mattp

President George W. Bush was scheduled to visit the Episcopal Church outside Washington as part of his campaign to restore his poll standings. Bush's campaign manager made a visit to the Bishop, and said to him "We've been getting a lot of bad publicity because of the president's position on stem cell research, the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, and the like. We'd gladly make a contribution to the church of $100,000 if during your sermon you'd say the President is a saint." The Bishop thought it over for a few moments and finally said, "The Church is in desperate need of funds and I will agree to do it." Bush showed up for the sermon and the Bishop began: "I'd like to speak to you all this morning about our President. George Bush is a liar, a cheat, and a low-intelligence weasel. He took the tragedy of September 11 and used it to frighten and manipulate the American people. He lied about WMDs and invaded Iraq for oil and money, causing the deaths of tens of thousands and making the United States the most hated country on earth. He appointed cronies to positions of power and influence, leading to widespread death and destruction during Hurricane Katrina. He awarded contracts and tax cuts to his rich friends so that we now have more poverty in this country, and a greater gap between rich and poor, than we've had since the Depression. He instituted illegal wiretaps when getting a warrant from a secret court would have been a mere administrative detail, had his henchmen lie to Congress about it, then claimed he is above the law. He has headed the most corrupt, bribe-inducing political party since Teapot Dome. The national surplus has turned into a staggering national debt, gas prices are up 55%, and vital research into global warming and stem cells is stopped cold because he's afraid to lose votes from some religious kooks. He is the worst example of a true Christian I've ever known. But compared to Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, George Bush is a saint."

May 6: Mt. Erie, near Anacortes, WA. The Mt. Erie Adopt-a-Crag is hosted by Solid Rock Climbers For Christ with Dallas Kloke heading up the effort. Contact: dallas dot kloke1 at verizon dot net May 13: Cushman Crags, near Hoodsport, WA. The Cushman Crags Adopt-a-Crag event will be hosted by The Alpine Experience, of Olympia. Contact: Robert Plankers, rob at alpinex dot com The Access Fund promotes Adopt-a-Crag events all around the nation. These upcoming events are planned for Western Washington.

Actually, I think he's referring to the eight-year Whitewater investigation. The current affair is based on allegations that somebody in the President's office actually did something wrong in the conduct of their duties there.

Jay seems to think we have done little to be ashamed of in our treatment of prisoners, but at least some people disagree. Press Release

As KJK pointed out, Chuck, Saddam certainly did provoke us. However, even before 911 and well before the run-up to the war, he knew he was on our "hit list" and his days were numbered anyway. Faced with that reality, his bellicose game of chicken may have seemed like his best play. And remenber: I don't know if KJK has recently said this or not but BushCo says it a lot and I've definitely read the misstatement on this board about how Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out. It was NOT Saddam who threw them out; Bush told them to clear out because we were going to bomb. Doing his dance, Saddam rattled his swords but also allowed the inspections full access. He tried the presidential palace thing as a dodge, but in the end he backed off on that ploy, if I remember correctly.

another link

Nooksak Tower is one of the coolest things around. Some people fear/complain about the rock, and it is definitely rotten, but it is sick for sure - a real spire that is surrounded by tumbling ice, and there is no easy descent. It is one of the harder to attain summits in the range yet not so far into the wilderness as some of the others mentioned here. It is, however, a lot more serious than you suggested when you wrote "mostly snow climbs with a bit of rock/exposure towards the top, but i'm okay with a few pitches of rock up to 5.7 or so."

No bait there, Peter. I think we more or less agree that the proper discussion should have been that the Administration thought there was a problem there which wasn't going to go away so we'd have to deal with it sooner or later. But apart from how you interpret statements that if we waited for proof we'd find that proof in the form of a mushroom cloud over Manhattan, didn't you see the same stories I did about how much of what they were trotting out as evidence was exaggerated at best? Wasn't that cause for just a little bit of skepticism? Did you think we couldn't wait any longer or just that it was time to invade if we were going to do it?

Now, I somewhat agree with this latest post from KK. We may now need to remain in at least somes capacity to fill the power vaccum we created (I'm not sure) and Saddam certainly didn't help matters any. However, I believe he is wrong that the liberal critics of the war were anything like in agreement that if sending in troops was bad, sending in more would have been worse. I recall many saying, before we invaded, that we should listen to our own generals and invade with far more troops if we were going to go in at all (remember the line about how we could win the war but we might well lose the peace?). And, in retrospect, it might well have proven MUCH cheaper that way. And, I'd have to add that you were not paying much attention if you actually believed, or were not at least a little bit skeptical of, the imminent threat line. The foreign press and the evil liberal media had plenty of stories about how the reports of Saddam's capabilities were being greatly exaggerated. Remember the stories about the aluminum tubes not being capable of use in a centrifuge? The missiles not having the capabilities reported? The complete lack of evidence of any nuclear weapons program? The fact that the Uranium purchase attempt had not happened? The fact that the alleged meeting between Iraqi officials and terrorists in Prague had never happened? And it was clear that we were enforcing a no fly zone so Saddam wasn't going anywhere. We had him surrounded by how many troops? And then, while the 911 hijackers were all from Saudi Arabia, Cheney was saying Iraq was behind the 911 attack every other day or so. This obvious lie lent a lot of credence to media reports that the imminent threat was being exaggerated, no? Didn't that, combined with the fact that George and friends started talking about targetting Iraq something like on September 12, 2001, and maybe before that, raise any questions in your mind?

