mattp

I agree with what Joseph says here except for one thing: the fact that gun owners and enthusiasts tend to support the right wing policies of Bush and Company doesn't necessarily mean they would never seek to revolt. I don't think they could pull it off, but you can bet there'd be a lot of clamoring for armed insurrection if the government suddenly took a big jump to the left.

I used to shop at a QFC in Ballard where they had a similar "courtesy" schtick, but it seemed to be more concentrated at checkout. It would drive me nuts, waiting in line while the checkers were chatting away with every customer who came along and delaying the whole process both of scanning the groceries and receiving the pin code or bagging the goods. However, I have a lot of older clients who live in the neighborhood and they routinely used to comment on how they LOVED going to that QFC because everyone there was so friendly. I will avoid places that are really slow, but the other end of the spectrum can also be annoying. At Trader Joes in the U district, for example, they rush you through there pretty quick but you gotta play bumper carts with all the other hurried shoppers who push their carts aggressively and then stand three deep in front of the meat case, unsure of what to buy until they compare pennies per ounce.

For skiing on Forest Service roads I'd look for a telemark binding and flexible shoe. It'll be a lot more comfortable. I'm sure you could get somethiung pretty cheap at Value Village or Craigslist.

Fairweather, it is pretty funny to read where you suggest that Obama is more "extreme" than McCain, but that issue aside: how do you think an Obama presidency might play out differently than a McCain one? Any prognostication from the cult of McCain?

Wow, Mike. In 1980 I climbed a wall in Yosemite with a guy named Mike Price. I met him on the shuttle bus in Yosemite and we then climbed The Prow. We had a great time and I've cherished the memory ever since, thinking: that was one of my best climbing partners ever and we only ever did one climb together. I think it was the climber described in your link. If my partner Mike was killed in a crevasse fall I am truly saddened 17 years later. I have looked forward to meeting him once again in the Bugs or the Gunks for 28 years.

As part of the cult of Obama, how could I forget the big difference: Supreme Court: I bet Obama isn't going to appoint any extreme liberals, but his picks are going to be WAY better than McCain. This is likely to be a very big deal. If McCain somehow pulls a rabbit out of his hat I think we will have a very unbalanced and conservative court for years to come.

I agree with the sentiment, Tvash (we can't get rid of those crooks fast enough), but this weekend I was talking with a climbing buddy who said he didn't think either candidate would deliver on their promises so he was just going to vote for McCain because he was somehow more impressed with a vague notion that McCain was more "honest" than Obama. I couldn't think of much that McCain had been particularly honest about, but I had to agree with him that in reality there is a big lumbering machine that we call "the system" and much of what either or them are likely to try to do will succumb to momentum. I'm wondering: if the Dems end up with the presidency and the predicted gains in Congress, how much is really going to change? Here are a few guesses I'd make: War: Will they do anything fundamentally different in Iraq and Afganistan than the current Administration in the short term? Probably not, I'd say, but the President will talk about it differently and we might see quicker withdrawal in Iraq while I suspect the effort in Afghanistan is going to continue and to go badly with either President elected. Overall Military: I doubt there will be a big difference in our maintaining military bases all over the world and spending whatever obscene percentage of our gross national product is spent on all of this. Veterans are still likely to get more rhetorical support than real support. Diplomacy: Here's where I would expect a greater change. Obama is going to have to prove himself, and I don't think he'll paint a peace sign on the front door of the White House, but I'd expect a lot friendlier posture in the U.N., more cooperation with our allies, and less unilateralism. Taxes: Great sounding rhetoric from Obama on the campaign trail, but how much is going to be put in place? I'd expect more incremental change than the big differences talked about on the campaign trail. Healthcare: Here I'd hope that Obama and the Democrats can really do something. Obama's plan is not perfect but something like that could well come to pass. Guns: Are they really going to take away Fairweather's Bushmaster "hunting" rifle? I doubt it. I'd expect marginal changes here. Environment: Despite McCain's proclamations that he is pro-environment I'm guessing Obama's Environmental Protection Agency, or his programs for alternative energy development, and maybe even his operation of public lands will be more to my liking. Education: I haven't hear much talk about this. I know Obama has said he supports Charter Schools but not vouchers, but what may be their respective overal emphasis on funding and support for public education? Is there a big difference? Election Reform: Let's hope Obama and the Democrats can impose some serious quality controls on Diebold/Premier or even drive more states toward the optical scanners that seem to be the best bet. Will they be able to or will they even be inclined to make the whole vote counting process something we have greater confidence in? I'm skeptical. Overall Integrity: I have a hard time imagining Obama to surround himself by the number of crooks and lobbyists that McCain would, but that's just me. Having said that, however, I bet we'll see lots of scandals involving White House staffers and Democratic members of Congress if the Dem's are in power for eight years.

The answer to that would depend on the Federal policies, Fairweather. If we had more Federal control like leave all children behind, it won't help. If we had Federal standards and funding and support for the idea that public education is important, it would.

