mattp

Much the same was the practice under the Moslim empire in such places as Spain, Ratboy, except I don't think they even had to acknowledge the Moslem religion. As long as they paid their taxes, Christians and Jews in the lands they controlled were able to continue their faith and were even allowed to control a surprising amount of their own local politics.

Once upon a time, a very long, long time ago, back in legendary time, before the white man or any other Indian people, there lived in the Sauk-Stillaguamish valleys a strong and handsome Indian man. His name was "Queest Alb." He led a happy life. The land there was beautiful, and still is. There were berries and plants galore to eat. Fish and deer were plentiful.... Our good friend Harry Majors had a hand in renaming the glaciers on Whitehorse and Three FIngers, to reflect local legends.

It is actually called the "Whitehorse Glacier" by most folks, even though somebody did manage to get the USGS to adopt that Queest-Alb name. At this time of year it is indeed rather impressive.

I don't think Argentinian ethics have anything to do with this.

I knew you'd reply with Kosovo, Greg. I'm not surprised. But Somalia and gun control? I'm disappointed. Kosovo: I'm still dumfounded why you and Fairweather keep bringing this up. There are some similarities, perhaps, if you are right that NATO grossly exaggerated the intelligence reports of ongoing atrocities in Kosovo and if Clinton was knowingly complicit in this. There was, however, an ongoing civil war and there were in fact atrocities being committed at that time - not some ten or twenty year old "record of killing his own people" that was trotted out over and over again as if we were referring to yesterdays' events. Also, it was not "our war." Virtually all of our allies agreed that it was time to intervene except Russia. No American soldiers were killed, and I don't believe there was much prospect for ongoing U.S. entanglement, so it was not then, nor is it now, such a big issue in American politics. Did President Clinton go on national TV over and over again repeating lies which, even if he believed what he said at the time (doubtful in Bush's case), he eventually knew to be "inaccuracies?" (And worse, Bush knows that if anybody checks the facts, they will know the truth but he is gambling that folks like you just don't care.) Somalia: What are you talking about? As far as I recall, we got ourselves bogged down in urban combat in Mogadishu and bailed. I don't know the history, and I wouldn't doubt if some bad calls were made, but I don't recall the President lying to take us into a war. Are you saying there was no humanitarian crisis or humanitarian motive? Didn't Papa Bush actually send in the US Forces, at the request of the UN or with their approval or something? Are you saying Clinton lied to get us OUT? Gun Control. If you ever believed that Kerry was your man on second ammendment issues, you are not very astute. Try again. Oh yes. Don't come back with that "if you think the democrats are squeaky clean" B.S. I don't think anybody on this site has ever raised that argument, and I would be the first to admit that most of the Democrats, including Kerry, are spineless slimeballs. But for out and out lies, and for getting a free pass, Bush and Co. are masters.

Yes, Greg, we could go round-and-round. A: Bush's own intelligence people pretty much told him there was no yellow cake uranium purchase, Saddam was weak and posed no imminent threat, and they had no evidence of ongoing nuclear weapons programs. He chose to broadcast not their doubts, but the uncorroborated reports of defectors who told him what he wanted to hear. That is, at the very least, a lie of omission if not an active lie. B: So you agree, that the statement Cheney made at the convention was indeed grossly misleading, if not an outright lie. C: Clinton proposed the Homeland Security effort, and sent the proposal to Bush's desk. Bush tanked it. Clinton actually tried to get Bin Laden. Prior to 9-11, Bush people ignored Bin Laden and Rice didn't even show up to meetings discussing terrorism. Then, after 9-11, Bush took action guaranteed to let him go by stating his invasion plans for six weeks prior to taking action - from the safe distance of 5,000 feet. He's failed to make chemical plants, nuclear plants, harbors, or anything else safer - but he's got my 7-year-old nephew afraid to get on an airplane for fear of having his scissors taken away. Clinton didn't invade a country that had nothing to do with terrorism, if that is what you call weak on terrorism. Now. You wanna tell me how Kerry and the Democratic leadership has lied about things of such a fundamental nature - on such a daily basis and with similar impunity?

