tvashtarkatena

I agree. And face it, the people that care the most about this will be better served - you can seek out the foods labeled "GMO-free", and companies can cater to you. The rest of us will just ignore the "GMO inside" labels. I agree. No 1st Amendment clusterfuck required. I might have just voted for this bowser cuz lots of my cool friends are and Monsanto Is Bad and PCC is Good (I'm not joking - one women posted "If I522 is bad, why are all these companies supporting it? LOL", but the religiousity of its supporters and lack of specifics as to why, exactly, they think this specific law will make the world a better place caused by to research it further. Not a single farming organization has endorsed 522. Do they all just suck, or might they have legitimate concerns, as I do? On the flip side, plenty of individual organic farms have. Fine - their free to add a GMO FREE label anytime they like. Two solutions - one costly to the public and smaller businesses, complicated, and mandatory, the other completely voluntary. Both do exactly the same thing - allow consumers who give a rip to choose GMO free products. Hmmm....is this a trick question?

I've decided to vote NO for the following reasons: 1) "The First Amendment requires the government not only to state a substantial interest justifying a regulation on commercial speech, but also to show that its regulation directly advances that goal." I522 doesn't even come close to doing this. Given that the smoking warning requirement in WA was just struck down based on this flaw, I don't see I522 - which has a far weaker case than smoking, will survive a 1st Amendment challenge. Had I522's authors not overstepped their bounds in requiring a new warning label rather than an addendum to existing food labeling, it might have squeeked past a constitutional challenge. This won't, and it will be a huge waste of money and time until it is inevitably kilt in court. 2) I522 is unfunded in a time of huge deficits. It also has no GMO testing provision. 3) Factory food producers will simply slap a generic "May Contain Some GMO" labell on everything - just like the peanut thing, but smaller business will disproportionately suffer under the cost and (very high) penalty burden. 4) This labeling will hurt WA farmers who export to GMO free or restricted nations, not help them. 5) Finally, we already have an Organic designation for folks who want to eat healthier food. I would love to see a shift towards more sustainable, healthier food production, but I can't get from A to B regarding why this is one of the best approaches to doing that, particularly WA's budgetary triage right now. I will vote no. My friends may scream a bit, but that's the way of it. I have other reasons, but the first one is a fatal error - and probably one that could have been avoided had the proponents of this thing not overreached. They had no excuse to do so - given that the initiative's CA predecessor died, in part, because it, too, probably would have been ruled a 1st Amendment violation because it attempted to regulate the word 'natural'. To date, no one has given me a credible reason to vote for it, other than Monsanto is bad. Well, there are principles and there are players. The NAZIs are bad, but they still get to march. That Monsanto is against this and PCC is for it does not make it good policy. I522 isn't IMO. I522 will cost a lot of money, despite being unfunded, have little to no real positive effect, have many unintended consequences for smaller healthy food producers, and be quickly killed in court. In a state with a huge deficit and many other more worthy projects to work on, this one doesn't even come close to making the cut.

I've been to the respective main websites, read the initiative, but would love to hear at least on farmer's perspective, as well as other viewpoints. I'm familiar with the whole Roundup Ready crop thing, and the problems with our factory food production. I'm still left wondering what the positive impact is supposed to be here and whether or not its worth the cost. I'm also wondering what that cost - to industry, consumers, and the state, will be. Haven't been able to find an estimate (the Sec of State's estimate is what I'm looking for. This is the best analysis of the initiative I've been able to find so far (it's against): linky I have not been able to find a similar quality 'for' analysis to date. Would love to read one.

Pete, I like you, but you bicker for the sake of bickering and rarely take the risk of adding substantively to any discussion. You don't bother to read my posts before commenting on them (if you had, you'd realize I just made the very same point you did) You've become boring and predictable, but I sense you could offer a lot more with your smarts and sense of humor. It would be cool to see more of you and less of the tit for tat. Hell, we could even go on a trip sometime together. In a brave new world where FW and Tvash agree on something, this one seems easy. I love ya lots and hate ya little. For the record, I never fail to enjoy The Commander's posts. He's actually one of my faves. Just sayin...

Because the Death Stump is still heavily tatted up, looks OK from above, is way more visible than the 'good' tree, which is a brushy mess, perhaps? Or maybe we are, in fact, just morons. that's always a possibility. Also, we were descending the W Butt, not Dark Rythm. I looked for a bolt anchor to climbers left, but couldn't see one. I found it mid rap, but continued because the stump still looked OK from above. Um...not. Rest assured, after my next trip, the Death Stump will be a Death Memory. I"m going to ax murder the shit out of that thing, trundle it, blow it up, then burn it. It's so rotten excision shouldn't take long. Hope that doesn't ruin the character of the climb for anyone. Actually, Ivan's the far more experienced rock jock, although SuperBoy could probably catch up pretty quickly - he's not one to underestimate, I've found.

I'm going to gift it to you so you can call it a 'new' rope.

