San Francisco Healthcare Initiative -- Reality-Based Community Gives the Finger to Small Business

Bad news for small business in San Francisco:

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors gave initial approval Tuesday to a plan to extend health care coverage to the uninsured by opening up and expanding the city's system of physicians and clinics now serving poor city residents.

The plan, a merger of proposals put forth by Supervisor Tom Ammiano and Mayor Gavin Newsom, would go into effect next year, provided it passes a second board vote next week and is signed into law by Newsom -- both considered virtual certainties.

"We want to put health care on the front burner," Ammiano said, just before the unanimous 11-0 board vote in favor. "We are well on our way to that admirable goal."

The key political compromise that led to passage Tuesday was an agreement between the mayor and the more liberal Board of Supervisors majority that city businesses be required to contribute to health care coverage for their employees.

It would require businesses and other employers to pay $1.06 or $1.60 per hour per worker, depending on the size of the company. The balance of the estimated $200 million annual cost of the program would be covered by consumer premiums and co-payments and by the $104 million a year San Francisco already spends on providing care to uninsured patients at city clinics and hospitals.

...Following the vote, a teary-eyed Ammiano made his way around the board chambers, giving hugs to fellow supervisors and shaking hands.

"This is an absolutely historic day for workers in San Francisco," said Tim Paulson, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council.

Not everyone, however, praised the plan's passage.

Nathan Nayman, director of the downtown business association Committee on Jobs, questioned the financial underpinnings of the program and predicted it would be a hardship for small- and medium-size businesses.

Employers already providing health care coverage at spending levels above the per hour per worker minimums contained in the measure would not be required to pay into the city plan.

"There's no structure to control costs," Nayman said. "There's no structure to monitor and come up with a plan to make sure that the costs do not reach a situation where they're out of control."

I agree that healthcare is a major problem in this country. Insurance is insanely high and our system doesn't work. Instead of getting to the root of the problem, progressives continue to see this as a battle between greedy businessmen and the common man.

The contrast between Tom Ammiano and Nathan Nayman couldn't be more striking. Emotionalism trumps good sense and sound thinking. Apparently, the Board of Supervisors failed to discuss with some of the small business leaders in the community how an initiative of this nature might affect their businesses. I'm beginning to wonder if our city government isn't just anti-business, but pro-alternative reality. For a city that is continually building office space in the South of Market/South Beach region, how are they going to attract businesses who can find the rent and regulatory climate in the Penninsula and East Bay are much more favorable?

San Francisco has some of the best mid-tier restaurants in the world. It isn't just the quality of the restaurants that is striking, it is the sheer quantity. Many of these restaurants are small-to-medium size, and have a very intimate feel. Naturally, restaurants are a huge draw for the city, but although the number of people flocking to restaurants is high, the competition is much greater. About 90% of restaurants in San Francisco fail in their first year.

Now, with this ridiculous initiative, restaurants are going to have to find ways to squeeze their already razor thin margins. We'll see if this can hold up in court, but so far, the progressive in San Francisco have managed to pull off some frighteningly bold regulations against businesses.

Craig Stoll, owner of the restaurant Delfina, wrote a hilariously sarcastic parody in the Chronicle following Tom Ammiano's night of tears and shirtless hugs:

Dear Editor:

Supervisor Tom Ammiano released details of his brand new groundbreaking legislation this morning that will provide housing for all San Francisco workers and their families.

Under the new legislation, Businesses that employ more than one person will be required to provide a permanent place to live for each worker. Employers will have three choices: they can reimburse employees directly for 75% of their mortgages (calculated by an average of mortgages in a 10 county survey), they can pay into a fund, at the rate of $5.00 per hour worked, that will go toward building new housing throughout the inner Mission or Employers may adopt workers as members of their own family and provide housing in additions built-on to their own homes at the employer's expense.

"It's time business did their share" said Ammiano at a budget and finance committee meeting over the cheering of throngs of union activists and homeless people who packed the chambers. "We figured 'what the heck', if businesses could afford full healthcare for all of their employees, they might as well house them too. What's another $5.00 per hour?"

"We're tired of businesses shirking their social responsibility" echoed Chris Daily after the meeting. "And I'll punch anyone in the neck who disagrees with me".

Business owners vowed to challenge the measure arguing that they shouldn't bear a disproportionate share of a problem that is city wide. Steve Falk president of the chamber of commerce warned that the few businesses that didn't close would flee the city in a mass exodus. "We should set up a task force to study the impact of task forces on legislation that has to do with impact studies."

