mattp

For sure. When you post something about what's happening over there, I read it. Nobody's making $100.00 an hour? I bet you're right -- certainly not the average truck driver. (Some Halliburton "site manager" probably is, though.)

Mike, thanks for offering some real perspective here but your constant suggestion that those of us who aren't in Iraq are not qualified to comment on the war, or U.S. policy, or even the meaning of daily events over there, is wrong. The military and political and economic operation that you are a part of is not a goal in and of itself. You are there to serve or support the interest of the American people - including your good buddy Billygoat.

Thanks for the groveling, Fairweather, but nobody ever called me "badass" when it comes to climbing. I've been at it for a while, but I've never climbed anything X-TREME. And, I really AM a girlie-man. Did you know I drink French wine and in my spare time I raise flowers? My wife and I have a cat; not a pit bull. I don't drive a pickup. However, no thanks for the argument. Your "Mountaingoat-style" response was exactly that: just like Mountaingoat you appeared to address each point but most of your responses were meaningless or just plain baloney. Eliminating the need to get a search warrant to search a U.S. citizen's private home based on nothing specific isn't eroding the protection we thought we enjoyed from the U.S. Constitution? Liberals are trying to stop talk shows or the expression of political speech?

And he completely avoided the main point I made about how Bush and Co. have pursued more radical change than any other recent administration. Sure, that evil Clinton administration proposed universal health care and "don't ask don't tell," but Bush and Co. want to "restructure" (dismantle?) our society and our foreign policy in some pretty astounding ways. Sure, my "krugman argument" has a bit of hyperbole to it, but not much.... And I bet he could kick Fairweather's ass, too. Me? Well maybe not. I'm a girlie man.

Oh. As to Afaghanistan, I don't believe I said we had no right - though perhaps I did. I believe that we should have gone after Bin Laden and his traning camps, and it has been a step backward for us to occupy the capital while allowing the warlords to run the rest of the country. I also believe we did not even really try to get Bin Laden - or we wouldn't have given him advance warning the way we did or carried out anything like the operation that we did.

Fairweather: I have consistently replied more directly and more specifically to your arguments than you have ever done with mine. For three years. Your courteous and specific reply is nothing but pure B.S. in the style that only you can provide. Kerry Co. started the talk about Bush's service "record?" I wouldn't put it past him, but I don't think that is the case. It was first brought up by a Boston newspaper, if I remember correctly though. You're trying to say that Bush and Co are strengthening environmental regulation? Huh what? The new policy of pre-emptive war is not a change from our prior position on such matters? Baloney. Bush's press conferences and the military's release of information has not been more restrictive than any recent president, and probably more restrictive than any – including REAL wartime presidents? Tell us another one. and on and on.... Now tell us how much you hate Clinton again. Thats manly.

Fairweather You are full of baloney on this military service thing. Far more than the democrats, it has been the REPUBLICANS who have made an issue out of one's leadership qualifications being based on their military record. Those criticizing Bush for record don't really care if he served or not so much as that he sleazed his way out of it rather than either (a) serving or (b) stating that wars in general or that particular war were bad. As for their attacks on Kerry's record, even McCain said it is a shame that Bush and company have tried to make such a (stupid) issue out of this and they are shooting themselves in the foot. Oh well. Kosovo? You know as well as I do that it just didn't make much press. If they had shown pictures of civilians getting blown up on the 5:00 news, there would certainly have been a big uproar. But you haven't answered my basic question: our guys were not in harm's way, it was undertaken with the support of nearly all (if not all) of our allies, the bad guy is gone, ... etc. What do you think you prove about Bush when you bring it up over and over again? Clinton sucked too? War is hell? Agreed on both counts. Or are you trying to say (on the one hand) that the peacniks should have spoken up then, but (on the other) they hate America if they speak up now? By the way: Do I Hate America? Bush and co: 1. Want to unwind 75 years of well-fare and social security. 2. Want to void 300 years of the separation of church and state and make the U.S. a Christian nation, also would like to teach creationism in schools rather than evolution. 3. Want to erode the last 50 years' progress toward more environmental and sustainable industrial practices. 4. Want to roll-back 100 years' progress toward more progressive taxation. 5. Want to sacrifice a 100 year tradition of privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures in the name of a war on terror when they have no reason to think the new police powers are going to help at all. 6. Want to cut back on the freedom of the press. They've been the most hostile toward the press corps and the most controlling of "news" of any administration ever. 7. Want to end our long-standing policy of going to war only when we have to. In other words, these guys want to fundamentally change what this nation stands for and has stood for in nearly every spere of political and social life. They don't like what America is, and they are for radical changes in every single one of these areas I've enumerated. (By the way, lest those of you who hate those of us who you think hate America want to cry foul, I should point out that I encountered this argument in a recent book by Paul Krugman.)