Jesus, Oleg, you still needed that cleared up?

Yes, ignoring a bad law is, actually, a tried and true way to eventually get rid of it. Sometimes whole states officially ignore a bad law. Toke, anyone? I mean, how else do you think bad shit gets changed, exactly? "We ask the nice federal government if they'd plaase change that bad, bad pot law." This is America, dood. Put yer fuckin' dukes up! I 502 was one big FUCK YOU to both the WA legislature for its inaction and the Feds lack of just about everything except guns and prisons. You gotta fight...for the right....

You should have seen the death stump we rapped off of prior to that. you probably know the one. OMFG. I called up to Josh "you may not like this much". He didn't. At all. I think we may have been the first idiots to use that thing in years. Overall, not our best descent day. We left no flake unturned. I'll come over if I'm in town - but I've been busy with other crap lately and I'm really itching to get out. I've probably got your address somewhere, but if you could help me find it....

1) As I stated, I don't know if the OR legislature gave Smith the power to ban smoking or not, it may have, so that's fine. If not, that's probably not fine. As for whether folks should be allowed to smoke at Smith - that hasn't been at issue in this discussion. If the proper entities use their LEGAL authority to do so, personally, I couldn't care less either way. 2) Relax. This is spray, where the ridiculous and the important intermingle on occasion. No one is conflating Smith with the Drug War in terms of impact - duh. They share underlying principles, however. and that is relevant to the discussion. That government often does not respect the rule of law while, at the same time, demanding compete obedience to same is a point well worth considering. That the government often passes unjust, counterproductive, or overly restrictive laws is another. If you'd care to address the points I've actually made, that'd be cool. Anything beyond that is all you, my brother. BTW, there is no '80s Drug War'. There is only the Nixon administration to present, and Bigger and Badder than Ever Before Drug War. The seeds of this war were planted long, long before that. Jesus - are there still folks out there who really believe the Drug War was a come and gone Reagan thing? Holy shitboxes.

More accurately, it's not clear to you...it is to just about everyone in the business, advocacy, political, or criminal justice. The AG has now officially agreed with my assertion, so you'll forgive me if I'm not terribly concerned about your carping sans counterpoint. I've grown used to that from you. The topic is important, however, so... Our per capita incarceration rate is nearly twice that of the next runner up - Russia, and over 7 times that of China, that bastion of civil rights. We are an extreme outlier worldwide. Contrast that with our violent and property crimes rates, which are not terribly different from other first world nations. Incarceration rates have continued to skyrocket despite significant drops in crime across the board in the past 2 decades. The Drug War (the main bulk of the rules I was referring to) has statistically been, by far, the major cause of this massive increase in prison population. Hence, the 'too many rules' assertion. Incarceration rate by year, United States This graph is based on DOJ data that is widely available, BTW. The Drug War has also been the primary excuse to pass numerous laws that erode the 4th and 5th amendments, remove judicial discretion, and increase sentences. The new direction the US is currently taking includes de-criminalization (fewer laws) , undoing mandatory sentencing (fewer laws), restoring judicial discretion, diversion programs for low level offenders to treatment rather than prosecution, restoration of convict rights after time is served to repair the damage done to so many lives, and a host of other policy shifts. It will take time. A long, long time. 41 years is a long time to suffer under such devastating policies. We've overused criminallzation (too many rules, and bad ones, at that) to solve societies ills - and it wound up doing far more damage than it repaired. The DOJ is finally acknowledging that - and that has a tremendous amount to do with the I 502 campaign (much of the DOJ's recent statements on the topic were lifted straight from 502's supporting arguments.) Exciting, but we have decades of work ahead to undo this civil rights clusterfuck we've created.

Ptobably mine. 10.5 x 60, blue grey, near the bottom of Dark Rythm. Sorry, meant to police it but never got back up there. We stuck it near sunset. We can wait until our next trip or I can pick it up from you at your convenience. Thanks, Stewart. Whats your beer brand these days?

Nobody said it was easy.

I thought it was closed to bikes part of the year. Rob/FW - Let me guys know if you are down for a november ride there... You're right. Didn't know that. That's my illegal camping/campfire season anyway, so it follows.

Tiger's open all year round, no?

I like the suggestion, but you're basically asking people to replace laws with morality. Never gonna happen. Plato played out this same thought exercise in The Republic about 2500 years ago and (some say) satirized its folly. I'm not a big fan of laws these days--particularly, like you say, laws for the sake of laws. Here in the US it's a popular expression to boast "we are a nation of laws!" This is, at the same time, admitting our failures since laws would be largely unnecessary in a moral society. It may never happen fully, but we can certainly walk in that direction. 'Zero tolerance' (Thanks, Gipper!) is another failed American idea that is still particularly popular with our nation's school marm set. Problem is, it has nothing to do with reality. I never thought a lot of things would happen - in my life, outside my life - but they have. The word 'inmpossible' so often comes with an assumed prediction of the future. The future is often a choice, however. How that choice is framed goes a helluva long way towards choosing wisely.

