Roger

quote: Originally posted by erik: these (our) elected officials do not listen to the layman constituant no matter what political party you belong too....both repubs and demos are whores. they listen to what gets thier attention most, power. until we the people can come up with a way to stop this whoring of our elected officals, things like this and fee demo will continue. obviously our elected officals are not too interested in doiong this on their own(hard to pull your hand from the candy basket). amen, erik. This is why anyone who gives a damn should write John McCain a letter and tell him what a freakin' hero he is for fighting so long and hard (like ten years) for campaign finance reform, and finally winning. The fact that a majority of the house and senate finally voted to slow the flow of lobbyist $$$ into their own pockets is nothing short of amazing. Obviously, this doesn't completely solve the problem, but it's a significant first step. As a dem, I don't agree with McCain on a lot of issues, but you've got to give him some credit on this one. uhhh... oh yeah, trad rules!

quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: There should be no restrictions on campaign financing whatsoever, save prohibitions against fraud and bribery. okay, I was going to leave, but then went back and did some reading... MtnGoat, you have wisely placed your hoof directly on the problem! In a system where there are no limitations on donations to political candidates/incumbents, it is impossible to tell what is bribery and what isn't. Just say, oh, hypothetically, that some company called Enron gave millions of dollars to the Bush campaign. They are probably thinking that they are going to get something for their money, right? Okay, here's a better, more politically-neutral example: the senate is considering a bill that will have major impacts on the auto industry. It turns out that the vote will be close, and will likely come down to two or three key senators. The auto industry lobbyists just happen to make huge contributions of money to those senators in the week before the vote on the bill. They vote in favor, and the bill narrowly passes... did the $$ play a role? Probably. Is this bribery, or just the way the system works? Hard to say. Which is why it makes sense to place some limitations this kind of influence, IMHO.

speaking of George II, things have gotten pretty zesty here at ground zero of the Bush visit. Pave hawk choppers circling around, six guys in black on the roof of the Hilton with binocs and rifles, huge crowds of protesters marching around beating drums and clashing with cops in riot gear. I'd better knock off early for drinks.

quote: Originally posted by Greg W: Further, how is it that you are so fucking arrogant that you think your thinking is "right"; i.e., correct? Greg W Probably the same thinking that leads you to believe that campaign finance reform is "bullshit," and a violation of the First Amendment... which is, unlike most political blather, demonstrably incorrect (see above) unless you are advocating for the overthrow of our judiciary.

quote: Originally posted by Greg W: Wow, looks like they hooked another sucker. CFR is bullshit and an affront to 1st Amendment rights (freedom of speech, freedom to seek redress of greivances). It's called incumbent protection. - contact your Reps & Senators, vote them out, give money to the lobby of your choice. Greg W I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "another sucker," but I'm guessing you're a fan of justice Rehnquist, who two years ago voted with a majority of the Court to uphold its 1976 ruling that - gasp - money is property, not speech, and that limitations on financial contributions to political candidates do not amount to restrictions on speech in violation of the First Amendment. The only "speech" implications of such laws were addressed in the 1976 decision, where the court held that individuals cannot be resticted from spending their own money on their own campaigns. Hence, Ross Perot. Campaign finance limitations do not restrict people from voicing their concerns to their elected representatives. Everyone is still free to write, call, picket, whatever. The point of such restrictions is to keep the Enrons of the world from having a significantly louder voice than everyone else. A slightly more level playing field is clearly an improvement, IMHO.

no worries... but since eriK and mattp raised the topic of spelling, it's tuCSon. So is the bean-fest still happening down there?

If removal of fuel is a good idea from a forest management perspective, fine.... but the proposed involvement of the timber industry makes it sound a bit like the fox guarding the henhouse. And why am I reminded of the "salvage rider," which was also pitched as something that was needed for forest management, but also (thanks to timber industry lobbying) happened to exempt a lot of controversial timber sales from all federal environmental laws. You'll recall that the salvage rider was signed by slick Willie, so this is not a purely partisan rant.

You mean Portland, or the White House? either way, I agree... the sooner the better. I'm looking out my window at the Hilton right now... no barricades in sight yet. Let's invite shrub across the river to the rock gym and sandbag him.

quote: Originally posted by glen: Anyone have experience getting an Avocet Vertech battery replaced locally? Is it better to suck up and just mail it to Avocet as recommended on their webpage? Ahhh, thread drift. You can probably find someone willing to replace the battery locally... but the only advantage to mailing it in is that avocet will also fix anything else that is wrong with it, such as those *&$#! buttons that always fall off and/or stop working. I sent mine in, and I can't remember how long it took, but it must not have been too long or I'd remember being pissed.

... because even snafflehounds deserve a warm meal ... Hard to imagine that the USFS would have its shit together to be that high-tech and insidious back in the 80s, a time when they were primarily focused on maximizing production of board-feet. Mulder might have a different view.

quote: Originally posted by trask: yes, Sheba and Conette with handle the gate. Remember last time when those unruly mounties and mazamas showed up? I don't remember much... but I seem to recall that one mountie guy who was all liquored up because he had just been appointed as chair of the Special Mountaineers Sub-subcommittee on Paper Clips of the Subcommittee on Office Supplies of the Committee on Administrative Matters. His buddies took him to the slide show to celebrate... and he was never heard from again.

you couldn't pay me to go this show... that guy has totally sold out. I used to think he was cool back in the day, when he was doing some really sick shit down in south seattle. But now he's gone totally corporate - got sponsored by Coors and KY jelly - and is raking in the cash doing these chest-beating slideshows. fuck that.