It may be that we don't see many threads ablout free-soloing because some are afraid they will be ridiculed for stating the obvious, but there are plenty of people out there who think free soloing is irresponsible and I do actually recall a thread where someone argued hat it was particularly irresponsible or inconsiderate to do so where there are other climbers around. The difference in the case of helmets, I think, stems from the fact that most of us wear them when riding a bike or roller blading, and it just seems odd that they aren't as consistently worn by climbers. I agree with your basic premise, though, that I wouldn't want to see a "seat belt law" about helmets or ropes.

Instead of replying with a bunch of BS, Greg, how 'bout you answer my challenge? Have the Democrats, and Kerry in particular, lied about such significant matters? Are you going to trot out "Kosovo" again? Whitewater?

RobBob, I haven't really paid much attention to Kerry's Vietnam heroism other than to think, like Off White, it was probably a mistake to try to capitalize off his 33 year old record. I am willing to cede that his service may not have been quite as heroic as they portray. But the main reason we are even talking about this is because the Bush company has worked so hard to smear him, knowing they are vulnerable on this issue. Otherwise everybody would be going, zzzzzzzzzzz. His testimony before Congress about atrocities, as far as I recall, was simply a restatement of what had already been reported elsewhere. I haven't read where he said that MOST of the Americans serving in Vietnam committed atrocities. Can you cite a source? If what you are saying is that he was self serving, and this is something you dissapprove of, I agree. However, isn't the Bush administration the most self-serving administration we've seen in recent memory?

Lets be fair then, Greg. What lies have the Dems told that comes close to A. lying about the fundamental reasons why we invaded Iraq (yellow cake ring a bell? terrorist training camp on Iran border? ongoing weapons programs?) or, more recently, B. lying about Kerry's record of voting against military weapons programs (apparently, none of the programs in quesiton ever came up for a vote, and the votes in question were supported by the Bush company's hawks). C. Repeatedly insinuating as a theme at the National Convention that the Clinton admin was weak on terrorism and Bush was strong on this issue - before 9-11 (Bush's team tanked Clinton's anti-terrism efforts, Condoleeza did not attend any meetings on this topic, and they even complained how the Clintonites were "obsessed" with terrorism) Oh yes. "I did not have sex with that woman."

I don't think you'll make much headway trying to convince anybody of anything by referring to Schachte or any of the others swifties for truth, RobBob. They've changed their own stories a few times, too, and even your post about what Schachte says fails to refute Kerry's earning a purple heart on the night in question -- unless I missed the part where he says that Kerry deliberately hurt himself. It is a very well documented fact that our memories play tricks on us, especially when we are recounting traumatic events, and even more so when we have had time to sift through our memories over and over again. "Honest" accounts will differ, and it is no surprise that there might be different "memories" as to who was at the helm on some night thirty years ago. The bottom line here is that virtually everybody who served with Kerry says he is telling the truth about his record. Contrast that to Bush, where there is not a single person who has come forth to say he was telling the truth about his service. The bottom bottom line is that you will not believe anything good about Kerry's service, no matter what. The repubs have done a wonderful job of convincing their base that Bush represents "good," and anybody who opposes him represents or facilitates "evil." The democrats, instead of calling it for what it is, have really bungled their response to the republican smear campaign. I don't know what their problem is. The Bush people lie lie lie with impunity and, despite the frequent complaints about a liberal media, the Press too has utterly failed to hold Bush and Co. responsible for its constant lying.

I'd say it is pretty obnoxious to remove a long established rap station from an established climb like that, but I gotta say I've always wondered why anybody would rap that gully. It has always looked vaguely dangerous to me (I worry about inexperienced climbers kicking rocks) and I don't see how the rappels could be faster than walking back around the way you came -- unless, in early season, you are timid about descending "steep" snow.

Mt. Eerie is great for what you are describing. The views are great, and the "practice wall" has several climbs about 70 feet high, 5.4 to 5-8 or so. It is just a five minute scramble down from the parking area, with an approach trail that will make a nervous mother uncomfortable but you can spot the little ones accross the one truly sketchy part, and then the staging area is easy to manage.

WTF?

