mattp

If I'm not mistaken, Seahawks, it has been proven that large sections of the New Testament, the Gnostic Gospels and maybe more, were simply discarded because they supported the idea that individuals should trust themselves more than the Pope or whoever may be running the church. I'm not real clear on all of this, but I think it is something like that. This gets us back to the earlier idea that the Christian religion (or the Moslem faith, or the Mormon Church) was fashioned by people who were a product of their times.

True. To deny the distribution of condoms to African villages being ravaged by AIDS is not a matter of right or wrong. The use of birth control is a sin. To assist in sin would be wrong. And we shouldn't help those homo's who contract AIDS here in this country, either. Nope. My tax dollars shouldn't be spent that way. God damned liberals just want to treat a disease, when we're talking about SIN!

Certainly that is true. We've seen a highly motivated group of conservative Christians gain an extraordinary impact on American politics for the last several years, and a substantial part of their success has been motivated by some very clear expressions of intolerance, but that certainly does not mean that to be Christian is to be intolerant. And that gets back to my earlier question: how might Christian doctrine be different if it was formulated based upon today's knowledge of the world, world history, evolution, physics, etc.?

See - I told you I never went to Divinity school. Actually, truth be told, I didn't even take the pre-requisites. I read a page or two of the Bible once, though. But here's where it gets interesting. What is a defined religion - that is like Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, Hasidic Judaism, Sunni Moslem, Mormon, or whatever if it does not involve a set way of looking at the world? You may be a special case there, Archie, as I’m pretty sure the “powers that be” in just about any religion will say that there are some “truths” to it and if you are a Christian, I don’t understand how you could say somebody else has their own truth if they say “Jesus was a normal guy just like you and me.” It is one thing if they say “Jesus doesn’t do it for me” (in other words, “I’m a non-believer,” but don't you say that are wrong if they say “he was nobody” (as in anybody who believes in him might as well believe in Ghosts?). We can split hairs here, or maybe it is something a little more sophisticated than that when we are talking about cherished beliefs, but there are some things that make a Russiain Orthodox a Russian Orthodox, are there not?

Who are these leftists who you say are so warm to the fundamentalist islamists? Is this another one of your straw-men, JayB? I've certainly heard plenty of leftists (and not a few from the right, as well) arguing that we should not go invading Islamic nations on a pretext and expect it not to stir anti-American sentiment around the world. But that is a far cry from saying it is OK to make women stay indoors or to stone them to death for adultery, isn't it?

Are you some kind of Unitarian or something? As the guy was arguing last night: either you believe Jesus was the son of god or you don't. If you do believe that, you must also believe that those who do not believe it are wrong. You must believe that you have an important knowledge of the truth that they are lacking. We see nuance and variation within a given sect, but whether you are a Tibetan Buddhist or an Evangelical Christian, there are certain core beliefs that you have accept as "true," no? (I could be wrong, as I never went to divinity school, but I think that is how it works.)

I somewhat agree with you there, Mr. K., but the speaker I heard last night made some arguments that I found not only interesting but also valid. (1) the very nature of "religion" involves faith in things that cannot be proven, (2) the adherent generally believes their belief to be "right" and other beliefs to be "wrong," and (3) throughout history we have seen people imposing moral restrictions or even waging devastating warfare in the name of this "right" vs. "wrong." You could say that the same would be true of any other fanaticism - as for example I believe you have complained about the brutality brought to this world by communists or facists during the 20th century - but the element of faith which underlies the religious crusade is unique and probably exceeds the unshakable ferver of the dedicated communist or facist. The bit about the major religions having been invented by primative peoples was provocative, but not quite as compelling - at least for me. But here too I had to ask myself: might Chritianity or Islam take a different form if Jesus or Mohammed walked the earth in the year 2007? How might our understanding of biology and disease and stuff, or our interconnected world and this great thing called the Internet affect the thinking and revelations of a prophet?

If you look at the current "war against terror," lead by an ignorant buffoon who seeks the rapture and places Christian America above all other peoples in the world, I think you've got to agree the guy has a point. I can't argue the theology with you, but I can certainly see how the general state of knowledge and accepted ideas about how the world works were and remain a large factor in how we view our relationship with god.

