retired (or died) while Clinton was in office so a liberal-leaning replacement could be chosen.

Back-up generators? The show must go on and the roulette wheel must keep spinning.

Sorry, Michael. You tried.