Matt Gonzalez, former supe, stated later in a phone interview that "there are too many businesses in San Francisco anyway". Supervisor Bevan Dufty said "Well, usually I'd tell you what you want to hear but I'm up for reelection so I'll do what ever I'm told to do by the rest of the board".

When confronted with arguments by business that they couldn't possibly afford the new tax, Ammiano said it's not a new "tax". He then put his hands over his ears and sang in a loud voice "la, la, la la, I can't hear you-la, la, la la".

The mayor was unavailable for comment.

Craig Stoll
Delfina Restaurant
July 17, 2006

From experience, Delfina is an incredibly delictable Italian/fusion restaurant. Craig's jem is located here:

3621 18th St
San Francisco, CA 94110-1531
(415) 552-4055

I suggest you go there, not only to eat some great grub, but also to support his cause. Anyone who can tear into the Board of Supes like that gets my dollar.

TenFingers6Strings - Newswire

TenFingers6Strings is here to provide a new service to its readers -- we will toil day and night only to bring you the news that enlarges your mind, challenges your preconceptions and sheds light on previously dark and unknown areas of the world.

ABC News reports the following:

Former *NSYNC star Lance Bass is out of the closet.

Bass is reportedly announcing that he is gay in an exclusive interview with People magazine.

"I'm not ashamed," Bass reportedly told the magazine. "I'm more liberated and happy than I've been my whole life."

An NSYNC member, gay?

Just so you know, we at TenFingers6Strings are not satisfied in just relinking other shocking newsflashes from other "mainstream media" sources. We distinguish ourselves by bringing to you orginal content gathered from its widely entrenched network of unique and orginal sources.

Norm MacDonald Reports live from California:

Heh-ey, thanks. My sources tell me that OJ Simpson is a murderer.

Thanks Norm. We now turn to Rollo the Janitor reporting live from outside the office of Madison Hotel's Eric Gordon on the eccentric antics of heir, Billy Madison:

Billy likes to drink soda. Misses Lippy's car...is green.

Developing...

Vietnam Sydrome Follow-Up

I took a bit of a hiatus that has been part work related, and part it's-85-degrees-in-San Francisco-so-I-am-going-out-to-play.

Anyway, last week I wrote an essay about the contrasting views of the Lessons of Munich and of Vietnam Sydrome, and had a couple of thought provoking comments of which I'd like to respond.

Stone Holmes says (excerpt):

Your history is solid, but just to play devil's avocado, remember that it took the U.S. almost 5 years from the commencement of WWII hostilities to commit the entire armed forces to the struggle. This was against a state enemy whose clearly evil intentions and capabilities far exceeded those of the mostly stateless threat you correctly detail (don't worry, I hate Iran too).

...Vietnam was a disaster, I agree, for American attitudes toward foreign threats. But our collective soul is a more complex spirit than your focused Bismarckian gestalt can harness. I wish everyone understood power dynamics as well as you do, but it's certainly better that make our arguments in public on matters of such import.

Beyond the scope of my initial post, I do see an inevitability to a more cautious, non-interventionist view of American foreign policy, and in general find that to be a good thing. However, undeniably there is going to be a force of evil that rises up in the world that has the capability to do great damage, and it will not be stopped by anything but the threat of, or actual force.

The Lesson of Munich was clearly the driver behind our containment policy of the Soviets. There were a few flare-ups that never rivaled any of our WWII engagements, but we openly threatened the Soviets with massive nuclear retaliation for any egregious attempts to threaten our allies* or our interests throughout the world. Former Soviet satellites offer us solid proof of the long-term damage a totalitarian regime can have, not only on the subject country's population, but also its impact of regional socio-economics and politics. Mutually Assured Destruction ended up being the deterrant that kept both sides from switching offensive schemes from three yards and cloud of dust, to fun'and-gun.

Now comes the context of Vietnam Syndrome. Before I finish my thoughts on exactly what that means, let me throw my Uncle's comment into the frey:

I knew I shouldn't have gotten your blog address. Painful to struggle through that essay.

