mattp

If your partner likes hiking (they call it tramping), there are a number of pretty cool hikes that are well worthwhile, and the volcano partk on the North Island has a good two or three day trip with hot springs near one of the huts, whereas the S. island has more remote and venturesome stuff.

Erie is totally worth the drive. It is beautiful, and the climbing is pretty good, too. Definitely a gem.

I'd like to hear what rednose thinks about who has made money from all of this and whether that may have influenced policy decisions. It'd be cool if Fairweather hadn't quit the discussion too. I'm serious: do you guys think those who pull the strings are not in it for the money?

There are some who argue that WAS their goal. Instability would justify long term military presence and the really wanted that new fort right in the southern Iraq oil fields that nobody is talking much about, and taking the Iraqi oil off the market be contributing to record high oil profits, while they are saving the Iraqi oil for a rainy day. Meanwhile, Congress and the American public are so preoccupied with the mess in Iraq that they've managed to build popular support for all kinds of consolidated power in the President's lap, they've gutted all kinds of environmental laws, and they continue to pursue tax reform for the wealthy -- all the kinds of things that help fill the bank accounts of their main supporters. I am generally suspicious of conspiracy theories, but it is undeniable that a lot of money is being made by Halliburton and the oil companies and Bush is not really getting much criticism for acting like king.

A not insignificant percentage still believes Iraq attacked us on 911, too, but as recently as a year ago that percentage was much larger. And plenty believe Clinton was ignoring the terrorist threat while Bush was all on top of things before 911. A bit of Congressional inquiry may help clarify the reality there (though of course it may not). American public ignorance aside, it is clear that this administration has lied at virtually every step of the way with regard to Iraq, and they've been pursuing goals that have had very little to do with fighting terrorism, is it not?

The Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General produced the report which indicates that former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, and his Office of Special Plans, sent the Bush administration bogus intelligence on Iraq's weapons program and ties to terrorist organizations and basically supports the message in the Downing Street Memo: the fact were being twisted around the policy of invading Iraq. Michigan’s Senator Levin says this is a “damning” revelation (as if it is anything new at all - ( 2004 Levin report ), and a White House spokesman says that Bush has taken responsibility for this and made appropriate corrections in intelligence procedures. On the radio this morning, it was reported that Feith has been cleared of any criminal conduct connected with any of this. Should it be a crime to twist the intelligence to support a public campaign to launch a war? Bush committed a felony when he lied in his state of the union address, and Cheney probably did too at some point, but what about this?

That's part of my point, Tvash. People who have a relationship with each other understand the context for comments about not masturbating in the lift line or taking a break from the snow angels; the same kind of comments from someone they don't know or offered in a different context might not be quite as comfortable. I agree that we often become dogmatic and sometimes stray into the realm of the ridiculous in the name of "sensitivity" or "civility" but I think there is a reason some here have commented that jokes about retards are generally not funny.

I agree. Just as with "ethnic humor," I think the politically correct sensibility is overdone at times and a joke should just be a joke -- and I even got a grin out of the post that kicked this discussion off. However, this kind of thing can be very hurtful and there is a real reason that so many people have decided that certain words, perjorative humor, or stereotype images are taboo. This applies equally whether taking swipes at retards or ragheads. The context is important, too: comments between climbing partners who understand each other's humor and values may be viewed differently than posts to a public bulletin board that are going to be read by people you don't really know. There are probably equally amusing and certainly more clever ways to take swipes at each other around here.

Don't take it too badly, gforce. Bashing on Christians around here is kind of like bashing on the Mountaineers: some of us have real reasons for criticizing those groups but as much as anything else it is just sport and when it comes to a good old cc.com bait-and-bash, he who posts the most offensive jab is the one having the most fun. Buried in all of that have been some decent points, though.

I used to think Starbucks coffee was the best. It really WAS a huge experience, every grande coffee I drank. I give them credit for turrning the whole notion of what coffee should be around. But that happened 15 years ago. Now, I don't really think their coffee is all that great. I have not been to Mikky D's for a while, but last time I was there I thought it WAS as good as a cup of joe at Starbucks. I guess I'm not the Starbucks demographic.

