Winter

I was hanging out with the girldfriend of that bigger, bearded guy (Keith) on Fri. afternoon, driving back from Hood River as the clouds started to move in. Glad to hear he and the rest are ok. The Oregonian finished its story in this morning's paper with a quote by Keith made while in the snow cave: "What do you guys want to climb next?" Classic.

B - what kind of setup did you get? I'm lookin' for a new pair of affordable skis.

Let's be clear here. I'm not into property destruction for political motives, but burning cars is good old-fashioned fun.

TR? Here's to the getting sick method of weight loss. Doctor says my liver functions were abnormal. He prescribed .

I've actually seen several cars burn and none of them has exploded. I did see an RV burn on the way back from a Dead show near Buffalo, NY at about 3 am in the morning. Wasted hippies and truckers ... quite a show. The propane tanks blew and shot crazy flames 50 some feet acress several lanes of the highway.

Waddya call a knuckledragger that just got dumped by his girlfriend? Homeless. I lived in Squallywood for a year and hung with tons of jibbers while I was there. I agree that they ain't all idiots ... alcoholics maybe. My problem is that they speak a different freakin' language. What the hell are they talkin 'bout?

What's my reply to what? rbw's post? I think he's right except for the fact that I don't think Tre was involved in the Eugene car burnings ... the young guy that did that got like 70 years or something. Rob, as for the other post, I just put up that list, because some people have been making an effort to buy gas from companies that don't get oil from the Middle East.

Gas stations that do not get any of much of their oil from the Middle East: Citgo Conoco Phillips 66 Sunoco Coastal/El Paso FyingJ Sinclair Oil Vitol ConocoPhillips (Union 76) Tesoro Petroleum Hess Wal-Mart Borderline gas stations: BP Amoco This is off the web ... don't know if its accurate, but I've heard it before as well. As for Rosegraugh, he's talking about a sort of wonky view on social movements and the role of violence and civil disobedience. Where would the civil rights movement have been without riots? What about the French Revolution? Civil disobedience can play a role in moving your agenda forward ... but you sort of lose the moral high ground unless a lot of people agree (like the the CR riots), and personally I'm a freakin' wussy ass pacifist that prefers not to engage in violence.

DFA - My guess is Karate is harder than Zebra Zion. I haven't led Karate but did lead the crux on ZZ last year (car-to-car in day!). Its not an overhanging hand crack like Karate and there's plenty of features. The ten section is short, but the second pitch is sustained all the way. The only loose shit I saw was the load rbw dropped in his pants leading the unprotected 5.8 traverse on the 3rd pitch. Spider man is a piece of cake. The roof may look ominous, but it ain't even the crux. There's a short bulge before the first belay which is harder but still compltely manageable. Enjoy your trad. I HIGHLY recommend Moonshine. Holy shit what a great line! - Chris

Hey DFA - Use that shit to grease the rusty wheels of the free market economy. Maybe then issues like access to information, prejudice and externalized costs won't actually interfere with properly functioning markets.

As a good libertarian, DFA feels *free* to be as hypocrytical as he likes.

Its crashing ... can't get in.

Uhhh hmmm .. that actually is a possibility. Maybe you're rbw ... knew that guy had a secret passion for clipping bolts.

First try showing for a plub cub sporto.

Dude, the gator board sucked. Rat bones.

This guy's good with kids.

Shit you people must be bored.

Goat - I asked you these questions, because my point is that your policies and politics derive from a specific philosophical viewpoint. I continually read the liberal-bashing posts on this board that accuse the liberals of trying to impose their philosophies upon the rest of society. But, its all a matter of perspective. If I, as a liberal, want the government to protect my forest, than you, as a libertarian, are simply imposing your philosophies upon me in limiting the government's roll in society. If I have a different philosophical viewpoint on social interaction and common governance, whose to say that your philosophy should rule the day ... isn't that dogmatic? I suppose that is why we live in a "democracy" (as dysfunctional as it may be). People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones my friend ... it ain't just the liberals that have cornered the imperfect market on dogmatism. Your positions flow from your philosophies, and my positions flow from my philosophies. To dogmaitcally assert that your philosophies are somehow "right" is far more dogmatic than any liberal policy on environmental protection or social welfare. To each his own. - Chris PS I'd rather be climbing.

