bradleym

just like my knees ;-)

no, i didn't climb it -- never will -- and it makes me pucker just contemplating such a thing.... but, i got up close to 7k on a bluebird day (Sunday) and thought i'd share the images. haven't posted here in a while. i left the ramona trailhead at 9a, got to the falls about 10, then hit the 6k viewpoint at just past noon. got past the scramble and up to the meadow about 2, whereupon i stopped, ate lunch, took pictures, listened to rockfall, watched the people over on mcneil point, then started back down around 3p, arriving back at the trailhead around 7.30p. currently testing my 46-year-old knees for possible summit attempt this winter via south side or cooper spur. everything held together pretty well, albeit under good conditions. scraped a knee descending the scramble which was quite muddy. anyway, here are the images: Yocum Ridge Day Hike enjoy! [img:left]http://bradleymclain.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v77/p1810629972-5.jpg[/img]

i channel pp every day. most of it even hits the urinal.

mayhem? maybe what happens depends on whether the cameras are rolling or not?

fair enough, but i cannot for the life of me ever envisage the practical application of armed citizen power to political questions -- it seems like such an extreme measure. how does that work? do you carry a gun to a political event, to a demonstration? do you threaten a politician or even carry out that threat? is it that they know you're packing heat, so they back down from their nefarious schemes? could you oppose the military when they came to get you? i think there are more effective ways to forstall the shenanigans of would-be dictators, and they begin sooner than when bloodshed may be required. a couple of years ago i was hiking the ecola trail with my kids. when we reached the overlook, there was a man and woman up there, the man with the butt of an automatic pistol sticking out of the shoulder holster he had slung on. honestly speaking, i didn't feel more free, but rather considerably less so. i tried to, but i failed... ;-) at any rate, assuming the 'armed populace is a free one', which i do not get, can there be no restrictions? i think it is a pretty fair statement given what happened on saturday, that only 11 or 15 bullets in his gun would have been less tragic than 30 or so. still tragic, but maybe someone would still be alive who isn't, say, perhaps that 9-year-old girl.

bill, here is a question to ponder: had this fellow (crazy, righty, lefty, who cares?) had 11 or 15 bullets to play with rather than 31 or 33 before reloading, how many of the injured and dead would not be injured or dead today? lots of complex issues here, but one conclusion seems pretty plausible to me: we _do_ need more control/restriction/banninating over our weapons. i'd certainly welcome a complete ban on handguns, but ffs, why not at least limit the number of rounds that can be popped off at once? bradley

true, it just looks to me like a lot more bootpack to the left of crater rock than on the hogback. trick of the shadows perhaps.

it looks to me as though someone did, but not via the hogback. identify yourself! [img:left]http://bradleymclain.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v12/p732906009-5.jpg[/img]

Happy New Year! more images here: http://bradleymclain.zenfolio.com/p367776816 [img:left]http://bradleymclain.zenfolio.com/img/s6/v6/p271700890-5.jpg[/img]

hey billbob, don't know if you are still planning to use my pic, but all of my hood images are collected here: Mt. Hood Images bradley

BRB - clothier to this important event

I agree with j_b on this one. so much of what is passed off as 'discussion' or 'the exchange of ideas' is really just changing the subject, leaving out important information or ideas or treating 'assertions' as though they were 'facts'. Take the bonehead, for example, who started the 'If' thread...

hopefully you can tell whether they significantly differ from Bush's policies ... IMHO the sum of activity undertaken by the Obama administration (from the legislative agenda, to executive orders, to diplomatic initiatives, to supreme court nominations, etc.) indicates a significant, and very, very welcome difference from Bush policies. Nonetheless, there are many currents in place that are impossible to divert quickly, or it would be disastrous to try, and so it is a step-wise progression (sometimes a step back too). E.g. guantanamo, afghanistan, energy policy, etc. Getting stuff done at that level is enormously complex and subject to an infinity of tradeoffs, and a character like the president is dependent on many people, each of whom is subject to a range of motivations, allegiances, changes of heart and shifting calculation of best interest. Even idealism. I'm talking about cabinet secretaries, low-level functionaries, senators, everybody. For example, Geithner isn't everyone's favorite fellow, and is often cited as proof that the insiders still rule and that nothing has changed. That may be, but I'm sure the decision to appoint him was indeed conflicted and subject to a subtle calculus involving his background, his connections, what he knows, how he gets along with key players, etc. And much of it was perhaps not in his favor. He is sort of compromised by his GS links, he does have some trouble with his sums, but at the end of the day it was a calculated risk on Obama's part to go with him because Obama judged that Geithner possesses something that outweighed the negatives. Obama must also have judged that he could manage the swirl of motivations and allegiances. Nothing is a sure bet, especially with stakes the way they are. I don't know why I'm gabbling so much today. I don't have any simple answers.

Funny how "what can be done" and "who can do it" are the same policies instituted by the same personnel that's left America (and the rest of the planet) bobbing in the crapper. Weird. it may well be that frequently one must work with people who are not one's first choice -- they are the ones 'there', meaning they have context and interest in the work to be done as well as the baggage and ulterior motives. keeps it interesting, i suppose. we should know by now that over-simplification and an expectation of purely good or bad actors doesn't work well. it's not how life is. The point is not to downplay the primacy of politics, process, and struggle but to point out the diminished expectations and cynicism inherent in narrow "pragmatism". When you take that as the starting point, you'll always end with little more than the status quo. If Bush et. al provide any lessons whatsoever it's "go big or go home". Libruls need to get a spine. I don't know, life seems to me to be a constant lesson in diminishing those expectations, but it doesn't necessarily lead directly to cynicism or an awful status quo. I work in the corporate world (sorry j_b), and have often been thrown together with people I don't really like or trust, whose motives I am not too sure about, yet we have to get something productive done. And we do. We figure out how to work together, in spite of our dislike or distrust -- the end product may not be perfect, and indeed it may be spoiled in part by our differences, if that is the way you want to look at it. But it is headed in the right direction. I see the path for Obama in much the same light. He's surrounded by all these actors that he either didn't choose, or wasn't terribly happy about choosing, or who are flawed in some way but bring something Obama thinks he needs, yet he still has to get something done. And he is. It isn't perfect, and my inner idealist wishes terribly that things could be different, but to my way of thinking it represents progress. Will that assemblage of characters always get it right? No. Do they sometimes make asses of themselves? Yes. Do I believe their motives to be pure? Absolutely not, whose are? Can I conclude from anything that has happened that Obama is a sellout? Yawn.

Funny how "what can be done" and "who can do it" are the same policies instituted by the same personnel that's left America (and the rest of the planet) bobbing in the crapper. Weird. it may well be that frequently one must work with people who are not one's first choice -- they are the ones 'there', meaning they have context and interest in the work to be done as well as the baggage and ulterior motives. keeps it interesting, i suppose. we should know by now that over-simplification and an expectation of purely good or bad actors doesn't work well. it's not how life is.