Fairweather

I am NOT a Trek fan. But you know...Captain Kirk once free-soloed El Cap even whilst carrying on a conversation with Spock. (who was hovering nearby wearing some kind of jet boots! )

Dukiebird, your posts are the most nauseating tripe I have yet read on this board. A real life flaming eco-nut if ever I've seen. ...And proof that if you give a whiney little liberal a bachelors degree and an internship, he'll think he's God in very short order. I hope we never meet.

Frankly, a large portion of the area doesn't meet the standard set forth in The Wilderness Act 1964 pertaining to establishment thereof. Are we now declaring clearcuts and second growth forest "wild and untrammelled by man"? As for the logging, it will only recommence in earnest if the number of recreationalists declines. This will only happen if a succession of generations find they have been "locked out".

Because radical fringe enviro-lawyers and organizations twist intrpretations of The Wilderness Act (and Roadless Rules) to lock us out too!! Until they can bargain in good faith, I say....Fuck 'em.

I believe my post answered your questions. I've never claimed to be 100% pro Republican platform, or 100% conservative...if that can even be defined. Why do most conservatives oppose gay marriage? Much has to do with the "in your face" message and militancy put forth by the gay fringe. Spreading their message via public schools hasn't helped bring right wingers to their cause much either. Local mayors, county commissioners, and city councils trying to promote gay marriage via authority they do not possess simply antagonizes. And it really boils down to what I believe is a natural disdain posessed by the majority of humans toward the act of homosexuality. Conservativism, by its very nature tries to maintain the current (or a past, real or imagined)) social order...and is often, admittedly, ugly. And I believe I've made my position clear on gay marriage; that is, I do not oppose it. But I have to support the side that best represents what I believe on the preponderance of issues, and I'll take conservatives any day over the creeping socialism that is the liberal. Just so you understand: I know you fear the religious Christian right...so do I. But I think you give them more power than they deserve credit for. Each of them posesses only one vote, just like you and I, and they are not presently a danger to our republic. I suspect that most American conservatives base their politics wholly, or at least mostly, on secular idealism.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) the Civil War changed this idea forever. The Republicans are going about this in a bungling manner, and if this law ever passes the senate (which it won't) and gets GW's signature, it will surely be thrown out by the Supreme Court. The backfire from this tactical blunder will possibly usher in full legalization of gay marriage. I don't see any way conservatives can win this fight long-term on current constitutional grounds, and they don't seem to have the votes necessary to ammend.... ...so here's to you, Adam and Steve... you're probably gunna eventually win this one; and rightfully so. Just remember...tolerance is not acceptance. I still think you are evolutionary dead ends.

Matt, I look forward to hearing more about your efforts here. In spite of your otherwise goofy politics , I think we agree on many access issues. I would warn against following the WTA model as was suggested in another post, however. In spite of the valuable trail maintenance work they do, they are NOT supporters of access for climbers...or even hikers, for that matter! They have swung hard into the wilderness 'ethics' arena of late and their support for the Middle Fork closure demonstrates their true motives. Has a mission statement been developed? Is this group to be centered more around rock climbing/crag access, or will it address issues like road repair and access to popular alpine areas? If this group is to be truly focused on access and stewardship of public land balanced with responsible recreation, then count me in! If it is to become yet another mouthpiece for limiting human presence in our mountain areas, then I'm likely not interested. Keep me posted!

From the KING 5 News website: Wash. lawmakers unite behind Cascades wilderness plan 09:47 PM PDT on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 From KING Staff and Wire Reports EVERETT, Wash. - A majority of Washington’s congressional delegation united Monday behind a proposed new wilderness area in the Cascades. The state’s two U.S. senators and seven of its nine representatives urged the leader of the House Resources Committee to take action on the bill. The only members of the delegation who did not sign the letter were Republican Representatives George Nethercutt, who is running for the U.S. Senate, and Doc Hastings. Nethercutt has said, however, that he supports protecting the Wild Sky acreage, while Hastings says he is neutral. But the chairman of the U.S. House Resources Committee said Tuesday he won't allow a vote on a bipartisan proposal for a new Washington state wilderness area as it is currently written. Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., wrote to Rep. Nethercutt that the latest proposal for a Wild Sky wilderness is flawed because about 16,000 of the approximately 105,000 acres contain roads, bridges or have previously been harvested for timber. The Wild Sky proposal is set for a Thursday hearing in Washington, D.C., before a House Resources subcommittee on forests and forest health. The proposal faces a ticking clock. After Thursday's hearing, Congress has only 19 more work days until its scheduled Oct. 1 adjournment, factoring in the August recess and political conventions.