I have a hard time believing that the use of a helmet would ever increase injury, but if some brilliant doctor and the great Mr. Pritchard say so, it must be true. Have they seen those newfangled rock climbing helmets that are not very hard, and have a plastic coating over foam? For rock climbing that is what I use, though for mountaineering I still use a hardshell and I think I'll continue using it notwithstanding this great danger. Its kind of like wearing a seatbelt when you ride in a car: seatbelts DO cause injuries, but everybody knows they make you safer. Personally, I don't understand why anyone would not wear a helmet when rock climbing. Mine have always been so comfortable that I have often walked back to the car still wearing them, forgetting I was wearing one; once I made it all the way to the 7-11 until the clerk looked at me funny and my "partner" broke out in laughter. I don't agree with some of the judgmental statments about how those who don't wear helmets are idiots. As pointed out, climbing is obviously a dangerous activity and the same kind of judgemental statements can be made about the choice to go climbing in the first place, or to ride a bicycle in city traffic, or ... Does everybody do like I do and climb on double ropes instead of singles? It is much safer, lunkheads. And I've heard plenty of people say a cell phone is a crucial piece of equipment on every outing, but I don't even own one. Does that make ME the lunkhead? I wear a helmet, and I DO question anyone who doesn't, but I try to stop short of pronouncing them "irresponsible."

You can interpolate from Gary's table, but the more direct answer to your question is that there is not a linear relationship between pressure and altitude, so I don't think there is any simple equation for the change in pressure for a 100 foot gain. Also, there is some reduction in atmosphere pressure as you get further from the equator (the air is thinner at the poles so 20,000 feet in Alaska is equivalent to a slightly higher elevation in Nepal), so the equation would be different in Alaska as compared to California. To monitor changes in pressure, watch your altimeter when you are at camp, or compare the reading on your ascent and descent past the same location. Also, recalibrate your altimeter when you pass a known elevation point such as a col or a summit, and you can detect relative changes in barometric pressure during the day (was it reading "high" - meaning pressure has dropped slightly?). Realize, however, there is often a daily cycle with slightly reduced barometric pressuring during the middle of the day, and this occurs apart from any changes associated with changes in the weather. Lastly, it has been my general experience that changes in barometric pressure often do not precede changes in the weather but merely accompany those changes. I haven't found the altimeter nearly as useful a tool for predicting the weather as looking around and noting changes in cloud formation, wind direction, etc.

The bad guys don't have a monopoly on hate speech and propoganda. There's plenty of propoganda, hate speech, and just plain stupid stuff coming from the U.S. government. This "we're going to take the fight over there before we have to fight it over here" garbage for example. The Iraq war was not about terrorism and everybody in the world knows it. Saddam did not allow al queda or similar groups to operate in Iraq because they posed a threat to HIM. As to that organization or any scattered unaffiliated terrorist cells throughout the world, we know and they know that we aren't going to get at them through any kind of military action and our intelligence is not good enough to make much progress through covert killings. Sure, we should blow their training camp if we find it, and I don't have a problem with "decisive" action that will in some cases include commando raids and killings that, as you guys say, are the only thing those b*&^%rds respect. But our own government and FOX news agree that "Taking the war to them" is more like inviting them to bring it over here. Our borders are no more secure than they were pre-911, and our government is telling us every day that it is only a matter of time before they strike within the U.S. again - maybe next weeek. Saying "we're taking the fight to them before they can bring it to us" is pure propaganda aimed at justifying a war with quite different objectives. And repeatedly saying how "the terrorists are cold hearted killers" and "all the Arab peoples know is violence and revenge" -- when we're pointing at a map of the Middle East and hinting about how we should invade Iran next, and maybe pick up Syria on the way? That's hate speech and propaganda. Sraight up. There is some historical basis for the assertions, so they "ring true," but the goal is not to clarify anything or express any truth, but to get the listener riled up and ready for war--against who? We don't even know which country yet. Rattling the sabers and promoting a sense that the entire Muslim world is against us is good for domestic politics but it is a losing strategy in today's world unless coupled with, yes, diplomacy and sensitivity. Saying we are on a "crusade," repeating ad nauseam that we don't intend to cooperate with anybody else in the world, arguing that we should not follow the Geneva Conventions or participate in any world court because we are the "chosen" power.... These things are not going to reduce the recruitment pool for Al queda and similar groups. Even if you believe that stuff, to proclaim it from the Presidential podium is just plain stupidity -- unless, of course, your goal is to increase the sense of us vs them in this world. We cand and should rally around the flag and take steps to protect ourselves -- without resorting to such scare and intimidation tactics. It turns the world against us and the bad guys are certainly not intimidated by any of this -- it is only a call to action for them. As GeorgeW said this week: we cannot win the war on terror. Err, I mean ....

