Fairweather

This is an outrage! I mean, next thing ya know felons are gonna want their voting rights restored! Geeeezzzz. Next topic please. (Preferably something more considered--and from someone not so, um, addled.)

I don't believe Immanuel Kant would agree with your first sentence. Or, I believe Immanuel Kant would agree with your first sentence. In any event, not sure what you're trying to say here--or who you've been reading. While it's still open to debate in some circles, I believe the fallacy of altruism in the natural world has been settled. Here, altruism and self interest are, essentially, one in the same. That said, if altruism exists at all (and I have my doubts) it is within creatures who are the sole bearers of intrinsic value--in other words, human beings. The down-side of this is, of course, that it is the epitome of anthopocentrism. The altruism/self-interest dichotomy is an irrelevant bore. That our understanding and experience, our getting on in the world is irreducibly social in nature goes without saying. There are no lone wolves in this chimp colony (the exceptions, like Kaspar Hauser prove the point). That we are enriched as individuals when our social orders are stable, functional, and mutually beneficial would also seem self-evident. Robert P. Harrison's essay, "Toward a Philosophy of Nature" makes good use of a caged Barcelona Zoo gorilla named Capito de Nievehas and has some good insight here that ties in well with what I think you're trying to say. One of my favorite quotes: "Axiom: Wonder is ignorance that is aware of itself as ignorance." "Hypothesis: Animals are not aware of their ignorance; hence they lack irony." Of course, I immediately thought of TTK and realized this author has failed to consider ego. Another favorite: "Axiom: Animals do not need to do justice to their nature, since they cannot betray it." "Hypothesis: Rights exist solely because they can be violated. Only human beings who are self-surpassing, are able to transgress the law of freedom that governs the natural order."

Not any more than Socialism--or even Cosmopolitanism. Part of Enlightenment appeal was its ability to free the individual from the oppression (real and perceived) of the community. While the unquoted portion of your post is apolitical and accurate, this last bit is way off base--or, at the very least, too narrowly defined. Liberalism and socialism and their variants are all part of the Enlightenment tradition. I'm not sure which Socialism you're referring to, but Marx's critique of the political economy of the time was founded on and strove toward a scientific examination and interrogation of actually existing conditions, the structure of ongoing social relations (political, economic, ideological) and their development through history. Classical liberalism elevates abstractions like a narrowly defined "human nature", natural rights, state of nature, individuality and the self at the expense of any thoroughgoing study of how those categories came to be or of society and the economic relations that Marx understood to underpin it. The Marxian critique of liberalism (and its efforts at explaining the world) is that, far from freeing individuals from oppression (or providing tools for its examination), it accepts the exercise of economic exploitation and class domination through capitalist market relations as the "natural", "apolitical", "neutral" state of things rather than as an outcome of ongoing historical processes. That Marx failed to properly synthesize empiricism and the rational is why he got it so wrong. We are, in fact, more than the Marxian sum of our economy and our history. We are, in fact, more than Hegelian products of master-slave relationships. Despite his flaws, it seems to me that Kant was closer to figuring out who we are than any of his later tag-alongs--particularly Marx.

I don't believe Immanuel Kant would agree with your first sentence. Or, I believe Immanuel Kant would agree with your first sentence. In any event, not sure what you're trying to say here--or who you've been reading. While it's still open to debate in some circles, I believe the fallacy of altruism in the natural world has been settled. Here, altruism and self interest are, essentially, one in the same. That said, if altruism exists at all (and I have my doubts) it is within creatures who are the sole bearers of intrinsic value--in other words, human beings. The down-side of this is, of course, that it is the epitome of anthopocentrism.

Not any more than Socialism--or even Cosmopolitanism. Part of Enlightenment appeal was its ability to free the individual from the oppression (real and perceived) of the community. While the unquoted portion of your post is apolitical and accurate, this last bit is way off base--or, at the very least, too narrowly defined or tailored toward a particular world-view.

.

Harvey Manning's bitter NCCC legacy: "Buy my guidebooks and then stay the F@#$% out of my mountains." By the way, ALPS is not any better.

"I tell ya Bill, thayz no tellin what chull come up wit when you drag a hunnerd dolla bill through a trailer park..."

moveon dot org

We all know this topic is part of your latest ego self-massage, but you make quite a leap to get to it. Off topic. Nobody cares. Please reread.

1.3Bn Chinese. Yes, it's working well for the .2Bn urbanites who have adopted capitalism. For the remaining 1.1Bn, not so much. So wait....you mean them Chinese Commies are better capitalists than America?? And since when did you get behind this whole 99% movement????? I'm part of the 53% movement.

1.3Bn Chinese. Yes, it's working well for the .2Bn urbanites who have adopted capitalism. For the remaining 1.1Bn, not so much.

YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS COMMENTING ON CHINESE AFFAIRS UNLESS YOU SPEAK FLUENT MANDARIN AND WERE ONCE ABLE TO CLIMB 5.10. --Steve

.

Solyndra. Fast and Furious. John Corzine. Please do not discuss these issues while you're watching Herman gettin his knobbin. As you were...

Uh, pretty far?

Another example of geriatric editorializing here. Joel seems to be (rightly) bashing the NCCC for their dogmatism vis-a-vis road repairs even as he scolds Doc Hastings for wanting to remedy the problem. Not sure what his point is about Rick Larsen--or Maria Cantwell for that matter. It seems like Connelly wants to bash the deep greens--but can't let go of his own knee-jerk urge to bash a Republican in-kind. By the way, Joel, the sun actually does rise over the Olympic Mountains--if you live in Forks or Amanda Park. Seattle-centric journalism at its finest.

Stalker? Not at all. Those quotes--typical though they were--cover only three days of content. Sorry if I rained on your parade, but the prospect of having cc.com's history documented by one of its most virulent psychopaths was simply more than I could stand.

I don't know about Jon, but I'm really excited to see your film--especially juxtaposed against your more recent contributions here:

I climbed it on May 28th. They were not there then.

Presently there are no limits to day trips in MRNP, NCNP, Grand Teton or ONP. The closest Natioal Park where day use limits are enforced is Yosemite and Half Dome Think Mount St Helens. A National Monument, of course, but administered by the same bureaucratic mindset as our nation's other scenic wonders. I still have no doubt that the hats at NCNP would--sooner not later--take a look at the Blue Lake trailhead on a sunny Saturday or Sunday afternoon and decide in short order that something just had to be done to preserve the solitude myth.

Keeping extractive entities at bay is why climbers, hikers, and yes, even mountain bikers and horseback riders need to advocate for their particular brands of utility. Locking out those who have enjoyed the outdoors in a given area or region and have long advocated for its preservation makes no sense in the long term. As for wilderness itself, well, it's probably time to reexamine the definition before we move forward. Below is a great essay written by William Cronon from the American Society for Environmental History. He also has a recently published book called Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. http://www.williamcronon.net/writing/Trouble_with_Wilderness_Main.html

Well said. That Seattle Times link is absolutely shocking. Worthy of its own thread here.

I'm kind of torn over this one. With the NPS's wild mood swings between scenic nationalism and green ideological purity, day-use limits at Washington Pass trail heads would almost be a given--even as countless RVs would continue to grind their way over the nearby highway. Do we really want even more of this kind of NPS nonsense? http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1030902/Re_TR_Forbidden_W_and_NW_ridge#Post1030902

Another Olympic Mountains dream vacation post! Thanks for the beautiful pictures and story.