From the west, one of the shorter and more scenic routes is the Collier Glacier. You start at Frog Camp on the old McKenzie Pass highway, and follow the trail up and accross the White Branch lava flow and, instead of heading south to the Renfrew you detour a little north to "Collier Glacier View," and then head cross country through a cool and wild-feeling basin below the Collier. There are some crevasses on the glacier, little or not bare ice will be seen, and the "difficulties" can generally be avoided by hopping on the ridgeline to the right. Rockfall from the SW face of North Sister is something to watch out for. This approach samples some of the areas finest volcanic scenery and what is almost like a real glacier.

Wayne mentions a spirit of anarchy and individualism that is often touted on this site as the spirit of cascadeclimbers.com and northwest climbers in general, but I think the reality is that we are a much more sheeplike bunch. The frequent dumping on the Mountaineers on this bulletin board is in my mind a clear example of this: everybody knows it is cool to trash the Mountaineers and even the stupidist joke or most trivial complaint directed their way will draw applause so we do it over and over again. Similarly, everybody seems to think that car-to-car speed climbing is the only commendable way to climb anything, or that the only climbs worth doing in Washington are listed in Jim Nelson's guidebooks. Anarchism and individuality? No. That's more like centralized group-think. As pointed out, the Mountaineers have a definite "program" that is very structured and one is going to have to work at to get outside the box, but if you work through their checklists and keep your eyes open you will definitely learn something. Pope: I think what you say about Evergreen may be vaguely and generally true if you are talking about an "average" student who just wants a degree and doesn't have a specific goal, but for years (maybe still?), Evergreen had a much higher acceptance rate as a pre-med program for top medical schools than did the UW. Also, with less hoops to jump through and a faculty who actually thinks it is their job to teach instead of to publish or whatever, there has been generally more opportunity for students wishing to do graduate-level science as an undergrad at Evergreen than at the UW.

Fairweather and Greg: I remain totally confused over why you guys seem fixated on Kosovo, and keep comparing it to Iraq. Not one American died in Kosovo. We flew over at 5,000 feet dropping bombs - at the request of or with complete approval of our European allies. We never occupied Kosovo. I don't think anybody has alleged that we may have been motivated for our own military or financial objectives. It does not appear to be a rallying point for generations of terrorists. Aside from repeating some snippet from an old Fox news commentary, just what is your point in harping on Clinton in Kosovo all the time? I still don't get it. (Though if you think the Democrats are a bunch of losers, I'll have to agree--its just that I think they are a better bet than Bush and his band of liars.)

Fairweather: NEWS FLASH!!!!!! Clinton is not running for reelection. The point here is, as already pointed out, Bush and the chicken-hawks are politically vulnerable because their guy evaded military service whereas their challenger served with honor. All those who served with him verify his valor, but the chicken-hawks parade around a bunch of guys who happened to be somewhere in Vietnam at the same time who say Kerry lied about some part of his military record. And then they try to tell us that anybody who would cricitize a veteran or a warrior or a "wartime president" is a "girlie man." Wake up, buddy. You are a complete drone if you swallow this particular load of B.S. and don't see the hypocrisy here. Find another "talking point."

Mount Index is cool if you are enamored with Mount Index (and many of us are, having driven by it and admired it so many times); otherwise I think there are better outings around. The North Face is certainly doable, but I'd want to bring a rappel rope and the first pitch on the Middle Peak, climbing out of the notch from the North, is more than most of us would want to solo. I think it's rated 5.7, but it'll get your attention! The full traverse (North-Middle-Main) is a big outing. (1 1/2 hours driving) The West Ridge of N. Twin is a very enjoyable scramble on excellent rock, with no glacier travel but an alpine feel about it. (four or five miles on logging road for an approach, though). (3 hours driving) The Sulphide on Shuksan is a great suggestion for a mellow glaciated climb that most of us would feel OK about doing without a rope, but there certainly ARE crevasses on the route (I've skied it in the fog in October, though, so they aren't that bad). (3+ hours driving?) Mount Ruth is another mellow glacier climb. (3+ hours driving?) For a mellow rock solo, Ingalls S. Ridge is excellent. (3- hours driving) S. Early Winter Spire via the S. Ridge is a good rock scramble with a single 5.7 move that isn't too scary. (3 hours driving)

In addition to being a party, Ropeup has gotten a lot of climbers together -- people who would not otherwise have climbed together. Some have made their first multipitch climbs, or tried "outside" climbing for the first time, or .... Leavenworth last year: Smith last year: Leavenworth the year before:

An example of Bush co's sensitivity.