All the rhetoric aside, Greg, who are you going to hit with all those bombs? In Afghanistan, we blew up lots of stuff, but the big guy got away and I seem to recall that recent reports have indicated that, outside of Afghanistan at least, Al Queda is now as strong as they ever were. We have staked out a perimeter around the capitol, but the rest of the country is run by the same warlords as before. In Iraq, we blew up lots of stuff and we can use our weapons to guard facilities or impose martial law, but there are terrorists all over the place where formerly there were none. It looks as if we are not going to be able to (as you put it) root them out of their holes any time soon. In Saudia Arabia, where it seems that much of the funding for terrorists comes from, we do nothing because they are our friends. Bush's friends anyway - not mine. Look ahead. Now that we're "secure" in Iraq, they are talking about Syria and Iran. Faced with our threats, are they going to turn in all their second and third cousins from Morocco to Indonesia, just on the off chance that these guys they've never met might be "terrorists?" Of course not. That won't change the situation for their benefit in any way. And then, when we go in there, are we going to be able to identify who is and who is not a terrorist? I don't think so. We hear over and over again how all these people respect is strength and resolve. That may be so, but in fighting a war on terrorism rather than a war on an indentifiable clan or country, Bush and his buddies are right: this is a different kind of war. It WILL take both sensitivity and diplomacy to get the Muslim world working with us instead of against us. Strength and resolve? That too.

Were were they? I could imagine getting confused as to the location of the start of other routes on Castle Rock, perhaps, but not Midway. Do you know what guidebook they were using?

My guess is the easiest approach is via Squire Creek, and I think you could do it as a day-trip but it would probably take a couple of attempts. Hence, "days." Optimal off-trail travel in the Darrington area requires a sometimes in-obvious linkup of slabs, creekbeds, and tall timber (avoid the slide Maple at all costs). The first time I went up to Squire Creek Wall, my wife said it looked like I'd been in a catfight. If you like that kind of thing, though, Salish Peak is not all THAT far back in the woods.

Don't sweat it Drederek. The first three pitches of Dreamer are, in my opinion, not as good as either Urban Bypass or the Safe Sex start. Similarly, the last three and a half pitches of Dreamer do not follow the original line. Nobody follows the "real" Dreamer anymore. Also, it has been my impression that most parties do not succeed in completing the climb by any route on their first attempt. Guidebook authors have suggested that the top pitches may not be worth doing, and many people are pretty fried by the time they complete the two crux pitches and bail from there even if they aren't out of time. There is lots of rock out behind Dreamer, but I am not aware of anybody climbing that attractive little wall you see behind the crest of the formation - it doesn't appear large enough to warrant the trouble.

Days. Bring Daniel Boone AND Sacajewea. Squire Creek is brushy.

I'm told there are three or four lines that have been climbed on it, at about the 5.8 grade level. 4-6 pitches. The rock is said to be quite good - no surprise there. It doesn't look quite as cool from other directions, but still alluring.

The Leap is awesome. Go for the East Wall (5.7). Traveller's Buttress (5.9), and Hospital Corner (5.10).

If you want to do the climb with one rope, head off the back. It isn't THAT bad and one rope will get you down that way as it is right now. In fact, I don't think adding stations will help that descent all that much -- the main problem with it is that it is long and bushy, not that it lacks rappel stations. You'll end up with a lot of extra hardware, and some of it in funny places, if anybody tries to retrofit Dreamer for mid-pitch rap stations the whole way. I'm all for reducing tat, but I wouldn't be psyched to hear somebody talk about adding ten additional rappel points. Adding chain at the existing belay points would be a plus, though. (Also, while we're on the topic, I can suggest what I believe is a better way to handle the Blue Crack and Undercling Pitches. Set a gear belay at the base of the Blue Crack, and then climb that crack to link it with the undercling traverse just above. Skip the usual hanging belay and set a gear belay out just around the corner after that undercling. This will make three pitches out of two, but will vastly reduce rope drag and avoid the usual snag on the second of those pitches.)