mattp

So what's your point, Mr. Martlet? I agree that it is a little bit of a stretch to assert that the photographs MUST have been taken for blackmail purposes, but I'd also have to say that it IS plausible that this was somebody's motivation for taking or for keeping them. Anyway, aside from that curiosity, Rumsfeld apparently knew about this activity as early as January, and the Red Cross reported it last Fall. Yet it was all kept rather quiet until now. Ask yourself: doesn't this "smell" like some kind of coverup? I know that since the Nuremberg Trials we of the "civilized world" have said that "I was ordered to do it" is not a valid defense but, rather than arrest some twisted sadist female footsoldier, shouldn't we be seeking to hold those responsible for overseeing the whole program responsible for doing just that? To me, Rumsfeld's apologies sounded like Richard Nixon: "I'll tak all of the responsibility but none of the blame." (I know, the Dems are just as bad.)

I received a whiplash neck injury doing the big smackdown after catching a tip last Sunday. Injuries DO suck.

Yes, I'm sure there is "interest in returning the Olympic National Park to its natural state," but in my view that is currently the case without further loss of roadway access. Yes, you can drive into the Hoh Rainforest or up to Hurricane Ridge or out to Rialto Beach in your Winnebago, but over 90% of the park is roadless area right now. I think it is very cool that way -- even were the Dosewallips road restored it'd still be a good example of a park where there are quite ample recreational opportunities and your grandmother can go there and actually see what lies within the park while at the same time it contains a vast wilderness. Beyond "lets make it natural," are there specific concerns that lead people to want to abandon that Dosewallips road? I'm with my man Fairweather on this one -- it seems that there are some people who just don't want anybody to be able to get into the woods at all. I'd write a scathing letter to my public representatives, but before I start calling folks names I'd like to hear if they have some specific concerns that I should consider.

Can anybody explain why "they" seek to block the reconstruction of the road? Is there any issue other than the basic idea that roads are a bad thing - I mean is somebody arguing that there is rare elk habitat or something in the Dosewallips?

Yes, the first five rappels are off stuff very similar to bushes. They're a little messy with loose rock, bushes and flakes, and they are low angle so the rope doesn't throw well. Climbers used to more civilized and steeper rappels complain bitterly about this descent but the problems are really very easy to deal with for precisely the same reasons as they occur: the rock is low angled and there are bushes and flakes to grab if you have to go back up for a stuck rope. The rope generally pulls OK, though, and the problems mostly plague the first one down the rope only. Just take your time and expect to get the rope tangled up every time you throw it down. This kind of terrain is not the place to try to make time by doing extra long rappels.

Dude is right that the extension does hamper getting in and out of your pack, and it does add some weight, but I think it is a plus in general. Similarly, I'd opt for the double-thickness bottom if you are going to be doing much mountaineering where sitting glissades will be involved. The waist belt, too, is a place where I would not skimp on weight. I have had no problems with my standard (fat) waist belt getting in the way of my climbing harness and the way it carries a heavy load is phenomenal. In my opinion, the weight of your (empty) pack is not a major concern. You can go for every bell and whistle in the book and the difference will only be an extra pound or two. I like a plain pack with just two daisy chains up the back because these are not in the way when you are not using them and they tend not to snag on bushes or on the trunk of your car as much as those specialized things for ice tools, wands, crampons or a snow shovel. Also the daisy chains more easily adapt for carring the odd item like the folding chair or the ski boots that don't fit inside your pack, but its an issue of flexibility and a clean outside profile more than one of weight. It is all that extra gear and food or the completely unnecessary tent that makes your load heavy, not the extra few ounces that you can shave off by trimming down the extension skirt or the waistbelt or the other "options" on your pack. (I do pull out the stays and remove the top flap, sometimes pull off the side straps, and occasionally even remove the waist belt to lighten up the pack for a summit climb, though.)

I have a SARC, about 10 years old, and I love it. I don't have any of the attachments, and I got it without the zipper on the back, but I had Dan put a semi-circular zipper on the side. He didn't like "messing up" his design that way, but I find it handy for stuffing a down sweater in and out of the pack at rest stops. The pack carries a week's worth of gear for an Alaskan alpine climb just fine, and it also does very well for day trips with a lot of junk. I can throw a rope, rack, and half-rack in there just fine, and for summit climbs I remove the aluminum stays and it climbs pretty well, too. Even without molded foam and fancy stiffeners, the McHale double-buckle waist belt is the most comfortable I have ever used.

I'm not confusing anything, Mr. Puget. You seem to somehow view refusing to sign an agreement that most of our allies seemed to want signed as "cooperation," and you apparently don't want to answer my question.

I ask only a simple question, Mr. Puget: GENERALLY SPEAKING, if you had only to categories to select from, do you believe Mr. Bush has been A) cooperative or B) uncooperative. I stated that I believe he has been generally uncooperative, and that undermining and refusing to abide by U.N. resolutions is an example of this. You said that I was confusing cooperation with the UN with cooperation with other nations, as if to say that he HAS been cooperative with other nations -- just not the U.N. So which is it: A) cooperative or B) uncooperative. There are no squirlly defnitions needed for a simple overbroad and vague statement like this.