Hey Goat - Before stepping up on your sopbox next time, why don't you rearead your own posts. I quote: I said commerce and the economy require a strong federal government and you said: So, it appears you were in fact arguing that the economy and commerce DO NOT NEED A STRONG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. YOU EQUATED LANDS AND COMMERCE. So, should each bank set its own interest rate? Should the government be left simply to enforce contracts? Where is the line that you draw? Should the government encourage specific behaviors, such as buying an efificent car, with tax rebates? Where is the line that you seem to argue is so clear? Should the government mandate fuel efficiency? Should the government tax dividends? Should the government regulate accounting practices? Should the government regulate production processes to prevent externalized costs? Should the government regulate consumption of our shared natural resources? Should the government make it illegal to prevent women from voting? Should the government make it illegal to prevent a poll tax of $100? You seem to have this clear picture of exactly what the federal government should do. What is your principle and how do you apply it to specific policy issues? Also, the Constitution is actually a document that confirms the fact that all power lies in the states EXCEPT that which is given to the federal government. It is actually a GRANT of authority to the federal government over states, not primarily a LIMIT to federal authority. The basic understanding of the framers was that the federal government had nothing that the states did not voluntarily give up. It may be a matter of interpretation, but the document is written to GIVE authority to the government not take it away. The Tenth Amendment is actually the limiting clause of the constitution, but the framers viewed the Constitution as a GRANT of authority, which is why it was such a big deal to give up the power of self-determination. I don't quite get your point when you allege I think the Constitution makes what I want "convenient" or "efficient." Name a policy I am in favor off and then tell me why federal regulation in that arena violates the Constitutional grants of authority to the federal government. You may not agree with many federal policies, but you are way off base (according to the Supreme Court) if you think the federal government has overstepped its constitutional authority in most of those cases. Your constitutional arguments fail in almost all cases. You would be better off arguing the policy issues and not some pie in the sky concept of what the federal government's roll in life should be. Finally, you seem to constantly spout off about private "rights" ... the "right" to control ones own resources ... the "right" to hiring etc. etc. Where exactly do these rights come from? The constitution contains a Bill of Rights and the courts have interpreted what that document means. Are you refering to a Constitutional "right" to control one's own resources - i.e. private property - however one wants without regard to the interests of other individuals or the common good? Is there some other source for the rights you hold so central to individual existence? What is the source of your basic guiding principles?

What are you talking about? Which Constitution are you reading? Section 8 specifically calls out roads and interstate commerce. How are we supposed to have public companies and functioning markets without federal regulation? You state that the conservatives are not hypocrites, because the Constitution specifically calls outs national defense. Have you read Section 8? It also calls out interstate commerce. How do you reconcile the conservatives' wail for a smaller government with respect to commerce yet a stronger and larger government with respect to the military? You decry the influence of the federal government, but our economy would fail to function properly without the central rule of law governing our markets. This is precisely the reason Bush jumped all over the Enron and Woldcom scandles in an effort to assure the American investor that the markets would function properly with FEDERAL oversight of accounting and reporting laws. We are left with the reality that the conservatives only stick to the "small government" crap when it suits their biased needs.

Here we have the problem with the conservative approach. This statement is completely incorrect - transportation, public lands, the economy, commerce, and national defense. All these issues require a strong federal government in order to maximize our common welfare. This statement is also completely hypocritical. The conservatives crying for smaller government are also the ones slapping Bush on the back for creating the Ridge gets a job Security Department and spending billions of dollars on questionable missile defense systems that may or may not work. The "smaller government" line appeals to a less educated voter, while the rich and powerful republicans simply grow big government when it suits their constituents' needs.

Sorry, I was commenting on info. from other sources. I've pasted an excerpt from the Pres' website. His plan is to create two "cateogorical exclusions" (a "CE") for fuels reduction projects. A CE is a technical legal term refering to projects that DO NOT GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC COMMENT process under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). NEPA is one of the key statutes that the public uses to demand adequate participation and public disclosure of true env. impacts. The administration intends to take away the public's right to participate in the planning process for these types of projects. 1.Facilitate Reviews of Forest Health Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects.The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior are proposing to identify high priority forest health projects and move forward quickly with this important work.Critical environmental stabilization and rehabilitation projects in the aftermath of wildfires will also be expedited.This work will be conducted under the authority of two new “categorical exclusions,” a determination that such projects do not result in significant impacts,eliminating the need for individual analyses and lengthier documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act.These categorical exclusions will allow federal land managers to authorize forest health (thinning) and rehabilitation and stabilization projects such as reseeding and planting without unnecessary environmental analysis. The hazardous fuels reduction categorical exclusion will only apply to projects identified in a manner consistent with the collaborative framework in the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan adopted by federal agencies and state,local and tribal governments this spring. These hazardous fuels reduction activities would not:(1)be conducted in wilderness areas (or where they would impair the suitability of wilderness study areas for preservation as wilderness);(2)include the use of herbicides or pesticides; (3)involve the construction of new permanent roads or other infrastructure;(4) include timber sales that do not have hazardous fuels reduction as their primary purpose.

I ain't defending DFA, but isn't it a bit hypcrytical to argue for resource extraction in someone else's backyard whilst trying to defend your own? Do you simply let Bush cut Icicle Creek or do you respect everyone else's interests and rights to protect their own special places? The conservatives always scream for local control but now Bush wants to cut in there without any public comment from the local folks? Holy shit ... maybe I am actually defending DFA.

Post the letter when you send it.

Ha! Next time hold off on the ganj until you actually figure out where you're goin.