I saw the same thing on the west side tonight. I assume those bright “stars“ are planets. Does anyone know?

> That said, the reason why we don’t discern between The Church and The Followers is simple

Who is “we”?

Edited to add: I apologize if I offended you. It was not my intent. I was responding to your “f-off” post, read my comments in that context. I have spent some years as a GAL for children, many of whom have been abused or neglected. I have friends who have been abused. I think we, as a society, have made little progress in dealing with sexual child abuse and behavioral health issues as preventative or remedial treatment. And while the Catholic abuse scandal has unique characteristics, it is inaccurate to view it in isolation. Rather, it is part of a larger social and behavioral health problem. Criminal prosecution is essential, but we need to provide funding for treatment as well. As aweful as abuse by Catholic priests is/was, it is only a small percentage of total sexual child abuse incidents. 1 in 10 children are sexually abused, mostly by people in their household or by other relatives. Many more children are subject to physical violence or neglect. (And don’t get me started on lack of funding for addiction treatment.) So I think we are arguing over color of the guillotine.

I am not responding further to the gentleman.

First, 35.5% of the people in Washington are religious (attend church), of which the largest group, 12.2% are Catholic. That is about 4.3%. I think the next largest church is LDS/Mormon. But Catholics vote in higher numbers than average. (Google checked.)

Second, there is a history of discrimination against Catholics (both as a religion and based on ethnicity) in Washington state. I am old enough to remember when my father applied for a job with a public school district in the late 60s, and the issue of “whether we want to give that job to a Catholic” was discussed by the local school board at a public meeting. Pejorative remarks were pretty common in some, but not all, communities before 1970. The Klu Klux Klan was very active in the PNW (WA and OR) in the first half of the 1900s, and burned a cross on the lawn of a local state legislator who happened to be Catholic. Signs saying “No Irish Need Apply” were code for “No Catholic Need Apply”. For this reason, I think practicing Catholics are somewhat alert to how their legislators vote in issues that are specifically directed to Catholics. On social media like Reddit there are a lot of comments about the Catholic Church which do not distinguish between the parishioners, and work done by Catholic hospitals, housing, mental health and addiction treatment on one hand, and abusive priests on the other hand. 4.3% of a high percentage voting block is enough to get a legislator’s attention, especially if they are aware of the sensitivity of those voters to past discrimination.

I am in no way minimizing the actions of abusive ministers, priests, or Boy Scout leaders. Twenty years to life would be a fair prison sentence. But anyone involved in sexual child abuse cases on a professional level can pinpoint the moment the realized, in shock, how prevalent it was. I do not think we have really developed a systematic way to deal with the problem, or fund the solution, that is accepted and understood on a broad scale. We tend to deal with individual cases when when they affect someone we know. About 1 in 7 girls and 1 in 25 boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18.

Yes, that is true. But confession is about past offenses. Should lawyers be required to report past child abuse offenses of their clients that are unknown to the police? Mandatory reporting is about past offenses, as well as ongoing offenses. Why make priests obligated to report past cases of abuse, but not make the perpetrators’ lawyers also obligated to report on their clients’ undiscovered past crimes? I’m just saying that the situation is more complex than the article discussed. It did not delve into the distinction between past offenses and other offenses. And spouses?

I am Catholic. I am disgusted at how the church hierarchy has handled sexual child abuse in the past. The church now has its own mandatory reporting protocol, and I favor mandatory reporting for everyone as a general rule. However, the issue of privilege is complex. Washington has a clergy penitent privilege, a spousal communication privilege, an attorney client privilege, and a doctor patient privilege. If a sexual child abuser sees a psychiatrist for help, should the psychiatrist be required to report communications made in the course of treatment? If so, no one will be seeking help. The clergy penitent privilege normally requires the communication to be made in the course of a formal confession recognized as a religious practice, and not a casual conversation. In the Catholic Church confession is a formal ritualized sacrament in which the priest may not reveal the communication to anyone. The penitent is anonymous at their discretion. I doubt that priests will be reporting such communications regardless of the law due to inability and obligation of confidentiality. And in most cases, they won’t even know who is making the statement given the anonymous nature of confession. So elimination of the privilege will, at most, discourage abusers from talking about their compulsion. I don’t see a net benefit in eliminating the privilege. Moreover, what about the other privileges? Lawyers reporting on their clients? Psychiatrists? I think the complexities of the issue are lost in the offhand derogatory comments about the Catholic Church. Of course, no privilege exists if the reports are made by third parties such as parents or pediatricians, or victims. Please note that I am as pissed as anyone about how stupidly and wrongly the church hierarchy handled reports as everyone else making comments. It would take me 10 pages to discuss the failures of the church. But the comments, in general, are superficial and the article is not accurate. This issue deserves better reporting.

TL,DR: In the Catholic Church confession is anonymous. But we can make lawyers report on their clients.

Battery life is about 10 days with minimized settings and an unobstructed view of the sky. I wore it on my pack for a climb of Shuksan, and used about 10%. It also has better satellite connectivity than the Mini1. And it seems very durable in an outside environment. I did not feel like I had to baby it. Just set it and forget it. (I have shattered phone screens in my living room and broken a camera on my first use of it, before I even took it out of my backpack.) and it works with the Garmin messaging app. Text messages from your phone to the M2 are seamless. However the messaging software on the M2 itself is terrible. The software interface for the system settings is also aweful. But you can do a lot of it on your cell phone. You really need a cell phone to get 100% use of the Mini.

Have the new “mini2”. It has better battery life. I didn’t want to spend the money, but I think it was a group decision.

I purchase the new Garmin Inreach Mini about 2 months ago. It is $400. A year of service is +/- $125 for the cheapest plan. There is little cell service in my local National park. I can send text messages and my location with accuracy and reliability to a friend. I have not had reason to contact emergency services, but I don’t doubt that it will work just as well.

The main advantages of the Garmin over an iPhone is that the Garmin is bombproof, and it has 10 days of battery life. It has survived impacts, scratches, and exposure that would kill my phone . It’s a really tough piece of hardware. I clip it to the outside of my pack and forget about it. I have been to some rugged places in adverse weather with it clipped on the outside of my pack.

I love the iOS interface, Apple iPhones and iPads. if Apple makes an iPhone with similar ruggedness and battery life, that would be my preference. Until then…

When I was 17, I took time off and rode my road bike down to Astoria and back around the OP, camping on the beach at Kalaloch. Free camping on the beach in 1971. Best teenage trip ever. I think the OP is the last best place.

That is true based on the number of red and blue counties, but not based on population. Though most counties may be “red” the majority of the population tends to vote “blue”. King county has enough blue votes to often control close state wide races. So in general WA is currently a safe blue state for statewide races and the presidential election.

Of course, there are exceptions. And a non-Trump, moderate Republican with a proven track record has a shot if they can get through the primaries.

I miss the Evans and Spellman days of the Republican Party. But they would never get the nomination today.

Baker Lake Road and Cascade River Road have some views that are accessible to a larger camera crew, with short side roads to USFS camps.

Thunder Creek Trail from campground to bridge.

Baker River trail and foot bridge over Baker River.

Deception Pass of course.

South Skagit Highway, and other roads on the South side of the Skagit from Woolley to Marblemount.