Let's Climb A Mountain (Mostly)

View Mt Spokane in a larger map

This morning I parked at Forker Road and Mt Spokane Parkway to run the remainder of the course up the mountain and scout it out for next Saturday.

Some of the locals were pretty relaxed about my presence.

But a few regarded me with more suspicion.

The climbing started earlier than I felt it. After entering the Mt Spokane Park proper the incline of the roadway was quite evident. It's been a while since I biked up the mountain and my vague memory of it thought the entire route was steep. I think riding up hill takes more effort than running or walking. I alternated my running with a couple of 5 minute walks until I got to Summit Road. Once there the climb was harder and my stride became very short. I switched to walking since it was just as fast if not faster--and more comfortable. I walked until it leveled out and ran the rest of the way until I got to the gate at Kit Carson Loop Road.

The gate to the summit was closed. Kathy was supposed to pick me up at the summit so I left a sign for her so she'd know I had continued up. I figured a nearly empty sport drink with chia seeds in it would be a good enough clue. (I picked it up when I came back down.)

Here's the reason the gate is closed. The road to the summit is still snowed in. Since I only had Vibrams on my feet and I had to run back down to meet Kathy, I decided to turn back.

I'm guessing but I think I made it as far as the diamond marker on the map. Short by less than a mile.

I'm wondering if next week's run is going to end at the parking lot that's just before the closed gate at the intersection of Summit and Kit Carson Loop Road.

True And Amazing Story That Happened In Real Life!

Looking Forward To The Next Election

In January of 2010, the Supreme Court handed down it's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited due to their First Amendment rights. President Obama mentioned this in is State of the Union address.

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.

"Not true," mouthed Justice Alito as he shook his head. And yet between January and November of 2010, SuperPACs raised a total of $63 million to spend on the midterm elections.

Stephen Colbert was in the news yesterday as he attended a meeting at the Federal Election Commission where he learned he would be granted permission to form his Colbert SuperPAC called Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. Check out the FEC draft advisory opinions 11-38, 11-38A and 11-38B. They are relatively short PDF files. It's interesting to see how election law works in this instance. What's really funny is that some of the stuff he's done as part of his character on the show is used as support for the seriousness of forming a Super PAC. Taking advantage of the Citizens United v. FEC ruling, Colbert--just like the other 113 other currently existing Super PACs--will be able to raise as much money as he wants for independent expenditures. I expect he'll be true to form and make a public showing to America of a corrupting influence on our elections.

Here's his masterful skewering of the press at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner.



It's good to be able to laugh at ourselves. I'm sure history will tell just how hilarious it was.

A Conflict Of Who's Interest?

Representative John Fleming (R) of Mississippi, penned a letter to the House Judiciary Committee (PDF), asking that Supreme Court Justice Kagan be investigated as to her involvement in preparing the legal defense of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act while she was the Solicitor General. Fleming's letter, signed by 48 other Republican Congressman, references email correspondence obtained by the Judicial Watch which indicate Kagan was involved in discussions to some extent. But more information is needed to determine how involved she was. The purpose of the letter is to have the Judiciary Committee to investigate and determine whether or note Justice Kagan should recuse herself from any health care reform cases that come to the Supreme Court. But there's actually something more serious going on here.

The letter references Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 455 as the law that governs a justice disqualifying herself if she has "...served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy." (bolding mine) The key here is defining "the proceeding" or "the particular case in controversy."

When testifying before the Senate last year, Kagan denied being involved in any substantive discussions. What this letter does is accuse Justice Kagan of perjury which is a far more serious matter than a self-recusal from hearing a case on health care reform legislation. If it can be proved that she lied in her testimony then she could be impeached.

In the meantime, the fact that Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife have greatly benefited from and been involved with Koch brothers and others or that Thomas failed to disclose his wife's earnings of $686,589 over 5 years does not raise Congressional questions about his ethics or possible conflicts of interest.

Witness For The Defense

Flying Irish Run

Today's run was the first I attended this year. Josh joined me. You have to hand it to the Flying Irish. An organization that can consistently get three to four hundred people to come out and run three miles every Thursday is swimming in awesome sauce.