JayB

Looks like the Sky just broke the record by 5000cfs and counting. Unbelievable. Hopefully the damage won't be as bad as these levels readings make me fear and everyone who needed to evacuate was able to get out in time...

Looks like the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie just hit a record at 30, 400cfs. Water Year Date Gage Height (feet) Stream- flow (cfs) 1961 Feb. 21, 1961 10.50 14,000 1962 Jan. 03, 1962 9.66 11,600 1963 Nov. 19, 1962 13.14 22,800 1964 Nov. 26, 1963 8.90 9,520 1965 Jan. 29, 1965 11.05 15,800 1966 May 06, 1966 7.82 6,860 1967 Dec. 13, 1966 9.41 10,900 1968 Jan. 20, 1968 11.75 18,000 1969 Jan. 05, 1969 12.66 21,200 1970 Apr. 09, 1970 8.33 8,070 1971 Jan. 19, 1971 9.91 12,300 1972 Feb. 28, 1972 10.83 15,100 1973 Dec. 26, 1972 11.28 16,400 1974 Jan. 15, 1974 11.26 16,400 1975 Jan. 18, 1975 13.67 24,900 1976 Dec. 03, 1975 13.37 23,700 1977 Jan. 18, 1977 9.72 11,800 1978 Dec. 02, 1977 14.93 30,200 1979 Nov. 08, 1978 8.84 9,360 1980 Dec. 15, 1979 11.79 18,100 1981 Dec. 26, 1980 12.82 21,700 1982 Jan. 24, 1982 11.93 18,600 Water Year Date Gage Height (feet) Stream- flow (cfs) 1983 Dec. 03, 1982 11.91 18,500 1984 Jan. 24, 1984 12.35 20,000 1985 Jun. 07, 1985 9.42 10,900 1986 Nov. 01, 1985 11.71 17,900 1987 Nov. 23, 1986 14.68 28,900 1988 Dec. 09, 1987 11.31 15,900 1989 Oct. 16, 1988 13.29 23,100 1990 Nov. 09, 1989 13.63 24,400 1991 Nov. 24, 1990 14.97 30,100 1992 Sep. 25, 1992 11,900 1993 Jan. 25, 1993 11.29 15,9008 1994 Jun. 14, 1994 7.26 5,370 1995 Feb. 19, 1995 12.00 18,300 1996 Nov. 29, 1995 14.35 27,400 1997 Mar. 19, 1997 11.22 15,600 1998 Oct. 30, 1997 11.24 15,700 1999 Dec. 29, 1998 11.97 18,200 2000 Dec. 15, 1999 11.99 18,200 2001 Mar. 19, 2001 7.05 5,090 2002 Apr. 14, 2002 10.76 14,200 2003 Jan. 31, 2003 10.76 14,200 2004 Oct. 21, 2003 12.03 18,400 2005 Jan. 18, 2005 13.07 22,200

I think that you are reacting to some of your own preconceptions and seizing an opportunity to do a bit of grandstanding instead of actually reading what I am writing. I am not arguing against gay marriage. I am saying that people who want gays to be able to marry should frame their arguments carefully so that people who are opposed to the idea understand that what they want is a very limited and tightly constructed extension of the existing rules, and any argument that includes something along the lines of "I don't think it's any of the government's business to..." or "Anything that involves consenting adults..." etc tend to give people the wrong idea. The sociocultural evolution of the West has resulted in a state of affairs where one type of consensual relationship has been granted a legal status above all others. Since this didn't come about as the result of any abstract logic or analysis - things just evolved in this manner - it's pretty hard to come up with a logically bulletproof defense of this arrangement. It's something that we've inherited because it worked as part of social evolution. Given that that you can't defend this state of affairs in the way that you defend a geometric proof, trying to argue on behalf of gay marriage using a purely logical proposition isn't going to work, because once you start asking why a consensual relationship between a man and a woman should be given a legal status and a set of privileges that's not granted to a man and two consenting women or two consenting women and a man, it's rather difficult to make a logically consistent argument to the contrary, which is probably why I have never heard one. Instead people veer off into empiricism or practicality, and while I accept these and they are compelling - they fall way short of a logical refutation of the idea. The institution of marriage is an arbitrary construct that we've inherited through social evolution. That's just the way it is. People who support changing the arbitrary rules that we've inherited are making a mistake to claim otherwise, or to base their advocacy on logical arguments because, like it or not, the arguments employed in this fashion do not exclude any relationship between consenting adults. A strategy which emphasizes that the goal is not to overturn this arbitrary arrangement, but simply expand it's scope to include two persons of the same sex gives a much clearer idea of what I think most gay people's objectives are, and helps people understand that no one is talking about substantially modifying the arbitrary rules that we've inherited to include any consensual relationship between adults, nor getting the government out of the role of determining which relationships get this special status. Gay marriage. Great idea. Less suffering, fewer women investing their lives in conflicted closet cases like Haggard, hopefully more stable and healthier relationships amongst gay people - sounds great to me, but anyone that wants to see it happen is going to have to convince lots of people who are uncomfortable with the idea, and bad arguments aren't going to help.

