el jefe

mt hood and beacon rock in the rain -- time to come up with a new plan, ivan.

i think there are some pictures at mountain project website: http://www.mountainproject.com/v/oregon/petes_pile/lost_dog_wall/106228801

thanks, john. see you on the 9th.

12/9 after 5pm shouldn't be a problem -- where do you want to meet?

how late in the evening are we thinking? i'm free either 12/9 after 4-5pm. i think i'm busy carpooling the kids the evening of 12/10 but will check this evening when i get home and let you know.

the great windbag b.j. o'jerk -- who gives a fuck what that demented asswipe has to say about anything...

had one pair of mariachers back then. too narrow in the toe for me, i preferred the way fires fit me better. shoes have certainly improved immensely.

an interesting post and i agree with you, the republicans until now have been at best an uneasy coalition of groups that was held together by overlapping fears rather than by some positive idea or philosophy. it will be interesting to see where they go from here. i just enjoyed watching how their usual attacks were so easily and deftly turned aside by obama. hopefully they will become a party that stands for something rather than a party that stands against a bunch of things, but you are probably right that it is going to get pretty ugly first

i don't know if it is hate that motivates these people, but mccain's resounding defeat has left the repubs in disarray. the old fear and smear, veiled racist thing didn't work this time and, in addition, in the aftermath they are left with no clear leader or favorite for next time. mccain is already 72 and unlikely to try again in 2012. by virtue of having been nominated for veep, palin was elevated to a position of prominence in the party. apparently some people don't want her out in front. i think the jockeying for position was underway before the actual election and will continue for some time. things are just getting started.

per today's NYT article: "The tensions were described in interviews with top aides to the two campaigns who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be seen as disloyal to Mr. McCain’s effort at a difficult time." sounds like this is from the top people, not the ones at "the bottom of the ranks". also, i don't remember other tickets bickering so openly or so soon after the election. whether palin has a future in national politics is certainly an open question, but at the same time i think there are clearly some influential repub operatives who definitely want to make sure she doesn't.

it is very interesting that the mccain people have been so quick to talk about palin in such a negative way. clearly they don't want her to be in a position of prominence in the party. to some extent this might just be the usual finger-pointing (i.e., "she's the reason we lost"), but somehow it feels like there is more to it than that. there seems to be a concerted effort to marginalize her. as for billcoe's opus above, i'm going to have to wait for it to be translated into english. an abridged form would be nice, too.

peter, why should anyone care what this apologist for the catholic church has to say?

here's an opb story on "extraordinary rendition" http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/ plenty more stuff out there if you just look.

billcoe, if you are such a great believer in how wonderful our country is, why do you nevertheless feel that you have to own some guns to protect your "freedoms" from that very same country? seems to me that gun fanciers such as yourself actually don't believe in the united states and its way of life, otherwise you wouldn't feel it necessary to be ready to take up arms against it.

fw's posts are increasingly shrill -- must see the writing on the wall for mcpalin.

libertarian philosophy (lack of government regulation) is what landed us in our current economic predicament. libertarian view of human nature is naive at best, the reality is that economic elite will always attempt to game the system to their own benefit in the absence of third party (i.e., government) oversight.

i haven't checked the road myself, but the forest service has this posted at their website: Order No. MH-2008-11 AREA CLOSURE FIRE MOUNT HOOD NATIONAL FOREST HOOD RIVER RANGER DISTRICT ORDER Effective at 0001 hours on Friday, October 10, 2008 and pursuant to 36 CFR, Sec. 261.50 (A) & (B), the following acts are prohibited on the area shown in “exhibit A” and including sites as described in “exhibit B”. This is designated as the Gnarl Ridge Fire Closure Area and remains in effect until rescinded. 1. Being in or upon a closed area. [36 CFR 261.52(E)] 2. Use of vehicles off National Forest System Roads [36 CFR 261.56] Pursuant to 36 CFR 261.50 (E) the following persons are exempt from these prohibitions: 1. Persons with a permit, waiver or contract specifically authorizing the prohibited act or omission. 2. Any Federal, State or local officer, or member of an organized rescue or fire fighting force in the performance of an official duty. This order rescinds and replaces Order # MH-2008-10 signed on September 29, 2008. Done at Sandy, Oregon this 9th day of October, 2008. ______________________________ GARY L. LARSEN Forest Supervisor Mt Hood National Forest Violations of these prohibitions are punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000 for an individual or $10,000 for an organization, or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both. (16U.S.C. 551, and 18 U.S.C. 3559 and 3571)

i'm interested, but access to these routes is somewhat more involved owing to the current closure of the cloud cap road and tilly jane trails.

for that matter, you've even registered your children -- i'm assuming they have birth certificates and social security numbers, that is.

why would the government need to confiscate your guns if they know where they are? it would demonstrate that you aren't in possession of illegal weapons and make it easier for law enforcement officers to determine whether a weapon was used in the commission of a crime. if your guns are clean, then so are you in all likelihood. if not, then you've got some explainin' to do. now, i've answered your question so you answer mine: what are you so afraid of? why not register them? you've registered your vehicles and the deed to your house, why not weapons that are potentially lethal to your neighbors and fellow citizens?

take the photo again with the heads equal to each other (instead of the tips) and with a ruler lying across the screws 2"-3" from the head and your understanding of the relative strengths of screws will be clarified. when a screw of ANY length is loaded in a fall, a stress cone of roughly that 2"-3" depth collapses around the tube. the threads BEYOND the cone are what keeps the screw in the ice - for a 10cm screw, that could be as little as 2cm-3cm. a 13cm screw retains about 6cm-8cm of 'bite'; 16cm-17cm 'standard' screws retain nearly 10cm of bite; and 'long' 21cm-22cm screws 'bite' for 2/3 of their length. but it turns out this 'extra' length is irrelevant - a length of 15cm-17cm gives holding power as good as it gets. as for falls, i swore in the early days never to take a lead fall on ice - but i didn't manage to keep my word. i pitched off an icebulge on the west lion one winter a long time ago when a tool slipped and i barn-doored off - went maybe 30 ft - held by a 6" salewa in solid water-ice. and i fzcked up getting in and out of a set of borrowed wrist leashes on borrowed tools on louise falls once - went maybe 6m or 8m, held by (probably, as i recall the times) an old-style chouinard screw. oh, and i pitched off one more time, but screws didn't come into play. tried Shreddie back in the FA season, pulled both tools outa manky windowpane crap about 2 body-lengths up, landed flat on my back on the start-point ice ledge. probably for the best... coulda gotten hurt if i'd gotten higher... screws don't ALWAYS work... cheers, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, i believe we've found the winning entry.

The status quo--as of today--is just fine with me. You OK with that? Which guns legal today do you think should be banned? how about all guns legal today have to be registered? Nope. What would the point of that be? why not? where's the harm?

The status quo--as of today--is just fine with me. You OK with that? Which guns legal today do you think should be banned? how about all guns legal today have to be registered?

interesting. last week she broke with mccain on the gay marriage issue (he's for letting the sates decide, she came out for a constitutional amendment banning it), and i figured that meant she has already figured that obama is going to win and is positioning herself to run in 2012. looks more and more like this is the case. repubs are (i hope!) headed to defeat.

Fortunately, my position is protected in the Bill of Rights from nut jobs like you. The fact that you live in Portland doesn't help your case regarding "strange". actually, bedwetter, the second amendment reads as follows: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. my argument hinges on the first part, yours on the latter part. as usual, the founding fathers left it all muddled up for us. right now the supremes back you, but if the configuration of the court changes...