For general mountaineering and ski mountaineering, I like a pair of wool liner gloves with rubber knobs on them for grip. These alone are sufficient most of the time when I am hiking or skiing or climbing uphill (sometimes even these are too warm). A separate insulating mitten (again, I prefer wool over synthetic and I really like the dachsteins but I know some people prefer synthetic because it dries faster) and shell complete my standard rig. Sometimes I used just the liner glove, I add the shell over it for a bit more warmth, and change to the mittens w/shell when it gets cold. If you may be rapelling, get shell gloves with a leather palm but, if not, don't (they dry more slowly). This system has the advantage of having two insulating layers available in case I get one wet and, because it all comes apart, I can dry it in my sleeping bag or over the wood stove in a hut. This isn't such a good set up for ice climbing or technical climbing where you need warmer gloves and greater dexterity for handling gear.

Is this one of those where bolts come right after cruxy moves? If so, might somebody have been trying to bolt these things in a fashion that prevents climbers from cheating and grabbing a bolt?

I'm with Blake. Undercover is pretty good. I thought that was the more common way to climb zig zag and was surprised when Dallas' book came show it as it does.

That was your intent, was it not? And look at all the fun we've had. See you again tomorrow?

Yo Trog: how is the lamp for trying to look 50 yards ahead of you in the woods, or scanning a cliff band in the dark? Easy to use with gloves and well balanced sounds good - and I assume it does not turn on in your pack. Correct? How long do the batteries last? I've not yet found a headlamp that seems to do what I want: shine long distances ahead, perform reliably, last several hours on a single set of batteries, decline to turn on in your pack, and not weigh a ton. Finally they seem to be selling lamps that don't turn on accidentally (it only took 50 years to develop this technology), but what about the other qualities? Anything I've seen compromises on at least one of the factors.

That could be, but when I was a pup we had a kennel full of Siberian Huskies and always one or two of them were house dogs. We also always had at least one cat in the house. Never did a dog hurt the cat. The cat swiped a dog on the nose once in a while, but that was about it. However, one of our dogs once got loose and killed a neighbor's sheep. This dog was a top dogshow winner and produced an offspring who later won the biggest dogshow in the country, and by law it could have been killed. We shipped it out of the state immediately, to avoid any question of it's being put down. I don't know if the dog was ever allowed around sheep after that (I hope not), but I don't think there were any further problems. As I understood it at the time, once they get the "bloodlust" a dog is indeed a hazard toward other animals. That is why the laws provide for killing aggresive dogs as they do. But I'm not sure killing cats is a pre-programmed certainty, and I'm not sure that a single incident is for sure a predictor of future behavior. Not in my experience, anyway. Siberian Husky's are cool dogs. You gotta be able to let 'em run every day (though if they get loose they may run 30 miles and get lost), and they really like sledding, but they are cool dogs and I don't think they are cat killers. They'll eat your shoes and wreck your house if you leave them shut inside, though.

Looks good Darin! For those who may be interested in Big Four, take a look at the summit shot here and you'll see why the descent from Big Four to the NW is a little complicated and not entirely a straight forward hike down to the saddle with Hall Peak.

What if the first ascensionists bolted their way up a cliff that had what you deem ample cracks for pro?

This has been an interesting discussion. One small point I agree with is that much of this seems to have a lot to do with our unstated or perhaps more accurately rarely stated and generally downplayed alliance with Saudi Arabia. What is up with that? Yes, everybody knows that the Bush family and the Saudi’s are best buddies, and we’ve all read about how their family members had special flying privileges after 911, or how almost all of the 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia or how Saudi money is funding much of the Sunni side in current Iraq battles, but rarely is any of this highlighted in any fashion where we would be expected to really think about it. Saudi Arabia is a big player in all of this but I wonder if anybody outside of a very small circle of advisors who are discussing these matters in secret is really much aware of or concerned with their role in any of this. Obviously, the ongoing conflict in Iraq cannot be boiled down to any one simple idea except perhaps “who is going to maintain a military base right next to the most productive oil fields,” but isn’t there an element of a proxy war between Iran and Saudia Arabia at play here? Are we, in some respects, a pawn in THEIR game? Do the Saudi's promote terrorism and instability as much or more than Iran?