I knew it was getting bad - but this might be record-breaking bad - looks like the flow is approaching the highest levels since they installed the guage. Water Year Date Gage Height (feet) Stream- flow (cfs) 1929 Oct. 09, 1928 10.55 18,800 1930 Feb. 05, 1930 10.44 15,800 1931 Jan. 28, 1931 14.08 35,100 1932 Feb. 26, 1932 20.70 83,300 1933 Nov. 13, 1932 19.50 72,500 1934 Dec. 21, 1933 21.28 88,700 1935 Oct. 24, 1934 18.28 62,400 1936 May 16, 1936 10.91 19,400 1937 Dec. 18, 1936 12.19 25,300 1938 Apr. 18, 1938 16.37 47,200 1939 Jan. 01, 1939 12.92 28,900 1940 Dec. 15, 1939 26,000 1941 Nov. 28, 1940 11.38 21,600 1942 Dec. 02, 1941 11.30 21,100 1943 Nov. 23, 1942 14.08 35,000 1944 Dec. 03, 1943 19.40 71,600 1945 Jan. 07, 1945 16.43 47,400 1946 Oct. 25, 1945 13.95 34,500 1947 Dec. 11, 1946 14.86 40,200 1948 Oct. 19, 1947 15.67 45,300 1949 Nov. 23, 1948 11.66 22,300 1950 Nov. 27, 1949 17.50 56,500 1951 Feb. 10, 1951 18.87 65,600 1952 Oct. 03, 1951 9.58 13,300 1953 Jan. 31, 1953 15.15 40,600 1954 Dec. 09, 1953 12.84 27,500 1955 Feb. 08, 1955 13.45 30,600 1956 Dec. 11, 1955 16.13 46,900 1957 Dec. 10, 1956 17.87 59,100 1958 Jan. 17, 1958 9.81 14,100 1959 Nov. 12, 1958 15.40 42,100 1960 Nov. 23, 1959 20.20 78,800 1961 Jan. 15, 1961 15.11 40,400 1962 Jan. 03, 1962 13.27 29,600 1963 Nov. 20, 1962 19.45 72,000 1964 Jan. 01, 1964 12.21 24,400 1965 Nov. 30, 1964 13.41 30,400 1966 May 06, 1966 11.07 19,100 Water Year Date Gage Height (feet) Stream- flow (cfs) 1967 Dec. 13, 1966 13.10 29,000 1968 Jan. 20, 1968 16.46 49,200 1969 Jan. 05, 1969 15.36 41,900 1970 Jun. 03, 1970 10.52 16,900 1971 Jan. 19, 1971 14.06 34,100 1972 Feb. 28, 1972 15.00 39,700 1973 Dec. 26, 1972 14.61 34,700 1974 Jan. 15, 1974 16.11 46,800 1975 Dec. 21, 1974 15.48 42,600 1976 Dec. 03, 1975 19.85 76,600 1977 Jan. 18, 1977 14.17 34,700 1978 Dec. 02, 1977 18.22 62,800 1979 Nov. 04, 1978 12.28 24,700 1980 Dec. 18, 1979 16.89 52,200 1981 Dec. 26, 1980 21.34 90,100 1982 Jan. 24, 1982 15.11 40,400 1983 Dec. 03, 1982 17.70 58,600 1984 Jan. 04, 1984 15.18 40,800 1985 Jun. 07, 1985 12.09 23,800 1986 Feb. 24, 1986 16.23 47,600 1987 Nov. 23, 1986 19.90 76,500 1988 Dec. 09, 1987 14.43 35,500 1989 Oct. 16, 1988 17.47 56,300 1990 Dec. 04, 1989 17.44 56,100 1991 Nov. 24, 1990 22.49 102,000 1992 Dec. 05, 1991 12.75 27,800 1993 Jan. 25, 1993 13.84 33,700 1994 Mar. 02, 1994 10.05 15,700 1995 Feb. 19, 1995 15.54 44,100 1996 Nov. 29, 1995 20.24 80,400 1997 Mar. 19, 1997 16.18 44,900 1998 Oct. 30, 1997 16.98 50,400 1999 Dec. 29, 1998 18.72 63,800 2000 Dec. 15, 1999 15.88 42,900 2001 Oct. 01, 2000 11.05 17,600 2002 Jan. 08, 2002 16.37 46,100 2003 Jan. 26, 2003 16.38 48,700 2004 Oct. 20, 2003 20.73 86,500 2005 Jan. 18, 2005 19.55 74,600