When wilderness is outlawed, only outlaws.....oh fuck, it's time for a new president. Huh???

I've heard that the Wild Sky Wilderness proposal has been blocked in committee and for this year, at least, it is probably dead. Details to follow....

"If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?"

Bodie says the gnarliest wave is at Belle's Beach, Australia raaaght after the fifty year storm doooood. You callin' Patrick Swayze a liar maan?

Can you demonstrate that global glacial recession (undeniable!) is a result of anthropogenic CO2/greenhouse global warming and not primarily attributable to diesel/biodiesel soot particulate matter darkening glacial surfaces? In the post above, you have made the jump from diesel soot to [/i]greenhouse global warming[/i] as it relates to worldwide glacial recession. A truly skeptical mind would not just automatically link the two. I've answered your original question re diesel soot, (which you apparently knew nothing about) but now you seem intent on changing the preminse of the original question and tagging me with beliefs I do not necessarily hold.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/12/22/soot.global.ap/ http://eces.org/articles/000731.php http://technologyreports.net/heartbeatofthenorth/?articleID=2376

Obviously, Cracked and me need to be sent here for diversity reeducation, ja?

Yes! Everyone within the climbing community must think as one. Only through focused, uniform thought can we reach nirvana! Anyone who dares dissent shall be taught a good lesson.

So let me see if I have this right?... Distel, Democratic activist, posts an ignorant hate-filled video re GWB... but then slams Cracked, and those who find humor in a subsequent and relatively benign link? I smell sumthin'...

Nothing "homophobic" about the video IMO. I've seen a similar parody on Jay Leno's show. Seems like Distel is a little then-tha-tive about the issue? And is possibly confusing tolerance with acceptance. Lars! You caved in to the gay PC lobby by editing your post. But you're still . (And I don't mean that in a John Kerry/Edwards-homosexual kinda way )

JerkTerryx, You are a -ing vagina.

Use of the word, "professes" does not a lie infer, nor was it my intent to imply such. One's heart being in the right place (re: biodiesel) does not the science make valid, eh? Dumbass; yes. Pothead; certainly. But liar? never.

Private Property May Become Preserved Saturday, July 10, 2004 KING COUNTY, Wash. — Residents of King County, Wash., will only be able to build on 10 percent of their land, according to a new law being considered by the county government, which, if enacted, will be the most restrictive land use law in the nation. Known as the 65-10 Rule , it calls for landowners to set aside 65 percent of their property and keep it in its natural, vegetative state. According to the rule, nothing can be built on this land, and if a tree is cut down, for example, it must be replanted. Building anything is out of the question. Most of the residents who will be directly affected by the regulations — those who own property in the rural areas of the country — are fuming. They see the new regulations as a land grab and a violation of their property rights. "My take is it's stealing — out and out stealing," said county resident Marshall Brenden. "They're taking 65 percent of your land that you fought for years to pay for, paid mortgages on and now you can't use it." But supporters and environmentalists say personal property rights do not trump the rights of a larger community to save the eco-system. "We're trying to keep the rural area a place that isn't just McMansions and ball courts, but instead has those natural processes," said Tim Trohimovich of the group 1000 Friends of Washington, which aims to promote healthy communities and cities while protecting farmland and forests. The plan is being pushed by King County Executive Ron Sims, who is currently running for governor.

If you're referring to the bio-diesel Kurt professes to use in his chippers, I believe the benefit of such is currently under serious scientific reconsideration. Diesel and bio diesel ash have recently been found to be accelerating the melting of Greenland's icecap. As for the chainsaws and the truck; does he have any more right to use these tools than a mother taking a team to soccer practice in a big, bad SUV?

Does that apply to Kerry/Edwards at Radio City Music Hall the other night? Seems to me the D team is more adept at the celeb game. Looks like your blinders are on... once again.

This I support. It's called zoning and is nothing new. I DO think it should be difficult-to-impossible to change zoning or grant waivers, especially when it comes to farmland and existing, natural wetlands. Current government land-grabs (ala Ron Sims in King County) go well beyond common sense and fairness.

Too bad lance's new girlfriend (Sheryl Crow) is a left-wing Cee U Next Tuesday. I hope she doesn't cloud his political ideals with the lure of easy tang.