The problem with public attitude about Iraq cannot be laid simply to VN syndrome. You don't give the public enought credit. I think most view the problem as being caught in situation where the administration is persuing a losing stragegy. The situation gets worse daily without a plausable plan to reverse the slide into chaos and civil war (training locals will not do it under such conditions that now exist). This was not anticipated by our war planners and little has been done to adapt to the unanticipated. There certainly are ways, but the will to pay the price is not politically viable. I'm sorely afraid this effort will fail and for the same reasons that VN failed....not the military, but the politicians. There is plenty of blame to go around, but I do not believe is lays at the feet of a naive, timid public.

It seems that all that sweltering East Coast heat and humidity have done wonders to your reading comprehension. I specifically spoke about the fact that Vietnam Sydrome was NOT something that effects a pacifisitic public (which your entire retort is based upon). What I actually said was this:

The definition of Vietnam Sydrome has been re-written by many on the Left as an epithet used by "conservative Americans" towards those who felt that Vietnam was destined for failure. In this false definition, these conservatives falsely cling to the hope that the United States could have won the Vietnam War if it wasn't for undesirable pacificsm at home.

This essay tries to argue that the actual definition is not the antithesis of this false definition, but a general syndrome where policies and worldviews have been heavily influenced by the events in Vietnam -- so much so that that U.S. policy has suffered as a result.

Vietnam Sydrome is the effect of a long engagement that America found itself on the losing side of. Not only was it an effort that failed to acheive its objectives, but it was ultimately an effort that made us look like bully beating up on a small child. The effects were not limited only to the public's mind, but also in the minds of the leadership of our country. The lessons learned from Vietnam have produced some good poilcies (support for anti-Communist forces in Latin America) and some really bad ones (Iran and our current situation in the Middle East).

Vietnam Sydrome is agnostic towards virtue, and exposes an objective weakness: we have limited ability to eliminate a threat from an enemy that refuses to be negotiated with. Vietnam Sydrome clouds this question, and causes the public and our leaders to reflexively knee-jerk away from dealing with this extremely important question. Because of this, we do not have a widely agreed upon and accepted standard to deal with these threats. If history provides us a guide, the future is grim -- it usually takes the absorption of a major attack for us deal with these kinds of threats.

------

* The NATO Alliance was brilliant solution to the problem of Soviet expansion. The doctrine of an attack on one is an attack on all kept the Soviets at bay.

The Lesson of Munich was aptly applied in Eastern Europe without firing a shot.

Eric Mongrain

For those of you who liked my posts about Justin King, check out Eric Mongrain. He's a young guy who creatively uses tapping and a rhythmic popping style with slaps and harmonics to produce some very smooth and beautiful harmonies.

Enjoy!

Sorry for the lack of posting. I'm essentially filling two positions at work until I can get someone hired, so things have been rather slow around here. I'll try to check in tomorrow.

Cheers.

Vietnam or Munich?

Read this fantastic follow-up to my post, Tipping the Scales: the Lesson of Munich or Vietnam Syndrome, by the Colossus. Very well thought out essay, and if you actually made it through my essay, you'll really enjoy this.

Just to entice you, there is a reference to Churchill with a Tommy Gun.

War

Stand by. The Middle East is going to light up like a roman candle.

Iran has to have to have something up its sleeve. Hezbollah, being their proxy, didn't just whip this up as an act of provocation. I believe Iran is crazy, but not stupid.

More thoughts later. I'm going to bed.

Tipping the Scales: the Lesson of Munich or Vietnam Syndrome

Politics have certainly heated up here at home. Abroad we are at war with Islamic Fascism (due to the fact that we intentionally brought the fight to their backyard after a sneak-attack a home), but the ultimate war is starting to manifest itself here at home in domestic politics -- not through bombs and beheadings, but through rhetoric and control of the narrative not only about the war, but about the very nature of the West itself. There is a complete contrast in worldviews that ultimately choose to view this fight through one of two lenses: the Lesson of Munich, or Vietnam Syndrome.

On September 1, 1939, the German Army swept into Poland from the north, south and west. Polish lines were thin, and the German blitzkrieg overwhelmed them within weeks. For Poland, this event kicked off what would be 60-years of living under submission to totalitarian power. For the rest of the world, this meant that uptopian fantasies of peace through pre-emptive treaty were shattered. Peace would only be acheived in Europe when Adolf Hilter and the German Army had a collective bullet lodged in their skull. It took almost six years, along with a continent littered with millions of dead, but Hilter was defeated and peace came to Western Europe.