Wow. Saw that the Sky broke 100-freaking-thousand CFS today. Insane. I think the highest flow on record is 118K, so it must have come close to hitting that. Insane.

Uh...we're not discussing polygamy. That is a completely different subject with different social and legal implications. We also not discussing man-on-dog marriage, just in case that should come up. I think you'll find over time that most Americans will support gay marriage, as they did interracial marriage. The arguments against the latter were nearly identical. As for whether a technical majority do now, if not, it is very close, and certainly growing. Wow - seems like you really missed the point, which was probably on purpose. I said consenting adults. I wasn't comparing gay marriage to polygamy. There are people who base their arguments for gay marriage under the premise that the government has no right to privilege one type of relationship between consenting adults over another. This is most often the logic behind the "right to marry whomever they choose" argument. This is a very strange argument to use for a couple of reasons. Even if gay marriage is the law of the land, there will still be a legal and social consensus behind granting the government the power to restrict the legal privileges of marriage to certain, very tightly defined arrangements, and the government will therefore still be in the business of deciding what kind of consensual relationships amongst adults that it wants to grant legal recognition to. This is something far different than the government being entirely agnostic on this matter, so the government will still be translating a set of arbitrary "values" and norms into law on this realm. This set of values will still say a lot about what kind of consensual relationships between adults that society thinks are most valuable and legitimate. What gay people are asking for is not for the government to completely remove itself from the role of determining which consensual relationships between adults get legal sanction, what they are asking for is for the government to grant same sex-unions of two people the same legal status that they currently extend to male-female unions involving two people. This is something entirely different than the government playing no role whatsoever in the matter and serving as a rubber stamp for any domestic arrangement that consenting adults care to organize themselves into. A better argument for gay marriage should frame the debate not in terms of changing the rules, or government getting out of the rule-making business in this arena all together, but extending the current set of rules so that it the existing law that arbitrarily privileges unions of two people over all other arrangements also includes two people of the same sex.

One of the things that I like about the Catholic Church is that they have no problem saying "Sorry - that actually isn't a valid interpretation of the Bible." This is not because I think that they are correct, but it least it corrals irrationality into channels defined by tradition, which puts a brake or two on the proliferation of Branch Dividians, etc.

