mattp

My brother had a home-made version of something like that on top of his Saab many years ago and while I'm sure those you show here are easier to set up and easier to get in and out of, the thing was kind of a nuisance. Getting up and down from the top of the car was clumsy and of course you had stability issues if you moved around inside very actively. Also, it felt leass secure than sleeping on the ground, and was less private. It was also more visible where you were trying to keep a less obvious profile, an dit was more exposed to wind when that was an issue. On the plus side, of course, you didn't have to set the thing up in mud and snow and it wasn't as prone to flooding. On balance I'd just get a car top carrier and a simple tent unless you have a reason to want to avoid sleeping on the ground.

On the way home from climbing yesterday my partner told me that it is all B.S. anyway, and there is little point in trying to follow all of this because don't they all just lie anyway? He said that maybe I was right that these particular thugs in the Whitehouse are worse than average, but he still kept reverting to "all this politics is political."

Funny twist here, too is the Bill Robbins connection. I am told that the second time or third time the route was "chopped," the chopper couldn't pull the 1/2 inch bolts so instead he flattened the hangers. Then they were bent back out so they would be useable but Bill Robbins - another one of the trad warriors very vocal about how sport climbing was trashing the coulee - thought this was unsafe and went out there and replaced the hangers. As much as he didn't like the sport climbing explosion out there, he thought twice-bent hangers were dangerous and didn't want to see climbers using them that way.

I don't think I would favor moving an entire string of ten bolts or whatever to the other side of the collumn - certainly not now when there remain the old chopped ones. Maybe after the first time it was pulled he could have acquiesced, but I'm afraid it becamse an unfortunate pissing match and I think both parties would admit they didn't do everything right. I like Pony Keg, by the way, and I've climbed it several times without having any serious conflict with climbers on Whipsaw.

Kevin Pogue has publicly stated, I think on this board and elsewhere, that if he had it to do over again he would bolt the other side of the Whipsaw arete. At this point, however, it is what it is (or has become), and I have only partial sympathy for Catbird's complaint. There are lots of climbs out there and I do not see why - if that is what he is saying - he had any right to expect that somebody forego Whipsaw when he wants to climb Pony Keg. At least not to the extent that he would have been justified in being righteous about it. If he didn't want this problem, he could have chosen another climb. Of course, I wasn't there and maybe Catbird was in fact more gracious about it than what I gathered from his post.

Jay: you're speaking nonsense. First of all, it is very had to argue that, at the root of it, this war was not about oil. You've put up a good fight, though. Clearly and undeniably, oil is what makes the entire region of strategic import. Our specific motives in this case may have been one or two steps removed from taking over the oil fields but I use the word "may" and I haven't seen anybody pose a plausible alternate motivation except, perhaps, to establish more military presence in the region if we have to move out of Saudia Arabia soon. Whether somebody was trying to boost share prices in their stock portfolio or something? I'm not sure I'd take it that far, but clearly that horseh*t coming out of Washington in the run-up to the war, and since, was just that. Your second point is equally ridiculous. Who is arguing there wasn't corruption in the U.N. administered oil for food program? And what is the significance of this, in the context of any argument about why we went to war or whether it was a good idea? Your third point? I'm not really sure what it was. Who was arguing on Saddam's behalf, and what did it have to do with bribes? The French said they weren't convinced he had nuclear weapons or posed a signficant threat, that an invasion would not aid any war on terrorism, and that it might well lead to greater instability in the region. It looks like they were right. Do you think THEY were bribed to argue on Saddam's behalf?

If you're looking to smear the U.N., fine, but if you're looking to bolster any argument for war or show that the U.S. was frustrated by the failure of the sanctions, I don't think you want to look under that iceberg, Jay. Our own Congressional committee has found that the US was complicit in the evasions of the Iraq sanctions, and in fact blocked at least some U.N. efforts to intervene with the illegal trade with Jordan; also, most of the money that was funneled to Saddam came from us. In additin, we knew about the kickbacks but here, too, declined to intervene.

That'd be awesome. PP launches into a tirade and gets tackled by a bunch of irate radical soccer moms, melee breaks out, and it is WTO all over again.

To answer Jopa's question completely, I believe "Midway Direct" clombs that corner system directly above Jello Towaer about twenty feet or so past where "Midway Original" exits right, and then moves slightly left, up, and back right. It is not hard, but the pro is slightly funky and I don't think this variation gets a lot of traffic.

Sorry to bore you, JZ. I find it fascinating that what has been described as the first crag climb in Washington and is consistently touted as one of the classics has been incorrectly documented for all these years. Yes, it is an easy climb, and popular, and most parties do just fine without the details. I think it is the best 5.6 climb around, even if some guidebooks rate it 5.5.

I heard JayB and Peter Puget are going.

Searching for "Rove Conspiracy" on Google, I found this: Karl Rove's Web of Evil

What? Nobody has any other theory?

bwrts, I thought his drawings were excellent and, yes, in some cases more helpful than a photo. In many cases they provided quite a bit more relevant detail.

Jopa, your hard man here is on what has become the standard Midway route. Yes, I believe that higher traverse, climbing up past a fix pin and then stepping right under a small diagonal roof/crack is the original and it does not appear in the Washington Rock guides or Kramer.

Here's yet another spin on the Plame Affair: Rove directed forgery of Niger documents; all of this Plame Affair business is the result of a conspiracy to cover it up. Go Spot go!

I agree that the earlier editions are better. In every successive edition, he adds more new stuff but his depiction of the classics gets reduced in size and he's taken out the "Shield Detail" or whatever it was for Snow Creek Wall entirely. The drawings were, in my opinion, both more attractive and more informative than the photo's. It remains an excellent guidebook and it is WHAT YOU WANT for Leavenworth, never-the-less. For Midway, however (if you are so inclined), look at my topo: web page with link to TOPO. I believe the route has been incorrectly depicted in every guidebook - including Fred's first book! He made the first ascent, and I have seen his pictures from the first ascent and asked him about them. It looks to me as if subsequent parties found an easier way, and he reported that "variation" as the "Midway" route when he published his guidebook. The original is preferred, in my opinion, but NO guidebook has shown it.

In my opinion, it was ALREADY better done as a three-day trip. I did it as two, but I had some sore feet on the way out.

There is a little complication in Portland. You take the beltway, 205, and then you take 84 for some miles. I always get mixed up as to where to exit for the easiest connection onto 26 - is it exit 13?

MSNBC

You're right about that, Stepan. Most of them STILL believe Iraq attacked us on 911 and that Saddam had WMD's, too. Even some folks who realize the truth in these matters still believe that Bush and his cronies didn't deliberately lie about these matters. Folks like PP and Fairweather apparently are in this group. Others say: "he lied, but that was OK with me."

Peter, we could say the same about DeLay: Again, your point may well be valid: tell me more about these speeches at the fundraisers where Earle viciously attacked DeLay and how they might have been expected to unfairly influence the outcome of the grand jury. That would be wrong. But if all he did was speak about how tough he is and how he's going after bad guys, he's speaking as a candidate just as our own King County prosecutor or anybody else in that kind of role talks about how they're tough on crime. Again - you continue to attack the prosecutor. Can you NOT defend the prosecuted?

I put this in the wrong thread this morning, but I have the actual source of the information now so you can better judge it now anyway. However, 0n September 30, 2003, Bush said "And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is ..." On October 6, 2003, he said "If anybody has got any information inside our government or outside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department so we can find the leaker" On October 10, 2003, Scott McClellan specifically said that neither Rove nor Elliott Abrams or Lewis Libby were involved and that anyone who was involved in leaking classified information would be fired. On June 10, 2004, President Bush was asked by a reporter, "Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggesting that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name? ... And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?" The President responded, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

A guy in my office says that yesterday there was an article where they were saying that Rove told Bush about their involvement in leaking Valeri Plame's identity back in 2003, and Bush was "livid." Did anybody read the article? How does it square with Bush saying, in September, 2003, Or McClellan's saying he knew that Rove was not involved?

Peter, Why are you so hung up on attacking Earle? Again I ask: is it because you cannot readily defend DeLay, who has been admonished for all kinds of ethics violations in addition to this current business, has been sued and settled on a charge of perjury, etc.? Also, I say "bullshit" again. I will repeat myself here, lest you keep trotting out this example of how I am dodging your questions: I don't know whether Earle did wrong in allowing the movie makers to follow him around or not. That is exactly what I said already in that other thread: As I said, I don't know what "extraordinary access" they had. Did they film the grand jury in deliberation, or something else that is supposed to be secret? I don't know if any of the filming was a violation of ANY standard or conduct or criminal code. As far as I can tell, it is only right-wing bloggers and the odd supporter of DeLay who are thus far complaining about it and, I would note, the film makers tried to get DeLay to participate in their project and he refused. If he thinks the result is one-sided, he only has himself to blame. It is not unreasonable to question a prosecutor's tactics. Your questions, here, appear consistent with the standard GOP current strategy of avoiding the issues raised and attacking the critic.