The now infamous moment of Neville Chamberlain holding up his sign, "Peace in Our Time," became the symbol for this delusion -- the hope in the ability to influence totalitarians to play the game fairly. The Lesson of Munich demonstrated that an irreconcilable force can only be stopped by a display of overwhelming force in return, and that restraint in the face of aggression is indicative of weakness and will be exploited to the degree that the means and capabilities of the aggressor dictate.

For the next 60 years, Democrats and Republicans mostly stood side by side in standing the Soviet Union down. This is a bit of a generalization and should more appropriately be thought of on continuum versus a true or false statement. You'd be hard pressed to find a sweeping statement like "Republicans/Democrats fought the communists better than the Republicans/Democrats" (although I'm sure partisans from each side will try). For every Robert Taft and Jimmy Carter, there was an Ike Eisenhower, Arthur Vandenberg, Harry Truman and John Kennedy. One can argue the effectiveness of the particulars, but there was bipartisan support for the defeat of communism from both parties.

Smack dab in the middle of our Cold War with the Soviets came a "limited engagement" in Vietnam that ended in failure. Although it was a step backwards, the Cold War would end in an eventual victory for the United States. However, the consequences of the Vietnam War would provide lingering effects that would haunt the United States in all its future foreign policy engagements. No longer would the Lessons of Munich be purely applied to acts of aggression towards American interests abroad as in Korea and Vietnam. The halo had come off. Not only was it possible for the United States to lose, it was possible to make her look like a giant oppressor in the process. Unlike recent revisionist history, this is the true definition of Vietnam Syndrome*.

Our foreign policy would never be the same. November 4, 1979 the hardline Islamists took over our embassy. Then President Jimmy Carter would play ring-around-the-rosey as our embassy staff was be held hostage for the next 444 days. The only action even somewhat resembling direct confrontation would come in form of a rescue attempt (Operation Eagle Claw) where the rules of engagement were so strict and impossible, it was completely doomed from the start (read Mark Bowen's account here).

A little more than after our embassy crisis in Iran, on Christmas Day, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Jimmy Carter, instead threatening nuclear retaliation or direct military confrontation, began to fund and support the guerrilla Islamists (primarily through Saudi Arabia) to hold the Soviets down much like we were held down in Vietnam. Through the eyes of Vietnam Sydrome, Carter deemed it to risky to confront the Soviets directly -- instead he would fight them by proxy.

This prism was NOT limited to Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan, who was infinitely tougher with the Soviets on the geopolitical landscape, also found that it was politically expedient to fight proxy wars. His Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger had a list of principles that the United States would follow before engaging in any major confrontation:

• Is a vital US interest at stake?
• Will we commit sufficient resources to win?
• Are the objectives clearly defined?
• Will we sustain the commitment?
• Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support the operation?
• Have we exhausted our other options?
• Do we have a clear exit strategy?

The last four bullet points are all policies that are side-effects oft of Vietnam Sydrome. The question was no longer, "How do we confront said threat and do whatever we can to defeat it?" it was, "What is the nature of the threat, and if we do engage, how can we do so that we get support from the public." The Reagan Administration would put these policies into practice by engaging in proxy war in Central America (successfully I might add). Adversely, they applied this doctrine when the Marine barracks were bombed in Lebannon -- the sectarian conflict that the United States found itself in the middle of was in clear violation of our criteria for engagement, and we pulled out leaving Lebannon to brutal a civil war in which Hezbollah and Syria would be the main benefactors.

No longer would America get itself tangled in a conflict where victory was uncertain, or if its duration would be prolonged. The American people had been traumatized not only by a war that they lost, but also by the perceived loss of its soul.

George Bush Sr. found himself in the middle of a perfect Storm, if you will. Iraq invaded the oil-rich/defense-poor country of Kuwait, and with the Soviet Union teetering on the brink of collapse, the United States found itself with unanimous world opinion in support of stopping Saddam Hussein. Colin Powell, then Joint Chief of Staff, formed the Powell Doctrine (or the Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Force) during the run up to hostilities:

• Is a vital national security interest threatened?
• Do we have a clear attainable objective?
• Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
• Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
• Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
• Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
• Is the action supported by the American people?
• Do we have genuine broad international support?

The Powell Doctrine was an amalgamation of Casper Weinberger's principles and the rare and serendipidous concensus due soley to current circumstances that lead to Desert Storm. Rare in World History do you find a leader who does something so egregiously arrogant, aggressive and stupid that the entire world aligns against you, and even rarer can you find the overall geo-political climate so mild to allow such support. The Powell Doctrine was applied successfully in Desert Storm, the Coalition smashed Saddam Hussein, but it was ulimately a pyrrhic victory.