Speaking about pre-historic personalities, I heard an interesting interview on NPR last night wherein the speaker has just written a book about how all the major religions were fashioned by people who didn't know that the earth was round and who thought disease was a punishment imposed by an angry god (well I'm not sure he thinks the Budda believed that last part). Further, he said, religious people of all persuasions carry with them the fundamental idea that they have a specially informed knowledge of what god wants for our world. Thus, he said, modern religions are a man-made construct developed by primitive and ignorant humans from a barely early-development stage in human culture, and they drive people to place themselves above all others. They are inherently bad. The guy was an arrogant son of a gun, but his arguments were entertaining. And they did speak about Bush and Seahawks.

When they were working on the road ten or fifteen years ago there was a detour route that may or may not be available to get past the current washout. In view of all the roads and trails that are out, and the daily news release about how such and such road will not be repaired in the foreseeable future due to budget constraints, I'm surprised we're not hearing more about a budget crisis.

I can understand somebody voting for him the FIRST time, but anybody who voted for him the SECOND time? HELLO?

Ahh -- Seahawks: The UN did not authorize the invasion because our friends France, Germany, and Russia (among others) thought we should pursue more inspections and peaceful diplomacy.

I do read, and I read where our allies were saying they thought we had time to continue inspections. Remember how all the right wingers were saying this was "appeasement" as in Chamberlain? Remember our president saying the nay-sayers were "old Europe?" And what is this "the whole world?" anyway? The "coalition of the willing" had a pretty short list of members - even counting those who we bullied into it.

Seriously, Hawks. Only a retard or somebody who was not paying attention thought he posed a threat AT THAT TIME. And that is not any Democratic supported spin: I have every bit as much, and actually maybe even more contempt for the Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force as I have for the Republicans.

Yeah, but meanwhile the Dems have exposed themeselves for the losers that they are, and the press has shown its willingness to do the government's bidding and bury important information that may be contrary to the spin of the day. Sure we blame Bush. It was HIS war (with a little help from his friends). But the credibility of our government and a big piece of everying the US stands for has taken a big hit. Carter was right.

Yup.

That's crap. Anybody who was even remotely paying attention, and who bothered to read even the stories in mainstream media all the way through to the extensions on page ten, KNEW the justifications for the war were B.S. Specifically, it was public and clear that (1) we had Iraq surrounded and Saddam posed no current threat to anybody, (2) if he had any weapons program at all, which the inspectors who actually had been on the ground said he did not, it was weak at best, (3) Iraq had no connection with Al Queda, (4) there was no attempt to purchase Uranium in Africa, etc. etc. The vote mostly went as it did not because our representatives in Washington were fooled, but because they didn't dare say what they knew to be true: the case for the war was all lies from the get-go. That authorization wasn't justified even if you thought Saddam was a bad guy we'd have to deal with sooner or later, which some of them may have thought. The authorization was granted because they were afraid to be called "weak on defense."

Any time you get up there will be fine. If it is sunny and warm, it may turn sloppy early in the day and even 8:00 may be a bit "late" if you want the easiest hiking conditions. If it is cloudy or windy or cold, you'll want a later start to keep warmer and hope that maybe the surface won't be icy. If you want to watch a sunset, you'll want an even later start but then you may run into a gate at Longmire. Of course, if you want to start early you might run into that same gate....

I never heard of it either, but in a crevasse fall, there is generally more "slack" in the system than is ideal, and there is probably sufficient "give" in the system with the rope sawing into the lip of a crevasse, sweeping accross the surface of the snow as it straightens out, and re-allignment of the rope-partner who catches the victim. This might actually be a good idea.

After a particularly vexing interaction, I sent this one to the district ranger in a local climbing area fifteen years ago: Dear Mr. Ranger, I hate you. Your district office has always sucked and probably always will. Your friend, Concerned Climber He didn't write back, but ever since then they've gotten better (well not quite EVER since, as they did have one of the most obnoxious law enforcement officers I have ever met for several years, but as far as I can tell the trend has been toward friendlier law enforcement and better recreation management, and they now actually answer questions over the phone in a helpful manner). A little love can work wonders!