Easy there, Skeezix. It aint over yet and McCain said he's got Obama just where he wants him.

Kids DO go outdoors less than they used to and there has been a national discussion of this phenomenon. here is a recent article, and here is a book on the subject.

At Three O'clock Rock in Darrington,Silent Running offers a very straight-forward and well-protected slab climb although it is "well-protected" in a slab climb way with runouts up to 30 feet or so on easier terrain. These pose absolutely no problem for the follower, though some leaders may pucker up a bit and I was there once when somebody sent their girlfriend up there for her first lead ever and she fell 60 feet. It was not pretty. With fall colors, Darrington is even more scenic than usual and Three O'Clock Rock has a civilized trail right to the base.

If you think only a cheerleader could see the difference between Palin and Biden, what does that make you? Waterboy at the Special Olympics?

Wow. You don't see that she's a complete barbie doll? Would she really be only slightly worse than Biden or even on the same scale? I don't want to be completely rude here but REALLY?

I liked the decor when they had the four paintball dummies up on the roof. I remember driving by there with climbing buddies who talked of kidnapping one of them but I don't recall exactly what we thought the dumb guy would add to our team.

Jesus probably stole it from Abraham.

Are you talking about "shining city on the hill?" If you are, a Pilgrim coined the phrase in 1620 or something - or he may have stolen it from somebody else.

Kester: are you for real? Are you saying neither candidate for vice president is worse than the other? Really?

I agree with you, glassgow. Factcheck was biased in their attempt to be even handed. Reading that piece TomTom linked, I could only think of Arianna Huffington's line: "equal time for lies." Maybe they are not lying so much as trying to remain credible with readers from both left and right, but it adds up to the same kind of B.S. we heard about their being a debate about global warming for so many years after it was clear there was no debate.

I agree with that, tvash, but if you want to have any kind of real discussion you have to look at the other guy's argument. TomTom, in a Peter Puget sort of way, was trying to make a point.

You can go ahead and click it, Tvash. It won't hurt you to read his link and discuss it. Factcheck is going out of its way to be fair and balanced there, saying that many Democrats voted for the 1999 legislation and Bubba signed it, while McCain's claim that he tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie and this would have avoided the crisis is misleading, but in my view they fall short of really making the point that they are trying to make: that the Dems' blame of the Repubs is just as misleading as is the Repus' blame of the Dems. In conclusions, Factcheck says the real blame for our woes lies with everybody from dog catcher to president - something that is hard to argue with - but all of this tends to obscure the fact that de-regulation and get the government out of the way HAVE been Republican mantras for 30 years and now all of the sudden even John McCain is going to "reform" Wall Street and impose regulations or some kind of sensible controls. Yes, Clinton moved to make credit more attainable for minorities but, and this is something I'd be interested to learn but so far I've heard just as many people saying it is moderately wealthy people in McMansions who are foreclosing and causing all the trouble -- not the poor people. And, you may argue that any potential regulations or that which was repealed 8 years ago wouldn't have helped, or that imposing them now will make things worse, but most commentators are saying that there WAS a real failure of oversight and that HAD the Congress and the Executive Branch exercised its responsibility we would not be in this mess. Admittedly, the Democrats went along with legislation like the 1999 repeal of part of Glass-Steagal and you can trot out some quote where Barney Frank said the housing bubble was overblown, but the overall trend toward de-regulation and lack of any regulatory response to what clearly WAS at least worrisome was driven more by the Republican agenda.

Just to clarify: what I wrote was that the Internet and select climbs guidebooks influence climbers' choice of routes so that certain areas or routes receive more attention than they used to while others less. Think North Face of Mt. Hood, for example: a couple of enthusiastic trip reports on this website probably quadrupled the traffic on that particular route. Or Big Four: few climbers were interested in it until Dan and I climbed Spindrift Couloir and Dan wrote it up here. When somebody establishes a new rock route and puts a nice write-up and topo on the Web, it can immediately become popular. In the past this happened only through printed publication as when, in 1994 Rock and Ice published a "mini guide" to Exit 38 and it became crowded overnight.

Nope. I've only been there once and haven't felt the need to go back. There is so much to do in the Leavenworth area...

The Snag is cool, but not rally anything special but a lark and access crosses private and gated property. But the Pinnacles and a good choice if it is dreary in the canyons.

For Index you may want to double up in the larger gear before the small cams, but for most of the routes I do at places like Leavenworth, Darrington and Erie it is more common that I want doubles in the smaller ranges (I still like my old aliens), and one-each in camelots 1-3.

By the way, this year the moon is in perfect phase for night climbing. 5 days before full, it will be big and up high early in the night. Here's a picture from a climb of Midway during ropeup maybe 2003 or 2004... [img:left]http://cascadeclimbers.com/plab/data/517/medium/420midway1.JPG[/img]