The undercurrent that had been building against the United States during this time was the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism -- a draconian ideology rooted in the desire to retake control of mankind in the name of Allah. Powell's Doctrine carried over adversely into the Clinton Administration, as we found ourselves, just a Reagan did, in a conundrum where our interests were threatened, and this elusive enemy didn't provide us with a clear solution that could be solved quickly with international consensus. Al-Qaeda manifested, found America's ideological weakness, and exploited it through a series of incredibly bold attacks on our interests, followed by a retreat into the shadows.

How could we find a clear objective, when the objective was a shape-shifting enemy that would run and hide with each successful bloody nose it gave us? Al-Qaeda's successes in exploiting the fallacious policies and mindset are extensive: Somalia, the African embassy bombings, the USS Cole, the first WTC bombing, and the Khobar Tower attack. Vietnam Sydrome was proving to be immune to these pills, because amazingly, none of these attacks managed to provoke a serious challenge to U.S. policy.

Then, one of the worst days in American history was perpetrated by this enemy. What was a cloudless and gorgous fall Tuesday, turned to a day with burning structures and people jumping 100-stories to ultimately share the same fate as 3,000+ other innocent civilians.

An act of war -- no less.

Except for a few moonbats on the far Left, America's response was apropos and necessary in the eyes of most. We knew who did it, where they were, and what their Modus Operandi was. The military operations that ensued was swift, creative and devestating, but not complete. While al-Qaeda and its proxy hosts were defeated, Islamic Fascisism was not. Our dilemna after September 11th was not, "What do we do about Bin Laden and his 'militant' group," but, "How do we defeat an ideology that has turned an entire region rotten?"

America turned to the next logical enemy: Iraq in the hopes that a show of force in the heart of the Middle East would bring Islamic Fascism face to face with its own rot. Knowing the unpopularity of Saddam's regime, his numerous crimes against his people and neighbors, his continued desire for weapons of mass destruction, and his belligerent acts in direct violation of the cease fire to end the Gulf War, it was thought that a swift move into the heart of Iraq would bring Saddam to justice and hopefully be the beginning of a reconciliation with the Islamic world.

Well, the invasion and subsequent sacking of Bagdad was swift and unprecidented in warfare. The United States Military again proved that it had no equal on the battlefield, however we'd be in for a bit more trouble than we initially bargained for. Partly planned, partly spontaneous, some of the most nefarious characters in the Middle East who had everything to lose by a prosperous and free Iraq, would loosely band together to fight a guerrilla war. The purpose of which would not be to defeat the U.S. Military, but to expose the soul of the West. A soul that contained a large portion of the population deluded to real history and to the very nature of America itself. A soul that had the potential to hate itself so much, that it would no longer look towards the pure evil incarnated in a group of people that could make Hitler blush, and instead turn its destructive potential on itself.

The fallacy of Weinberger and Powell's Doctrine is not in its pragmatism (which had its place in Central America), but in its inability to provide rules of sustained and committed engagement against an ememy that is schrewd enough not to paint itself with a big target on its collective chest. This enemy will not be defeated with the deathblow required by the Powell Doctrine -- it will only be defeated by a persisent, sustained hunt that eventually bleeds to death from a thousand cuts.

So, where does this put us now?

This war of civilizations becomes a fight to win here at home. Just as with the Civil War almost 150 years ago, the ideological opposites are not going to reconcile over a cup of tea and a handshake. Some in this country learned the Lesson of Munich, and know the consequences of allowing pure evil grow in strength, while higher minded leaders sign treaties and pretend to solve the problem with "mutual agreements." Unfortunately, too many still view the very nature of this conflict through the eyes of Vietnam.

Security Watchtower's C.S. Scott, made a comment here about a week ago that gives us some perspective and underscores the danger of our current mindset:

Anyone clinging to 18th century warfare doctrine would've been slaughtered when they ran into the weaponry of the Civil War. Anyone clinging to 19th century warfare doctrine would've been slaughtered when they ran into the weaponry of World War I and World War II. Anyone clinging to 20th century warfare doctrine will be slaughtered when they run into modern weaponry. The nature of threats and warfare evolves and transforms constantly.