KK: Iraq was stable, albeit a thorn in our side. Now it is far from stable and many if not most in any position to say so agree it is dangerously close to civil war. There were no terrorists in Iraq and now it is a hotbed for sure. All military experts who have commented on this say that we could or might have avoided this situation if Rumsefeld et al had listened to the generals and sent in enough troops to do the job. Virtually all our allies and much of the non-alligned world was ready to sign on to any U.S.- led war on terror. Now most of them are suspicious at best. This could have been avoided had our president and his men decided not to say insulting things about "old europe" and had they been willing to go along with the U.N. and waited for more inspection. The AbuGhraib and Guantanamo torture scandals did not help and they did not have to happen. There is less power, water and sanitary service in Iraq now than before. I'm not sure if the disruption in services could have been avoided but the reconstruction would have gone a lot better if we had enough troops on the ground to quell the insurrection afterward - at least from what I hear the administration is blaming the clumsy and slow reconstruction effort on that insurrection. I have not heard even Administration spokesmen deny that much if not most of the reconstruction $ has been managed poorly. The war has cost thousands of U.S. lives, and tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Sure, it could have gone worse. It hasn’t YET erupted into world war III, and U.S. casualties are only in the thousands, but how many fewer would have died if we had been content to let the U.N. and inspections continue? The Iraqi oil industry is set way back. Again, I don't know how much of htis could have been avoided but I bet reconstruction would be further along if we had done a better job of the whole thing. By all accounts, our military is severely strained by this war. Enlistment is almost certain to suffer for years to come, and a large number of our forces are tied down in Iraq for god knows how long. The monetary cost of this war has been staggering and many economists are saying the budget deficits may be creating a disaster for us. What meager percentage of the actual cost was forecast by the Administration before we went in? We were taken into Iraq on false pretexts, and we still don’t know why we are there. One thing is certain, though: the whole thing was optional in the first place. And, would you agree, we are LESS secure than we were when we went in? Where is the “average” part of all this?

CC.COM SPRING SKI EVENT Washington Pass, May 12-14, 2006. Camp in Mazama, ski at the pass. Fun. Directions to follow.

Nothing disingenuous about it, Mark. You and many others on this board who post under a screen name that has no relationship to their real name and provide no real contact information in their user profile. Some argue that everybody knows who they are but strangely they get extremely angry when anybody outs them by saying something like "crazy jizzy: that's Mark McKillop." Don't get me wrong: it is your right to post under a screen name. But don't go out of your way to attack me or anybody else BY NAME if you don't have the guts to sign your full name to every post where you do so. And if you DO attack somebody using their real name, don't complain if they use yours. By the way: Mark McKillop has made sure my name is all over this thread. I am Matt Perkins.

When exactly are you going?" I have a friend who is camping somewhere on the traverse as we speak. Maybe he'll be back Wednesday or Thursday.

You're right there, Mr. K. There are a lot of mountains in Washington and if two of them had huts on them, it would be worthwhile even from a strictly preservationist standpoint if that led to more active political support for wilderness preservation. As you note, even seven huts might be OK. (I acknowledge all of us are blindly speculating about what the impact might be - either in terms of comparative physical/biolocial impact or in terms of political repercussions impact but I could tell you as somebody already has about how a particular hut experience was HUGE in my early climbing/backpacking career). I've been accused of being "soft," as if that has something to do with the discussion here. Let me say: I am not shy about saying I AM soft. Hell, I usually carry TWO ridgrest pads! However, while I enjoy visiting huts and I like the hut "scene" once in a while, I primarily visit places without huts and I generally favor non-standard destinations over those in "Fifty Classic Climbs" or "Select Climbs" or whatever. I fully understand the sentiment of those who might say "why should there be a hut in my favorite basin.

You probably won't "need" them, Jerome but coming down, in particular, you may wish you had an axe and, particularly on a cloudy day, you might find an icy snow surface somewhere. If it is nice weather and a weekend, you will climb alongside kids in tennis shoes and climbers carrying an ax and crampons "just in case." In August, there will almost certainly be a trail or ten of good steps to follow or you can largely travel on the rocks where it is steep (few do, because it is kind of a mess). (I'm assuming you are asking about the standard "South Route.")

Fair enough, Ramsey. I'm not sure that would be the best location and I'm not committed to the idea that we NEED a hut anywhere, though I do think that if there were to be a hut anywhere in an alpine area in Washington, Colchuck Lake might be as good a location as any because, as you note, it is far from pristine Wilderness. It is also a very popular area already and a place that would be of interest to a variety of users. A question I have for those voicing their opposition: is there anywhere in the Cascades north of Snoqualmie Pass where you would favor a hut in an alpine or subalpine area? Maybe it is a bad idea altogether but is that what you are thinking? What do you think about some of the huts in Canada: Bugaboos, Lake Lovelywater, Wapta, etc. Have they been a bad thing? How about Ostrander in Yosemite? I've never been there.