Actually, I don't subscribe to any of your assertions. And your example of gun control, which I personally couldn't give a damn about, is dated. The Democrats in general have largely abandoned that as an issue out of shear necessity. Your confuse the actual definition of terms like "moral values" with its connotative meaning in the public sphere. When that term is used in public, political speech, it connotes a specific agenda put forth by the religious right. I object to intrusions on privacy and personal choice from the left as well. As conservatives in power have become more radical, however, they are fewer and farther between these days. Simply put, I believe government should be neutral regarding religion, as stated in the constitution. I believe that everyone should have an equal right to marry whom they choose. I believe that the government should stay out of our private lives and personal choices. The religious right does not believe these things, and therein lies my objection. And BTW, for those who are logically challenged, stating that non-christians object to a religious right agenda does not imply anything at all about christians who do not fall into that category. Dated or not, gun control is an issue that has moral/conviction-based dimensions for both sides. As far as "the equal right to marry whomever they choose," is concerned - as someone else said that is a fairly vast oversimplification that virtually no one would support in practice. While everyone would restrict the right to marry to consenting adults, no one is out there campaigning for a complete libertarian free for all. I think that all gay people want is for the government to extend the rights that are associated with a male-female union consisting of two persons to be extended to legal unions of any two consenting adults. Ask many of them whether or not they'd like to include polygamy in the realm of legal relationships that they'd like to have elevated to the same status, and they'd probably tell you that they are actually fine with the government denying groups of 3, 4, 5, 6, or 26 consenting adults the marital rights that they want for themselves. There are a bunch of practical reasons for this, but I would imagine that a significant number of gay couples who want the right to marry would also express some moral reservations about the government sanctioning martial arrangements like those that prevail in Colorado City, Arizona.

I've been pretty amazed by the abdication of this turf via the wholesale rejection of anything that has the word "moral' in it. Some kind of "Here's our "moral values" and this is why we support position X, position Y, etc." and a Blair-Clintonesque policy stance would probably be much more effective in terms of generating a coherent agenda that a large portion of the electorate could get behind. I don't think that it's necessarily a case that one side is completely neutral with respect to the manner in which people conduct their private lives. You may feel like gun control, for example, is a completely morally neutral issue - but there are plenty of people who feel as though this is a massive intrusion into their private lives. You may not agree with them on this one, but I think it's easy to assume that because a particular law or policy is in synch with your own viewpoint, it is by default un-intrusive and morally neutral.

Word is the river's been run at 77,000cfs before. Footage, people, footage....

I personally think that it's largely a semantic issue that kind of got reframed by an inapt buzzword. If the analysis had been framed in terms of people voting in a manner that's consistent with their "convictions" rather than "moral values" I think this would have been more accurate. I think that the Left considers most of their policy positions to be as grounded in a set of moral values that they are just as passionate about as the folks on the right, so the notion that ones sense of morals should play a major role in determining how one votes is or should be confined to the realm of crazy-ass backwoods irrationality is mistaken, IMO.

There's some footage of the main rapid on the Sky on Saturday here - at 15,000 CFS which made me want to hurl: http://www.professorpaddle.com/mediaview.asp?mediaid=573&riverid=586 It's currently at 71,700cfs and may peak a bit higher. Anyone out that way that'd care to take some pics? This is a level where it wouldn't be surprising to see double-wides getting recirculated in surreal hydraulics.

I am not sure that this would actually happen. I recall hearing someone interviewed on NPR who did some research after the '04 election and said that the effect of this issue on Republican turnout was dramatically overstated. And - unless the Democrats veer fairly dramatically to the center, much to the consternation of their own fringe base - anyone who is in charge of setting the agenda for the Republicans can essentially say - "Where you gonna go? To the party of 'The Daily Kos' and Al Sharpton?" and essentially take that portion of the vote for granted, or at least in the cheap seats.

Where's, like, the Big Lebowski, man?

I also have a kind of vain hope that this will lead the Republican leadership to rethink or at least substiantially modify the gay fixation and recast their thinking along more libertarian lines on this issue, which I think is both wrongheaded and destined to become an ever greater electoral liability as time goes one. More Von Hayek, less Von Fallwell.