I have actually hauled gravel and cleared out drainage culverts in Darrington, as well as done brushing along side the road. We can help here and there, but the real work requires big machinery and big dollars. This IS the cc.com legislative action forum. And cc.com has had an impact: the individual donations that supported the purchase of the Sam Hill area in Leavenworth came largely from cc.com folks, and a large numbers of the phone calls and letters in support of keeping Darrington open three years ago came from here as well. Lets get to work demanding and co-opting. Letters to your Congressman, anyone? Here's a template: Dear Senator Jackass, I hate you and everything your party stands for, but if you could help keep access open at my favorite climbing destination I would seriously appreciate it. Sincerely, cc.com flamethrower

We've been wondering about what is causing them to loosen. It seems unlikely that the nut is unwinding, so just what is going on? Could it be that water collects in the bottom of the hole and freezes, expanding, and pushing the bolt out?

It may not HAVE to work that way, Tvash, but I see limited prospect for changes to favor non-motorized and non-commercial recreational use through any kind of volunteer effort. That is not quite true: the kayak clubs and mountain bikers turned out for the recent Middle Fork planning process, and they won some great accommodation in the resulting development plan -- along side the private campground concessionaires who overwhelmingly won the biggest subsidy. They got a paved road and a new campground built just for them. On the east slope, vast areas of the Okanagon and Wenatchee National Forests are heavily used for motorized recreation and horesepacking at present, while hiking trails are wasting away and I see little prospect for large scale maintenance effort from volunteer hikers and climbers and for that matter little public outcry for more maintenance. Most of the trailheads are three or more hours’ drive from the urban centers where most of the volunteers live, and large numbers of hikers and climbers are not going to show up for a work party over in the Sawtooth area north of Lake Chelan. And, yes, I suppose it does not "have to be the case" that only the motorized groups have paid lobbyists, but I don't think many hikers and climbers are going to readily submit to licensing fees to support their interest. Closer to home, look at how many climbers show up for a work party at Index or Darrington or Exit 38: relatively few. I've been involved in dozens of work parties, and we've done some good work that has served these areas well - but there really are not very many climbers willing to devote even half a saturday to doing trail maintenance. There is no way we would be able to maintain the road into Clear Creek, for example. I don't know who built the new parking lot for the Little Si trail, but it sure as heck wasn't done with volunteer labor or funding from individual donors. We've talked about the need for a new porta-potty at Index for thirty years, and there is support for it from the "powers that be," but I wonder what the prospect is that climbers might be able to set it up and maintain it on some kind of volunteer basis with our own money? It'd be great if more of us wanted to work on maintaining the trails that we use and it could go hand-in-hand with overall forest management efforts that provide recreational access and favor lower impact activities over, say, motorized recreation. However, without organized political activity on our part I don't think it will work out very well. If forced to rely upon volunteer maintenance for long term management activity, and if left to listen primarily to those who have paid lobbyists, forest planners are going to end up favoring motorized recreation and business over hikers and climbers.

As far as trail maintenance in the short run, we might organize work parties to take care of our favorite trails. In the long term I think we'd do better to lobby Congress to provide adequate funding to keep our Parks and National Forest Areas available for public recreational use, keeping in mind the stewardship ideas that most of us agree are at least equally important in the management of public lands. These lands were set aside with the idea that they were to be held in some kind of public trust. I don't believe the idea was that they would be carved up for use or exploitation by all different factions in some come one come all contest where those who cry the loudest get what they want. In my view, the North Cascades would ideally see increasing overall planning and management programs based on a study of long term public recreational needs along side protection for wilderness and habit and a consideration of which forms of recreation have the greatest impact. Timber harvesting, too, will likely remain a significant part of the picture even though there has been less and less of that activity of late. I fear that an ad-hoc pressure group, user fee, and volunteer user management approach is way too likely to result in great access for motorcycle groups and horsepackers while cutting back access for hikers and climbers. Climbers and hikers may be mobilized to show up in a planning process (though our past track record in this regard is pretty bad), and a formal Park and Forest planning effort is probably going to make provision for us even without a lot of organized effort on our part. However, we are not likely to be able to follow through, long term, as effectively as clubs with license fees supporting their lobbyists (motorized recreation including motorobikes and snowmobiles), or business interests (horse packers, logging, mining), or for that matter the conservation groups at least some of which have sought to cut back even pedestrian access. A "let the users who want to pursue an activity maintain the infrastructure" approach is going to produce a terrible result and it is anathema to the public trust ideas that underlie the foundation of National Parks and National Forests in the first place.