mattp

Fairweather, I realize that the commentators on FOX and at the Heritage Foundation were all up in arms about it but I don’t think it was quite that big of an outrage for Obama to criticize a Supreme Court decision - even in a State of the Union speech. And, while Obama took the first shot, Roberts in his follow up remarks criticized the President right back. While you may think these actions violate decorum I don’t see a Constitutional crisis inherent in either. Actually, I fear the Constitutional implications of the Citizens United decision more. And Assange? He’s an embarrassment, to be sure. But Bill is right he did not lie to take us into war and I, for one, am looking forward to his promised leaks about the banking industry.

For backcountry ski huts go to Canada. They are all over the place.

I've done that tour and also toured out via Shield Lake and Toketie. These are both good tours but skiing out snow creek and, even more so, skiing down the hill below Toketie, can be rather challenging.

If "calling out" the supreme court in a political speach is the act of a thug, what do you call "outing" a CIA agent to retaliate against her husband and intimidate other would-be leakers? Oh wait: you strongly defended your boy Bush and his team of freedom fighters in that matter. Obama's folks are children compared to your gang.

What are you talking about, Fairweather? In 2010 he criticized the Supreme Court, but what was the separation of powers controversy in 2009? And thugs? He has continued the policies of your man, Bush, but how has Obama matched "you're either with us or against us" or championed domestic spying or, really, anything else "thuggish?" Obama's shortcoming, in my book, is that he hasn't been tough enough. If there was a public option, which he "bargained away," wouldn't any legal challenge to the requirement for the purchase of health insurance be weaker? Would your candidate McCain, and his sidekick Palin, be less "thuggish?" Really? How about John Boehner? Or ... you-name-the-politician...?

I don't know what you mean by "moderate," but the Spearhead Traverse, in the spring, could be a good three day trip that does not involve a lot of steep skiing or a lot of elevation gain. It can be done in a day, but you'd enjoy yourself on a "moderate" outing in three days if the weather was good. It is popular, though, so you might not want to select that particular objective if you are crowd adverse. The Pemberton Icefield, northwest of Whistler, is also good, high, and generally moderate terrain. There are traverse options with and without helicopter support but it is a more serious objective in a mountaineering sense. Depending on what you call "moderate" there is a lot of high alpine terrain around Pemberton and much of it is relatively gentle compared to the Cascades. For wooded terrain in western Washington, the high plateau north of White Pass is high, flat and full of lakes. You could probably figure out an extended trip there, maybe a loop or maybe something ending up on the 410. Mission Ridge to Blewitt Pass, largely on logging roads, is also a pretty decent tour. You'll be sharing some of it with snowmobiles, though.

I have a 2003 outback and it has been a good car. In fact, I'd say it has been great for the kind of all-around purpose you describe. I am 5'11 and can sleep in the back, it has pretty good cargo capacity, and it drives very well on gravel roads and on snowy roads. Clearance is not huge and it hangs over pretty far in front of and behind the wheels so there is some limitation when it comes to rough roads and water bars and such, as Larry is undoubtedly referring to. Gas mileage is not great but it's certainly better than an SUV.

I'm not following this discussion, but it is pretty interesting to see Obama blamed for the state of our economy, our troubles abroad, and the horror that is TARP.

That "T" slot technique looks OK, Mr. Feck, but more significant might be to pick a dig spot where the doorway will open to a slope such that whatever you throw out the front door will fall away without having to be moved by hand. Pick a dig spot that is on a steep cornice face, and not at the bottom of that face, or otherwise has a drop below it.

But: I don't smoke. I'm ready to cry, though.

I'm on your side, Summitchaser. Seriously. I am excited about climbing and you are excited about climbing and that is what cc.com is all about. Breath deep, step back a minute, and stick around.

Happy birthday, old man.

Really? So is it only State employees who you think have too good of a deal? Or only State taxes you don't want to pay? I'd guess that, on average, Federal employees have a lot better compensation package than State workers. I'd further guess that both you and Jay are equally disapproving of Federal as State employees and that you would argue for lower or certainly not increased Federal taxes along side State and other L-O-C-A-L taxes. However, either way, it is more or less the same "story." An anti-government smokescreen is built on misinformation. If you want to look just at the "issues" regarding State public employees let's look at Jay's "arguments" (I'll talk about him in third person since you seem to want to argue his case for him). Jay reports that bus drivers make 100k (they don't) and they work for M-E-T-R-O (or other local transit operations -- the S-T-A-T-E does not run a bus service). Jay reports that the Sheriffs refused to forgo the cost of living increases (he forgot to mention that all or most of the other County departments agreed to forgo them) but I should note that here we are talking about C-O-U-N-T-Y, not State employees. He also claimed or anticipated that no State agencies were actually going to honor the furlough days, and he was incorrect about that, too (these are S-T-A-T-E employees). Lastly, I don't know what to think about the P-O-R-T-of-S-E-A-T-T-L-E as an institution or whether their employees have a "good" or "bad" deal, but they certainly have never gotten much good press and they are certainly "government" employees or at least public sector employees but not "State" or "Federal" employees. So: although you may enjoy a good smirk, the "facts" are wrong, Jay's prior proclamation is nutty and he expresses a complete unwillingness to consider whatever may be the real issues involved:

I know you are not concerned, Fairweather. Neither is JayB. A combination of tax increases and cuts to social security, medicare/medicaid and military expenditures is needed for anything like a balanced budget yet Jay is focused on a smokescreen.