OK, Mark. Now were talking. You are concerned with the visual impact of a hut and you state that those who enjoy Colchuck Lake as it is will not like the imposition of a hut. I'm not sure I agree with either point, but you DO give a reason. As to visual impact, I think one or two huts somewhere in the Cascades would be acceptable level of impact and as some have argued already in this thread: a given hut may even mitigate the environmental impact of dozens of tent platforms in an unplanned array which tend to be very close to streams and lakes. As to your friends at Colchuck Lake I wonder if you've taken a survey. Lots of people seem to LIKE huts. It would be different, for sure, and not everybody would like to see it, but many would. Does that make it "right?" Maybe so, maybe not. Does the fact that some of those or even most of those who visit a place now like it just as it is entitle them to say it should never change? Probably not. I don't think we'll likely ever see any new huts in the Canadian model. The Scottish Lakes and the huts down by Ashford illustrate that there is some viability in maintaining overnight huts for cross country skiing, but the type of huts we are talking about here would require government support or a highly organized and well funded club and a special relationship with the Forest Service that is not likely to happen for all kinds of reasons. It is still something worth dreaming about, though. By the way, in referring to "ASC" you were NOT 100% clear about who it was. American Ski Club? American Speed Climbers?

Mark McKillop (Jizzy) continues to try to bring a personal attack while posting under an anonymous avatar and declining to substantibely discuss whatever his issue may be. Is he concerned about recreational impact in general, or just at his favorite sites, or are climbers "too soft these days" or what? Does he think it is OK to enjoy the woods but not the alpine areas? Is there some reason why a place is more suited to building a modern hut if there was a wreck of a miner's cabin there 25 years ago? His position is unclear. I believe that a variety of options and access scenarios is appropriate, and I think that the fabulous huts in the Bugaboos or the Wapta Icefields, or closer to home in the Coast Range are indeed pretty cool. Practical in terms of cost and upkeep? Maybe not. Everywhere? Certainly not. But I'm in favor of discussing options and I think a well placed hut would be appreciated by many people and would not constitute an assault on nature if properly implemented. There are a lot of mountains in Washington. Would it be the worst thing in the world if two of them had a popular hut facility above timberline (there is currently one in place on Mount Rainier).

I think the user above who referred to Cerise Creek assumed that the hut DOES draw increased use, and that may well be so. I am sure there are people out there who would not be willing to camp out - especially in the winter - who are drawn to the hut.

Why would you want a "mountain hut" in a low-land valley? I can understand the appeal of the old Chalet in the Quinault, and I've enjoyed a weekend at the Ross Lake Resort, but a mountain hut really has to be in an alpine area or a subalpine area to be a mountain hut. And, in my opinion, it should be in a location where there is good skiing and climbing nearby, and a place that is easily and safely reached in a half-day or so from the car. I thought of those two locations as places where I might actually prefer camping restricted more than it currently is, but they are places where people might go and see real mountains without being real mountain climbers, and climbers would benefit as well. I'd probably only vote for one or two such facilities in the entire North Cascades area, but I think it might be a plus to have that one or two. Maybe you have a bug or maybe something else up your you-know-what if you couldn't see how somebody might enjoy such a thing somewhere - if not in one of those two particular locations.

That sounds suspiciously like you might know what you are talking about there, Wayne. Why the lip? (I'd add to the above comments that he ought to be sure he prepares the ground underneath the new slab so that it will last longer by being sure it is heavily compacted. Forgive me if I state the obvious.)

I agree with Mr. K here. I think a hut in a place like Boston Basin or Colchuck Lake would make a lot of sense. Apart from the Wilderness Act, most of our government land managers seem to dislike the idea of huts and they have been steadily removing old cabins from non-wilderness areas, too. Part of this may reflect budgets: I think attractions like huts and even hot springs or crags represent a potential need for more policing, maintenance, and other expenses that are not defined as a primary mission for agencies with a general focus on two sides of the triangle of resource extraction, preservation, and recreation. There is little funding even for trails, let alone huts. I also agree that many of the conservation groups seem to be too preservation oriented, but perhaps they have to be this way because the organized and aggressive recreational groups are mostly motorized recreational users who pose what is probably rightfully seen as a greater threat than simple hiking and climbing. However, in many of these groups there are consituencies arguing that wilderness and resource preservation will get more support if more people are able to bond with nature.

In 2003, the Whitechuck road was washed out way back near the start -- perhaps ten miles from the trailhead -- and the trail itself was also severely damaged. I think the possible alternate approach via Milk Creek may also be out. Last year, climbers were approaching Glacier Peak from the Sauk River.

Our cute little kitty seems to pee on my ropes and packs about every chance he gets. Doesn't compare to eating them, I suppose, but I wonder what cat pee does to climbing ropes?

Could be Burgundy. Its been 15 years since I've done it, though, so I don't remember what it looks like.