Clearly? Maybe we just have more criminals. I'm with you on the drug war is a failure, Pat, but I don't think its as simple as "less rules will solve our criminal justice problems." I mean, I doubt too many inmates in federal prison are locked up for smoking at Smith Rock State Park. Actually, your statement is not true at all. Half of inmates at all levels are in prison for non-violent drug offenses, and half of those are for marijuans. We DO lock people up for smoking - 800,000 of them, - more than the population of Seattle, is behind bars right now for inhaling a weed. America does have more criminals because it has criminalized far more behavior than any other nation. This may well be the only form of on-shore manufacturing that has flourished in recent years. Eric Holder just issued an incredible pair of memos outlining how we've gone wrong regarding the Drug War, and what prosecutors should focus on going forward to repair that. His assertions are right on the money and portend a stunning sea change away from our current period of massive government dysfunction. I'll see if I can find a link (mine's a hardcopy). We do, indeed, live in amazing times. Nothing in this world is simple, but many things are simpler than we are often led to believe.

@ Olev: high maintenance girlfriends? There's really no compelling reason why climbers should be denied the incredible experience of camping in the Monkey Cave in a zero impact fashion (and that would mean blue bags, of course). The Park has a no camping rule simply because it is more easily enforced - for them. This is pretty transparent to many climbers, so the rule loses its legitimacy. Its not entitlement - its having a brain. Laws which put people in jail for smoking a weed, prevent people from marrying who they love, and fund the killing of innocent people abroad all help to erode the legitimacy of government and authority. The argument is often framed as it is here - only citizens need to step up and obey the rules. Well, it works both ways. Government needs to step up and do things that actually make sense and promote the best of our values, not our worst. And government VERY OFTEN breaks the law, and when it does, it does so spectacularly and in a fashion far more damaging than any private citizen could manage. Surveillance anyone?

Two 'rules' are all that are needed, it seems to me: 1) leave a place as good or better than when you arrived. 2) Be mindful and considerate.

Discretion and consideration make the world a happier place. The more people practice them, the fewer rules we need. Given that we boast the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, America clearly has an overabundance of rules. And an overly stringent system of rules often creates more problems and pain than it solves. Rules tend to take on a life of their own - enforcing them, not the original objectives they were supposedly designed to achieve, becomes the focus. The Drug War comes to mind. When the system becomes baroque and ridiculous enough, the rule makers lose legitimacy and people default to doing their own thing. We've become enamored with the 'if only people would just obey the rules' concept, and overly vindictive against anyone who doesn't share this flawed, and frankly, dead end philosophy. What's really needed is a renewed cultural emphasis on consideration - towards nature and other park visitors. America has become the most narcissistic nation on earth - ("we're number 1! blah blah blah") Crowdsourcing (the only difference between this and panhandling is that the panhandler actually needs the money). Facebook ("I just made an omelette!"). We'd do well to step away from ourselves a bit and cast our gaze outward. More difficult to achieve, perhaps, but far more effective in achieving the end goal of making the park a better place. Pipe dream? Perhaps, but I've seen a lot of pipe dreams come true lately.

Rule of law goes both ways. Smiffy's ban on smoking is very likely illegal. Best not to get one's Pranas in a wad about minor law breaking - we all do it, and that includes Johnny Law. When the latter does it, however, there is always a victim.

A slippery slope argument is more compelling with supporting analogous data. The government spies on international communications, so we may suspect that they spy on domestic ones as well. In a data vacuum, such a tactic quickly becomes ridiculous. In a country of 300 million, we have zero via ferrata routes on public lands. I don't believe there has been any attempts to put any up, even. The US doesn't manage its lands the same way Europe does, and there is little indication that that philosophy, or the robust laws that put it into action, will change any time soon. So too, the 'single criterion' debate tactic used so commonly on forums like this. 'All climbers care about is convenience' is the one being used here. The debater then paints a future world where this is true - hotdog stands on top of El Cap, whatever. The problem with this tactic, of course, is that the single criterion model doesn't describe what is necessarily a much more complex reality. It also ignores any rule of law the would prevent such a world from coming into being. Unlike the slippery slope argument, which can make sense when supported by relevant analogous data, the 'single criterion' argument seldom produces anything other than one dimensional cartoon outcomes that can't actually happen. While these two tactics are often used in an attempt to make one's opponent appear wrong, dishonest, or ignorant, they invariably backfire when presented to an informed, critical audience such as this one. Politicians often combine these two flawed forms of argument to pump up an audience that is self-selected for their propensity to agree, regardless of what they are asked to agree with. In that non-critical, uninformed environment, these two tactics can be effective at gaining support.

resting up for the slackline

Cinnamon Toast Goldfish = FAIL Caramel Bugles = CRACK

The Smiff smoking ban might not survive a legal challenge unless the OR legislature has already granted its state parks statutory power to do so: http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/Stories/2013/Oct22/judg.html