Jay, I agree with you that government employee salaries and other compensation costs comprise the lions’ share of most government agencies’ costs. That is clear and obvious. I don’t argue with the assertion that government employee’s unions are looking out for their members’ interests and that, further, the “pull” they muster is not necessarily in yours or my interest. But that is true of pretty much every “group” that is organized in the American economic and political landscape. Many people would argue that the pursuit of self-interest is synonymous with efficiency (are you among them?). However, you seem to have a fetish about public employees. You ask where I get this notion? By this I take it that you believe that no matter what else may be at stake you intend to stick it to the state workers. All that matters is that these government workers have an unfairly sweet deal and you don't care what the issues may be until they lose it. That is called "war."

That North Ridge on Pinnacle Peak at Rainier is a real winter/spring gem, in my opinion. I've always gained the ridge from the east, however (I've done the climb twice and attempted it once more). It has five short pitches, all with good belay spots, and it will entertain.

More nonsense based on misinformation, Jay. Bus drivers do not make 100k. This site indicates that in Seattle, where they are presumably paid more than they are in Yakima, they make $50k. I've talked to several bus drivers about their income and even that is higher than almost all of those I've seen. Not only are you misinformed, but you talk in truisms. Even the most ardent union booster will tell you that the government exists to serve the public interest rather than the private interest of individual employees. So what. You've fallen for a "war on government workers" that is a smokescreen for those whose goal is to reduce government. Personally, I wish we could pay police officers and school teachers more than we do because I think it would probably get us better cops and better teachers. I don't know about bus drivers.

I don't know what you are intending to say here but I, for one, often pay more than "low bid" when faced with an offer for someone to provide work that I think will be sub-quality, workers who I don't like or, in fact, work that for some tangential and maybe even political reason or another is something I cannot support. Maybe you have no such concerns for quality or values. I do. If your point is that we should run our government like McDonalds, I disagree.

Question for you, KK: where DO you get your information? You didn't say it, exactly, but I think you believe the Republicans are more likely to balance the budget than the Democrats or "fix the economy. Am I right? What about the history of the last 30 years would lead you to this conclusion?

I largely agree that the Democrats are beholden to the money and the machine just as the Republican party is, but they are not the same and that is why you and I both probably voted for Murray over Rossi. However, I don't agree that is why they got trounced in this election. I think their inability to deliver a coherent message is a real problem for them. I don't know what you watch. My post made that clear.

I hadn't thought about it that way, Tvash, but I think you're right: in a sense it was a fair fight. The impacts of Citizens United probably favor the Republicans over the Democrats at least a little bit, but that issue aside I think the main reason the Democrats did poorly is that they are completely inept at delivering a coherent message. For example: it is the Democrats' unwillingness or inability to simply point to the last three decades' example that allows Republicans and Tea Partiers to say that the Republicans are more fiscally responsible than the Democrats at this point, and apparently even well meaning and least somewhat informed citizens like KK accept such nonsense (I say somewhat informed because, although he may well watch a lot of "fair and balanced" FOX TV, KK at least gets the strait scoop here on cc.com).

Hey Jay: what is YOUR argument here? I don't mean to pick you in particular out, but this thread has pages and pages of counterpont without anyone actually stating THEIR position. Seriously: I get it that you think you are smarter than the other guy or j_b thinks he is more fundamentally perceptive than you or whatever it is, (and I could add similarly uncomplimentary and certainly incomplete descriptions of others' roles here)... but what is your actual position? What do YOU think defines the middle class and how does that have to do with any topic of this thread?

I think you are right, Sobo. I think "zero tolerance" results from a combination of at least two factors: (1) legislators earn "points" with the electorate by being "tough on crime" (or other perceived violation of the public trust), and (2) judges are human beings and many think they are too prone toward granting lenience in circumstances where they should not do so. I think that factor (1) is inarguable. Factor (2), on the other hand, is not so clear. I certainly agree that rules must be rules or we wouldn't know where we stand. Judges work very hard to apply the law and work hard to apoply the rule of law. But I don't know where anyone has ever shown that judges are overly lax or permissive in carrying out their duties as judge. In the criminal context we have seen where Judges have set repeat offenders free and in the civil context we have seen where they have dismissed huge jury awards. But Judges are Judges. They have a role in the legal system. Are there studies "out there" who show that they are habitually lax, liberal, lenient, or anything like that? My own experience as a practicing attorney and as a juror and as a judge suggests exactly the opposite: for the most part judges see the cases where things went wrong and this tends to make them think that something must have gone wrong if a case is brought before them. My guess is that the average judge is not likely to apply undue lenience without any kind of "zero tolerance" laws adopted in response to public attention to a particular issue. In my opinion, "zero tolerance" may be a good political response to some issues but it rarely makes sense in response to human issues.

Are you guys trying to make political arguments? Most of what I see here is a bunch of jabs at "the other guy." Seriously. What is your point?

I don't know if they have any left, but Edgeworks has been very conscientious about sending checks to the Washington Climbers Coalition after making sales of these posters and they have raised a significant sum of $ for the Index Fund. By the way: I hope you are doing well, Steph.