"To jumble towards on someone small boulders are not, of course, similar as mountaineering." -T. Larray describing Fountainbleu, c 1948. Probably a huge mistake posting this but... whatever. I had an experience at Fountainbleau that was not unlike what Greg W so humorously described. It's actually a huge freaking labryinth of rocks and forest there, with these impossible-to-find little spots of paint in random places that are supposed to tell you how hard the moves are. We spent a day there, moving around a lot, bouldering in a bunch of different places. Then it started getting dark and we decided to head back to the car... but soon realized we were not exactly sure which direction the car was. So we wandered around in the fading light for what seemed like a long time, joking about our bouldering epic and how we were probably going to have to bivi, can't believe we're not carrying the 10 essentials, etc. Finally we encountered a hiker and through some miracle of broken french and random gestures managed to describe the place we thought we left the car. He was able to point us in the right direction, and probably still tells his friends about the two dumbass american climbers he had to rescue from certain death at fountainbleau. So was it Terray or Louis Lachenal on the summit of Annapurna with Herzog? Can never keep those frenchies straight. "Maurice...! Your gloves...!!"

quote: Originally posted by ryland moore: I agree with everyone's posts here so far, but I also feel that the guys below the climbers that fell showed just as much inexperience as those that actually started the snowball effect. ... I feel that all parties who went into the shrund could be blamed or found neglegent. Can't agree with you there. Just for clarification - the rope team from TVFR (the firefighter/paramedic group) was slightly above the 'schrund when the first team fell from the chute area, maybe 200-250 feet higher on the mountain. The whole TVFR rope team ended up in the schrund, but all survived. I'm not sure that their rope leader was even aware that there were people descending that far above them - and even if he was, I wouldn't blame him for being in the wrong part of the fall line when a tangled mass of six bodies and two ropes came flying down the hill.

Iain, regarding the Oregon statute, it's ORS 401.590 (text below). What I didn't know is that it caps the amount that can be recovered at a maximum of $500 per rescued person. It also applies to hikers, hunters and, at least theoretically, snowmobilers. The interesting bits are at sub (5), where it lists the kinds of things that the state of Oregon considers evidence of "reasonable care," including using a cell phone "when appropriate." Applying the statute to the infamous Lambone Incident, where they used the phone, but thereby triggered a rescue they didn't (at least initially) want, I wonder if he'd get hit with the $500 fine. 401.590 Reimbursement of public body for search and rescue by benefited persons; amount; exceptions. (1) A public body may collect an amount specified in this section as reimbursement for the cost of search and rescue activities when the public body conducts search and rescue activities for the benefit of hikers, climbers, hunters and other users of wilderness areas or unpopulated forested or mountainous recreational areas in this state. (2) The public body may collect moneys as authorized by this section from each person for whose benefit search and rescue activities are conducted. The public body may not collect more than $500 from an individual under this section and may not collect more than the actual cost of the search and rescue activities from all of the individuals for whose benefit the activities are conducted. (3) A public body may obtain reimbursement under this section only when: (a) Reasonable care was not exercised by the individuals for whose benefit the search and rescue activities are conducted; or (b) Applicable laws were violated by such individuals. (4) Any individual who is charged a fee for reimbursement under this section may appeal the charge or the amount of the fee to the public body that charged the fee. (5) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, evidence of reasonable care includes: (a) The individuals possessed experience and used equipment that was appropriate for the known conditions of weather and terrain. (b) The individuals used or attempted to use locating devices or cellular telephones when appropriate. © The individuals notified responsible persons or organizations of the expected time of departure and the expected time of return and the planned location or route of activity. (d) The individuals had maps and orienteering equipment and used trails or other routes that were appropriate for the conditions. (6) As used in this section, "public body" means any unit of state or local government that conducts or has authority to conduct search and rescue activities. [1995 c.570 §1]

I'm pretty sure that's a different Sally you're thinking of. Think "All in the Family," not "Smokey and the Bandit." Still, it's a good idea... HC would seem to be the perfect humanitarian aid food - packs well, lots of calories... "Horsecock: you loved it as kid, you trust it as an adult."

dru, yer lettin' down the homeland - what about... 2112 and congrats klenke, but I'm not sure that the 'chronic' diagnosis is going to stick.

quote: Originally posted by moonchild: But am I at the wrong web site if I ask if you climb sober and have outgrown the use of mind altering drugs -- not to mention climb safely? Yep. Wrong site. Just a bunch of adolescent drug-addled gumbies around here. You'll have better luck at nwhikers.net.

Descending from the summit of Mt. Adams, probably around 12,000 feet, on a busy weekend with about 30 people on the summit in plain view directly behind me. Shuffling across the relatively flat snow in my direction is a guy in blue jeans, flannel shirt and tennis shoes, carrying a giant walking stick, and looking like he's about to collapse. Guy: (pant,pant) Excuse me... (pant, pant) can you tell me how far it is to the summit? Me: Umm... (not sure if he's joking)... that's it right there...(pointing over my shoulder at the huge and obvious summit plateau). Guy: thank god!! (he then starts running toward the summit, almost falling over as he slides around in his tennis shoes)

Way to bring it back around to the original topic, tex. Nice try, but it's not going to last. Love and Rockets.

No, you're thinking of Bronski Beat, who became the communards. Frankie (thankfully) morphed into oblivion. Loved the Housemartins, though. Nobody has even mentioned the English Beat.

Smiths. That album from around 1989, can't think of the name.

ahhh yes, too drunk to fuck. Now there's a good lyric: "you give me head it makes it worse take out your fucking retainer, put it in your purse..."

I think the 'your mommy's dead' song is the Dead Kennedys... or is it the Dead Milkmen?

Greg W, you da man. I only got 67%. That 'stiff kittens' thing threw me. Turns out they were stiff kittens for about a year before becoming Joy Division. I agree, too much pop-metal crap on that quiz, not enough Clash or Husker Du.