mattp

I believe he voted for him TWICE.

If you made it that far, might you generally want to keep stumbling up to the summit and bivvy there, or does this site actually get the sun earlier in the morning at this time of year, something that is generally a plus if you are carrying the typical underwhelming gear for warmth?

They my be commercial production sellout pieces, but I've enjoyed some of the later Emmy Lou Harris releases. Its a long way from Hank Williams to there, though.

I think it is about 2 1/2 hours from the turnoff at Burlington. Look at Snoboy's post at the start of this thread for directions and ideas about what to bring. The big avalanche cycle is over so I wouldn't worry too much about that though there is always the chance that it could be your unlucky day, I suppose. You'll find the gathering to be a friendly event. In the past it has been a fairly unblanced mix of climbing and skiing and grilling.

I'd second Ivan's approach. Go when the weather forecast calls for no chance of rain and leave tent and bivvy sack at home.

You got that right. They said the developer proved that he wouldn't be able to make a profit without tearing down the Denny's. Even without taking out the Taj Mahal of Ballard, it is a huge parcel - as big as or bigger than the last three buildings that went up right there in the last couple of years - so I find that hard to believe.

Buckley, in the article I link above, says that crime will go down if we legalized drugs because, among other things, the cost of pharmaceutical cocaine is 2 percent that of the street drug. another writer on that National Review pages writes:

So: other than spewing incorrect assertions and and calling names, or saying "drugs are bad," does anybody have any arguments in SUPPORT of continuing the drug war as we have been conducting it? National Review

As Ariana Huffington put it recently, the media gives "equal time to lies." This is why some folks may be confused. Right is Wrong

I don't understand your proposal that either of us "agree" on something we don't agree upon. I also disagree with both of your proposed statements here. In my opinion, drug use may well be an aggravating factor that should be considered during sentencing (that is the stage in the prosecution at which mitigation and aggravating factors are normally applied). If someone commits a murder, for example, we might conclude that their being on drugs at the time means they are more or less likely to repeat the offense or somehow more or less responsible for their actions. In my opinion, hate crimes, on the other hand, should not be crimes at all. Assault, kidnapping, murder, and vandalism are already crimes and I don't see the need for an extra charge to be added if the victim was a minority or homosexual. However, the fact that the victim was a minority or homosexual should be considered an aggravating factor in many cases because we as a society have in fact concluded that these groups of people are actively targeted simply because of such status and thus they require extra protection. And, even if you think minorities or gays do not deserve such extra protection you might still decide that the fact that someone targets these people indicates they are more likely to re-offend. Meth? Nobody is arguing that it is a good thing or that it should be encouraged. The question is whether making simple use and possession a crime causes more problems on top of the devastating effects the drug has on its users. Oh, and by the way: Wikipedia agrees that the term "war on drugs" was coined by President Nixon. It also says that the first recorded instance of the United States enacting a ban on the domestic distribution of drugs was the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914.

Crills: several years ago I tried the same trail, I think, and had the same reaction. The approach from the top of Great Northern Slab is as described above - short and easy to follow. There used to be a lot more loose rock perched in the woods directly above the top of GNS but now it is pretty decent.

Go back to page one. FW was clearly arguing that legalization was the wrong approach. I don't think ANYBODY was arguing that we should cede control of public spaces to lawlessness and decay. Not even Feck. He said that if a druggie was caught committing a crime, they should be punished for the crime and treated for the drugs. I agree with what I think may be part of your thinking that there could be LESS lawlessness and decay if we legalized drug possession and took other appropriate action.

c'mon, Arch. I agree that almost everything European is better -- especially French -- but their highways are NOT better than ours, dammit. We're the best. And the war? Maybe you are right that the Russians were going to crush or the French resistance was just about to break the occupying German forces, but certainly we did SOMETHING right -- didn't we? And polio? Yes I think a guy named Salk invented the vaccine but public health efforts are what have made us so damn healthy. These were government-run operations. We could think of all kinds of things government does well if we spent some time thinking about it. Long live the government!

Fairweather, you argued derisively that "my" side had failed, and you asserted facts that were completely wrong yet you said I am prone to pulling facts out of my a@@. You complain about my reading comprehension and insist that you never advocated for expanded drug enforcement efforts and you may be righit about that but you refuse to answer any of my questions about whether you think the drug war is either working or worth the cost. And as to pulling facts out one's a**: I don't smoke pot. Now: if you want to stop the name calling, I'd be interested in hearing what aspects of the drug war you think are bad.

Psst Arch: the government organized our winning of WW II, our effort to wipe out diseases like Polio, and the building of the best highway system in the world. I don't think it is right to suggest that government can't do anything right and we shouldn't have to pay taxes to support such incompetence. At the same time, though, lots of folks who hate "big government" sure want them hiding outside our windows, watching to see that we don't use drugs. You are least, may not be one of those.

Hey Fairweather: I see you are back on line now. TO you or anyone else who supports expanding the drug war on its present terms, I say: Take a look at the little history lesson I posted above and tell me how the law enforcement model in place in this country during the 1960's, 70's and 80's was "treatment only" and enforcement was not attempted. I think the truth is that we've been attempting to control American citizens' private behavior through heavy handed government intervention for 35 years. And then I'd like to know by what standard anybody thinks the war on drugs is working. It looks to me as if even those who support an expanded war on drugs, with their arguments in this thread about how meth heads are a serious problem, and their reading the alarming things we see in the newspapers every day about the drug epidemic threatening our kids or the rise of opium warlords in countries like Afghanistan, must conclude the war is not working out so well. And then there is the cost. Pot Prisoners Cost Americans $1 Billion a Year and this:

Yes, it is probably the getting to know each other part that comes with talking about and physically demonstrating how you are trusting your lives with each other that makes us feel it is not normal. In most other aspects of life, like the driving/boating/flying examples ChucK cited, we are just as much reliant upon somebody else for safety but we don't talk a lot about it and there isn't the same complex interaction.

I agree that the bond we share as climbers can be unique and indeed special (if you know what I mean by special), but in another way you trust your life to other people all the time: like when you drive on a public road, for example. Is it just the adrenaline ingredient that makes us focus on this trust aspect so much? I'm not sure.

Rad, I'd tie in with you any time, too. I wasn't really debating your premise so much as adding my "it's all situation" twist. Some climbers who employ best practices all the time but lack judgment can be REALLY scary.

Can we return to talking about newbies and climbing at popular beginner crags now?

Now he doesn't.

Yup. But he means it in a good way.

I'm always glad to help but it doesn't sound like I took my own advice. I not uncommonly climb popular routes with other parties and sometimes it works out; sometimes it doesn't. Usually more important in this regard than the actual skills (assuming somebody isn't totally out of their league) seems to be a willingness to communicate and look out for each other. Experience, and especially experience with being on routes clogged by multiple parties, helps people to more safely and efficiently share belay anchors or climb around or pass each other, though.