Say what? Your post kicking this off is example number one of obfuscation and diversion. Given the way discussions go around here, and your frequent role in slamming the miserable and pathetic excuses for human beings you see in the whiny liberals on this board, you can only have hoped for the reaction to be some critique of Christianity and a bandstand for you to go on your soapbox about how secular humanism is devoid of human spirit or whatever your point may be. It was an intersting post, though the main point I can draw from it is that there are some freaks who do weird and potentially dangerous things in the name of religion.

Say what? Your post kicking this of is example number one of obfuscation and diversion. Given the way discussions go around here, and your frequent role in slamming the miserable pathetic excuse for a human being you see in the whiny liberals on this board, you can only have hoped for the reaction to be some critique of Christianity and a bandstand for you to go on your soapbox about how secula humanism is devoid of human spirit or whatever your point may be. It was an intersting post, though the main point I can draw from it is that there are some freaks who do weird and potentially dangerous things in the name of religion.

Trip, if you can "maybe see their point," it sounds to me as if you may be weighing some of the questions Off White mentioned. We could argue who is the hard man in the house or who is "old fashioned," or whether this or that style is respectful of nature, or whatever we want but at the end of the day nobody should lose sight of the fact that all of this is a game, and we are talking about what constitutes "fair means" toward playing that game. Here's a piece I wrote in the Northwest Mountaineering Journal. Historical Perspective Most, though not all of us, will agree that as the first ascensionist you have significant rights to dictate whether added bolts stay or go.

In addition to reading that Clinton and not Bush is to blame for 911, we read here that we could have won the war in Vietnam if only the American public had the stomach for real war and had not been swayed by the liberal media. This is an interesting assertion, one I hear from time to time in right wing or militaristic diatribe, but is it true? Here’s an interesting article that I think suggests we might have won the war in Vietnam but not likely, and certainly not at a justifiable cost. It is a lot more complicated than that, and the discussion is both long and complex, so read it yourself: U.S. Army War College

By the way, I note with interest the recurring argument among those who advocate for stronger military efforts that Clinton is in some way more responsible for 911 than is Bush. Where do these guys get this stuff? The first Trade Center bombing came early in Clinton's term. Under his administration they caught the perpetrator and sent him to jail. They identified Bin Laden as a bad guy and shot missiles at him - missing him by a few hours - and were criticized for doing so not out of concern for terrorism but for political movations in trying to distract the public from Monica Lewinski. His administration put forth all kinds of proposals to try to cut off funding for terrorist groups, increase intelligence efforts, and join with our allies in fighting terrorism. These efforts were largely if not primarily blocked by Republicans. The Bush team has admitted that their terrorism task force didn't even get started before 911, and Bush's reaction to the August 2001 memo warning that terrorists were probably intent on an attack in the US is legendary. And no: I am not a big fan of Bill Clinton. Or his wife.

Lets not lose sight of the fact that the Democrats have been worse than worthless in all of this. Anybody who was reading the newspaper and paying attention to what appeared on page 10 rather than just the headlines knew that we were going into Iraq on false pretenses and there was a high likelihood we were not going to win in the aftermath. Maybe you liked the “for us or against us” cowboy schtick, but these two conclusions were inescapablly clear before we invaded. All of that stuff that has come out in the last year or two about how the intelligence was manipulated was in the newspapers back then, and the stories of how the Bush team sacked military leaders who warned them about their poor war plan were in the papers, too. As much as I distrust American politics, the change in political tide -- even if temporary -- is compelling. This may or may not turn out to be more of the same partisan jockeying. Will anybody, Democratic or Republican or WhateverParty, actually find the courage to speak up and press for real accountability whether or not it is calculated to win their reelection? Rambo III was on TV the other night and I didn't watch it but I heard that the trainer guy was saying to a Russian: “We’ve had our Vietnam – we won’t make that mistake again.” Well, clearly we have. Now are we as a nation ready for some real reflection? I've argued that prosecution of high level officials responsible for getting us into this mess is probably an important part of any effort toward reflection and a real change in course. It may not be essential but it is probably important. And I don't just mean finding a colonel somewhere to hold out to dry: the orders to engage in widespread torture on at least four continents came from the top of the chain of command - not mid-level. But it is certainly not sufficient, nor will it necessarily change a thing, to impeach the president or try somebody like Donald Rumsfeld for war crimes.