The founding fathers may have found it convienent to remain free from the tangle of foreign alliances, but they also weren't faced with the threats of intercontinental ballistic missiles, weapons of mass destruction, or an international terror nexus. All they had to do was watch the ocean and guard the beach for all intents and purposes, the ocean was the best defense there was.

Today most nations don't carry out open, large-scale warfare for a host of reasons. What many do engage in, is waging war by proxy or using third parties to further policy goals (see Iran's use of Hezbollah, Liberia's support of guerillas in Sierra Leone, Chavez's support of rebel groups in South America). The result is a lower intensity warfare, frequently playing on ethnic or religious differences, insurgencies, urban combat, etc. The enemies of freedom today are forced to operate in the shadows for the most part, or at least attempt to.

In summary, I sincerely dont believe that most Americans understand the nature of today's threats (neither did all of Europe in the 1930s), where anything short of a 9/11 attack would require a near miracle to act against. It will be much harder to muster public will to act against unconventional threats that don't stoke a strong reaction among the American people.

Will Vietnam Sydrome so paralyze this country, that it will lose this war? I'm optimistic that in spite of this, we can overcome it. Unfortunately, it may take a Lesson of Pearl Harbor for us to wake-up, drop the gloves, and really come out of our corner swinging. In this age of technology, the thought of an equivalent Pearl Harbor could make September 11th look like paper-cut, and that occurance will conclusively demonstrate that the Lesson of Munich was not learned, and future generations will have to learn from the Lesson of New York/Los Angeles/San Francisco/Chicago/Washington D.C./or Seattle.

------------------------

* The definition of Vietnam Sydrome has been re-written by many on the Left as an epithet used by "conservative Americans" towards those who felt that Vietnam was destined for failure. In this false definition, these conservatives falsely cling to the hope that the United States could have won the Vietnam War if it wasn't for undesirable pacificsm at home.

This essay tries to argue that the actual definition is not the antithesis of this false definition, but a general syndrome where policies and worldviews have been heavily influenced by the events in Vietnam -- so much so that that U.S. policy has suffered as a result.

Coming Soon: my essay.

Still working on it!

::: tap tap ::: Is this thing on?

I have a big essay in the works, but I've had a lot of life stuff, work stuff etc. going on. Hopefully I'll post it tonight or tomorrow morning.

In the meantime, I need to get back to work before all hell bre....

....gotta go!!!!!!!!

High Fashion

Let's get down to some serious business. Frequent Tenfingers6strings.com contributor and all-around great dude, Rick, asks for some advice in setling a fashion dispute with his significant other:

Do you think Madras shorts are cool? I bought this plaid shorts today that Beth seems to think are very uncool. I just don't want to be getting to that age where the things I think are pretty cool are really retarded. Or do I?

Well, not that I'm going to proclaim you a fashion maven, but this is one area where your wife is behind the times. GQ magazine put out their spring/summer trends and Madras/plaid shorts back, big-time, this year. I bought a pair and wore them around an annual festival they have in my neighborhood. I was greeted with many nods and verbal gestures of approval from some people of high fashion. That's saying something because usually people just give me the finger.

But, be careful, you can't just go wearing plaid pants like some maniacal Poindexter. Here is some pertainant advice you should follow when you don your plaidwear that will help you to avoid getting pounded by the football team:

GQ's spring issues highlighted several trends including madras shorts, or plaid shorts that you can find at stores such as J.Crew and American Eagle. Popular items include Henley shirts, motorcycle jackets and everything in color, stripes and fun patterns.

And yes it's OK to wear different patterns and prints, just make sure the color scheme blends. GQ suggests monochromatic colors when mixing, oh, say a flower printed tie with a striped shirt.

All right, enough of the fashion advice, after all I climb mountains for Pete's sake.

Talk to you all later this weekend.

Back from the Mountains

I'm back!

I was working all weekend, but Monday I got away to do this:

I climbed 13,640 ft. Point Powell with one of my best friends on Monday. In short: 12 miles, 4,500 vertical feet (3,000 of which were covered with snow), 5 gorgeous lakes, almost a thousand foot coulour at 35 to 45-degrees that puts you right up on the North East Col, and a summit view to humble the proudest of men, a 16-hour day up and down (gasp), and one of the best climbing trips I have ever taken.

More details later, as I'm getting taken behind the woodshed at work again today and yesterday, but here's a quick shot from the top: