mattp

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.

Fairweather asserts that Earle tried six times to get a grand jury to indict DeLay. He HAS been active for a couple of years, and I think he has a DeLay crony or two, but I only recall there being one "no indictment" result. Were there three more that nobody but Fairweather seems to be talking about? Fairweather also purports to have some legal expertise in the "ex post facto" application of the law. He is right, that has been stated as a defense for DeLay, but as far as I know, that defense has not yet been successful. I think it remains to be seen whether conspiracy applied to election financing prior to the new law where it may have been "added" or simply "clarified."

I think Foraker may be right that Earle started out focusing on Jack Abramoff and TRIMPAC. Does that make this a witch hunt? As I noted already, I seem to remember reading that Earle similarly hounded the Democrats when they were in power.

Bullshit, PP. I did not dispute your assertion that Earl had allowed a movie maker to follow him around - if that is what you are referring to. I would say, however, that once again you are probably attacking the prosecutor because you can't defend the prosecuted. (AND, after calling "bullshit" on my post about how GW and his boys lied, I'll note that you still haven't refuted my given examples ... but that is another thread.)

Yup, both sides do it -- redistricting AND launching "ethics" investigations of opposing political personalities. Undoubtedly there was some "politically motivated" support for this DeLay prosecution, but RIGHT NOW lets not simply say "both sides do it" and ignore what is going on: the very same people who, just a few years ago were hamering on their bibles about how Clinton lied or were all stirred up about "travelgate" are now saying that the current investigations of DeLay, Bush's cabinet, and the lobbyist Abramoff are all politically motivated and they are attacking the investigations and investigators. If it was a high ranking democrat who was under indictment, I somehow doubt Fairweather would be arguing here that "it is just a political ploy and I bet poor Mr. Kennedy is not going to be prosecuted..."

Yes, scandals sell newspapers. But are they really over-hyping these stories? The president, vice-president, and their highest advisors all lie about why we need to start a war that has thus far turned out poorly, and then they engaged in a coordinated campaign to cover their lies, and they are not really even denying it. Maybe they will, but so far I havn't seen where they clearly stated that they actually BELIEVED that Saddam had the centrifuge or was trying to purchase Uranium, nor have I seen them say they didn't have a plan to discredit Wilson or that Libby says he didn't ask Miller to describe him as an ex senate staffer or whatever it was instead of a high ranking official in the White House. And Cheney has not said, since the VP Debate, that he never tried to link Saddam to 911. Nope, they don't seem to really deny any of this stuff -- they just work to spin it. "Wah wah wah, these "attacks" are politically motivated... "

Fairweather, let's not forget that it is this guy's JOB to go after politicians as the D.A. in the county where Austin is. If I understand correctly, he prosecuted more democrats, just a few years ago when they were in power, than he has now targetted republicans. Also, if I remember correctly, you were not complaining about dirty politics when the shoe was on the other foot. Have we not seen you talk approvingly about things like the Whitewater investigations (hint: I don't think a single person was ever even indicted), and - lets see - that Monica thing? Am I wrong or were you kinda warm to the idea that Clinton lied, so he had to "face the music?"

You are describing a fourteen mile approach, with more elevation gain but not all THAT much more elevation gain than the previous ten mile approach. Go for it.

I think Bill Coe makes a good point, and it is something we struggle with all over the place. We sorely need to become more organized and find ways to address access, environmental or ethics issues in a manner that encourages climbers to participate and which increases our standing and credibility with the land managers but there is a tendency for most climbers not to get involved and some seem only to know how to complain or take pot shots when they don’t like what they see going on. Are those who complain “bad people?” No. It is part of human nature that we often don’t really think about a situation until we notice something we don’t like. Also, those “malcontents” probably have some good points. Just because they haven’t shown up for any work parties doesn’t mean they haven’t thought about the issues or that they have no right to comment. Joseph has made several posts about wanting feedback and indicating a willingness to work with climbers holding different views. I hope more climbers will get involved. One thing to remember is that those who step forward to try to organize things have only gotten involved at that level because they have strong feelings about some issue and it is only natural that others may disagree with some of their views. Remember, too, that these folks are never elected but they are volunteers: if you want smooth-talking politicians who will never offend anybody in this role, you better start forming formal organizations and collecting a lot of money so you can pay them. Whether you think any of this is good or bad or a mixture of the two, the best thing you can do is to show up (at the crag or here on the Internet or whereverelse that climbers are getting together) and get involved. If at some point you feel that your voice is not being heard, STICK WITH IT.

The question was about a "mountaineering bag" but, yes, mountaineering can include big walls. Where you are hauling and where you may get stuck in a wet location for an extended stay, synthetic is probably a very good idea. One of the few times I've completely soaked a down bag was on a wall.

There are lots of different flavors in a "mountaineering" trip. For example, I believe that we discussed the possibility that you might be better off NOT having a "waterproof-breathable" shell on your down bag for summer use with a tent because there will be little temperature gradient accross the membrane. I think a gortex or similar shell is more standard on a more winter-weight bag like if you are going to Alaska or something, and I wonder what the benefit might be to have such a shell on your down bag used in combination with a bivvy sack. Similarly with the down vs synthetic question there are lots of variables: if you are planning overnights and few longer trips, you should generally be able to keep your bag dry enough for one night and if not, you can suffer through a night while some people like the synthetic bags for more expedition-oriented climbing. Also, how "careful" do you want to have to be with your down? I've been camping in tarps and snow caves in the Pacific Northwest for thirty years, with down and without a bivvy sack, and I am able to generally stay dry enough. While others think one or the other or both is essential in such a setting, I have completely soaked my bag once or twice but only once or twice.

See p.m.

It is a cool feature, but there is not a lot there and it probably isn't really worth the trip except as a lark. It is also on private property or at least the access is accross private property and although I once got permission from the owner for a visit, that was a few years ago and I think they may have liability concerns or something. I've also been told they are worried about fires, but that would probably not be a concern this week. You'll can find the same type of climbing at Peshastin.

Nice shot!

Rage and tequila IS a dangerous combination. When Dirty Leaf found us, we were ripping a tree down. I'm not going to do what they f'in tell me to do... I'm not...

That's a fair point, Stefan. Iraq was supposed to show it. My guess is that Saddam thought there was power in maintaining some uncertainty there -- and the experience of the Koreans certainly shows that one may be in a better barganing position with the U.S. if there is at least some uncertainty or, better yet, if you can prove you actually have the weapons. But it has been quite clear that starting on september 12, 2001, GWB was resolved to use that event as an excuse to invade Iraq and I don't know about you, but I think the burden was on HIM to justify invasion. He did so by "fixing the intelligence around the policy."

Peter, You've made three or four posts claiming I haven't answered your challenge - whatever it was - and saying I am full of B.S. or maybe lying where I state "something approaching half" after you Googled an article that said 25% got no benefit (and by the way I would guess this implied that more got less than the full benefit of the tax credit). Meanwhile you take another line of argument how I couldn't possibly have intended to show I didn't know the actual number when I wrote "something approaching," and that one goes on for a couple of posts, too. Then you still say I haven't answered you correction even though I actually acknowledged it in my first following post and there is nothing more to say about that. In about a half dozen posts, you have not directly answered or tried to refute ANY of the examples of how I suggested Bush had lied. Instead, you come back and say I am behaving as I accuse Bush of doing -- in other words are you calling me a liar once again? -- Lets try and get the thread back on track: Is Bush's proclamation that "democracy is on the march" an accurate one? Are things in fact going as well in Iraq as he and his spokesmen keep telling us? They will greet us with flowers, I mean, there is no insurgency, I mean the insurgency is on its last legs, I mean more Iraqi units are able to fight without our troops... Are any of those examples I cited about how he has deliberately misled us fundamentally incorrect? I'm sure you can find holes in at least one of them if you try.