I don't think that you have to be a personal admirer of the guy or his message or believe that it amounts to anything terribly significant relative to his catalog of faults - but in the realm of Evangelical Implosion the precedent has been to divert the blame and responsibility onto Satan, Tammy Faye's eyeliner, or whatever - but at least this guy's apology has the minor merit of confining blame and responsibility to himself. One could hope that a consequence of the fact that he put it all on himself rather than Satan et al would be that it might cause the folks in his congregation to re-examine some of their convictions instead of concluding that they need to barricade themselves further away from the society that they've been pointing fingers at and doing their best to isolate themselves from - but that's probably not terribly likely.

Looks like Haggard's final statement to his church is up. http://www.newlifechurch.org/TedHaggardStatement.pdf Not renouncing his beliefs - which will probably surprise, dissapoint, and outrage most people - but at least he's not blaming anyone or anything else for his actions.

When I was in the fourth grade I can recall being upset that I was too young to cast a vote for Reagan. Casting what may literally be the single vote against Kennedy in my district will provide some small measure of consolation after all of these years.

Yup.

The creation of this software could be the John Henry moment for untold numbers of literary academics. "Nihilism and the semantic paradigm of consensus" "The Consensus of Dialectic: Semantic discourse and rationalism." "The Forgotten Door: The postcapitalist paradigm of discourse in the works of Gibson." "The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this Link . If you liked this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page."

I think that single pitch-trad climbing on routes that are a challenge for me is just about as good as it gets, which might be why I think that "The Bend" at Tieton might be my all-time favorite place to climb. Love that place. Long moderate routes with a mix of slab and crack climbing, and long ridge routes in the alpine are close seconds, though.

Hahahaha. Definitely wins the "Avatar of the Month" awards, Bill. I'm sure that Pastor Ted would appreciate it if someone send him a complimentary copy of that catalog.

Interesting article, but at times the writing is so overwrought that the author must have had to do some tai chi and reach for his inhaler between paragraphs. Colorado Springs....the poor man's Salt Lake City.

A Harper's article from 2005 that I saw linked elsewhere contains an interesting passage describing the decor inside the Haggart MegaChurch: "After church, I walked across the parking lot to the World Prayer Center, where I watched prayers scroll over two giant flat-screen televisions while a young man played piano. The Prayer Center—a joint effort of several fundamentalist organizations but located at and presided over by New Life—houses a bookstore that when I visited was called the Arsenal (its name has since been changed to Solomon's Porch), as well as “corporate” prayer rooms, personal “prayer closets,” hotel rooms, and the headquarters of Global Harvest, a ministry dedicated to “spiritual warfare.” (The Prayer Center's nickname in the fundamentalist world is “spiritual NORAD.”) The atrium is a soaring foyer adorned with the flags of the nations and guarded by another bronze warrior angel, a scowling, bearded type with massive biceps and, again, a sword. The angel's pedestal stands at the center of a great, eight-pointed compass laid out in muted red, white, and blue-black stone. Each point directs the eye to a contemporary painting, most depicting gorgeous, muscular men—one is a blacksmith, another is bound, fetish-style, in chains—in various states of undress. My favorite is The Vessel, by Thomas Blackshear, a major figure in the evangelical-art world.[2] Here in the World Prayer Center is a print of The Vessel, a tall, vertical panel of two nude, ample-breasted, white female angels team-pouring an urn of honey onto the shaved head of a naked, olive-skinned man below. The honey drips down over his slab-like pecs and his six-pack abs into the eponymous vessel, which he holds in front of his crotch. But the vessel can't handle that much honey, so the sweetness oozes over the edges and spills down yet another level, presumably onto our heads, drenching us in golden, godly love. Part of what makes Blackshear's work so compelling is precisely its unabashed eroticism; it aims to turn you on, and then to turn that passion toward Jesus. " Or a meth-fueled cornholeathon, apparently. Harper's Article from 2005

Aha...registered there under the same name, but haven't posted more than once since the exile began. ScottH is a good friend of mine who you may or may not have run into. Snap some photos of BD and post them at pp if you get the chance - I've always wanted to see that thing when it's roaring. I've heard of people running it at 55K, but I don't think I'd want much to do with it unless it was about 11X lower. Word.