As a direct result of Bush co's politically motivated "leak," it looks as if al queda guys are getting away. USA Today

I think just about anybody could do that, Greg. And I'd be for it: liberal and cowardly stuff like tyring not to turn the entire Islamic world against us by saying we're going to Afghanistan and Iraq on a crusade, and working with our allies instead of calling them names like "irrelevant" and doing our best to turn them against us.

Here's the photo. The bivvy is on a rock tower/promontory right below Nooksack Tower. We camped down near the lake and wished we had stayed up here when we saw how cool it was (and the Bert route is kinda long).

Its got some bad rock on it, but Nooksack Tower is in my opinion one of the coolest objectives in the Cascades. The Bertulis route is fantastic and the Beckey/Schmidke is probably worth doing too we descended that way when I climbed the Bertulis route and it looked pretty good). There is a great bivvy spot right below the tower, seen in the background of this picture.

The approach to Blueberry Hill is more straight forward than going to Green Giant -- you'll walk a couple hundred yards up a stoney wash and then scramble a thousand feet up slabs with a couple of short diversions into the bushes on the left. It'll take about an hour. Dark Rhythm, too, is more "straight forward" than Dreamer. Once you find the start, it is not hard to follow the route and there is good pro or a bolt near any hard moves. It is not an easy rappel route, though, because there are several very diagonal pitches and some rope snagging issues. The pitches above the blueberry terrace, to the summit of the Dome, are well worth it in my opinion. From the top, the best descent is to rap the West Slabs to Westward Ho, and the rope snagging on the first three or four raps can be minimized by doing single rope rappels (there is one that does not have an ancor within the 30 meters of a half-rope but you can easily walk down to the next rap point). Dark Rhythm is an excellent climb. For more variety of climbing styles and terrain, check out Rainman and Jacob's Ladder. For more trad, and moderate, try the West Buttress. TOPO

Lizard AKA Aries (5.8) is excellent. It is good in its' entirety, but the first bit can be awkward and a wide chimney at half height is legendary for being sandbagged and intimidating (it is not bad if you know "the trick" which is to climb up and place pro, then shimmy back down and move out to climb back up five feet outside the corner iteself). To climb Aries the easy way, many people climb onto the first ledge way out right, avoiding the short wide handcrack at the start. Then everybody loves that first corner, perhaps 60 feet high. You can then avoid the scary chimney by traversing left and climbing up twenty feet to traverse back right onto the route for the spectacular overhang and twin cracks. This is not quite "Lizard," but it makes a good climb and is all very straight forward. Also, the alternatives nearby, Blockbuster (5.9 or 5.7 if you don't actually do the "Blockbuster") and Taurus (5.7) (instead of the overhang to twin cracks near the top) are both excellent.

It is pretty much of a hot plate on a sunny warm day, but the climbs are short enough that you don't have to get completely fried before you return to the ground and hide under a bush to recover.

You earned your status as a "right wing zealot" on other grounds, Mr. Fairweather.

Hanman fixed that station on Westward Ho.

I don't agree with all of the anti-government or anti-environmentalist tirades of Fairweather or Billcoe, but I think there are some valid questions about whether recreational access is really a part of the plan for the Wild Sky. It's not just about power drills and climbing. I think there are real concerns for fishermen, hunters, and hikers as well. There ARE some environmentalists who believe wilderness areas should be run as nature preserves, where even the least intrusive human visitation is to be restricted or discouraged. These folks will not be shy about promoting that agenda in the Wild Sky. I also think there are severe budgetary pressures on the Forest Service, and management costs are less in little-used and inaccessible areas where recreational use is at a minimum; all other things being equal, they are going to decommission roads or cut back on trail programs near or in Wilderness areas first. The promotional arguments of plan backers aside, in the Wild Sky I think a Wilderness designation will almost certainly result in less access and, in the long run, fewer trails. Is it worth it? Perhaps. I wouldn't want to see the area logged or mined, that's for sure. I also wouldn't want it to be subjected to unregulated or uncontrolled recreational use that was so intrusive as to completely alter the character of the area. However, I believe that the recreational opportunities found in a relatively accessible "semi-wilderness" like the Wild Sky are extremely valuable and especially so because they are so close to an urban area like the City of Seattle. The Wilderness designation MAY be a good way to assure that the area is protected but I think there are legitimate questions about whether a Wilderness status is the best way to balance recreational values with preservation.

Somebody wanna to to Darringtown this afternoon? I'm nursing an injury, but I'd like to get out and climb something not involving too much in the way of pecs and lats. Total Soul? Send me a p.m.