Real men and their wives don't drive a Golf -- even to the grocery store. Those cars are for west side liberal city dwellers.

I'm with you there, but the oil companies and auto companies and power companies have been resisting this as long as they've been in business. And they carry a considerable weight in this great nation of ours.

Mr. Assmonkey- These guys are shameless. What do you want to bet? Gas prices will serendipitously drop some time late Summer or early Fall, and that's probably when we'll catch Bin Laden, too. Then, if that's not enough, we might see some voting "irregularities" in key states. Its not over 'till its over.

PP- Just so we're clear: you are not disputing my suggestion that Bush and Co. have a clear record of being un-cooperative?

Catbird's Rap ROute is a separate line. It is an old roiute done by Chris Christensen, I believe, that has never been reported anywhere except (here) by Catbird. You will see the tree with slings on it below the Blueberry Terrace, about 3/4 of the way from south to north along the terrace. These raps end up several hundred feet north of the start of the W. Buttress, and there is some slightly nasty scrambling/hiking to get back. If you go this way, please take some grey webbing and replace the bright colored slings that are hanging there. Also, I hope you like old(ish) bolts. They are probably not bad, but I don't think you will find any shiny new 3/8" bolts at those anchors. Vastly preferable, in my view, is to finish the climb to the summit and rappel the west slabs/Westward Ho. This brings you back to where your pack is (assuming you climbed W. Butt or Dark Rhythm).

PP- A couple of years ago, Wolfilwitz gave a speech wherein he said he thought we should pull out of all significant international agreements and withdraw from the U.N., and that we should seek to maintain military supremacy and that if any other country threatens our preeminence in the world we should do all we can to keep them down. This is called the "Wolfilwitz Doctrine," I believe. Since Bush came into office, he'd done just about everything he can to undermine the U.N., he's refused to sign Kyoto, stalled on even talking about global warming when this has been the top of the agenda for many of our "allies," backed out of arms control treaties in place for 30 years, refused to "submit" to the World Court, called our long time allies "irrelevant," perpetrated a major war against the wishes of every other nation in the world save Britain, Spain and East Bonga Wonga, and he's dangerously close to getting trade wars going. If you call this "cooperation" with other nations, I'd hate to see what it would be like if we decided to be "belligerent."

That's right, Martlet. I'd much rather have the U.N. in charge than Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfilwitz, and Cheney. Much rather. I don['t know what actually happened with the oil-for-food program. Information has been remarkably scarce. Apparently, Fairweather and FOX News say there was an evil plot and there is an ongoing coverup perpetrated largely by one evil program administrator and his friends, but I suspect it was a lot more complicated than that. I also believe that our great father in Washington would not have done any better and probably IS not doing any better right now.

I really don't understand your deep hatred of the UN, Mr. Fairweather. So they messed up the food for oil program. (And here, I'll note that they PROBABLY did mess it up way big time, and almost certainly some of them WERE corrupt - but I sure as hell don't believe anything in any FOX News release and I have no idea whether the problems were the "fault" of the U.N., of some individuals within it, or if the organization was coopted or coerced by greedy third parties with economic interests at stake - or all three). The U.N. has messed up a lot of other things, too -- but I still think we're better having it than not. What is the alternative? Might makes right, I guess. I'd much rather that we at least paid lip service to the idea that we should cooperate with other nations to make this world a better place and the right wing attack on the U.N. and on pretty much all international treaties of any significance is something I find absolutely horrific.

I know somebody who went there about 20 years ago and he said it was not a hot spring that you want to go for unless you just want to ramble around on a cool side of Glacier Peak. The pool was barely big enough to sit in, and not very warm. (Flows and water temperatures do change, though, so you might fish around for a more recent report.)

I don't worry about the rope or sling lying against the rock at a belay station, dog, unless I'm going to be lowering or rapelling there. However, for a sport anchor, I agree that it is a concern and I prefer to see little lengths of chain at a sport belay than just a single screw link or something for the reason that you point out. I think Catbird was referring to something else, though -- the "standard" rule that you should NEVER clip biner to biner or link sling to sling. This is not a bad general idea, but as a rule I ignore it on just about every climb I do.

Actually "that" was three different sprayers. I think this character may have been there, too:

That group camp IS nice, though. If Dave wants to get us to agree on a weekend that is hopefully a little earlier in the Fall (like before the monsoon begins), and if he can muster the momentum to actually reserve the campground, Power To Him! He's just been to a rocking ski party and a great picnic. What's wrong with wanting to look ahead?

A few more pictures from last night: Can you name the sprayer?

Feeling left out again, Dru?

Some people around here have a real problem of insecurity when it comes to being uniformed about a secret. Had I been admiring Cornona's breasts, I most definitely have been looking THROUGH my glasses rather than OVER them.

Sorry to dissagree with you again, Mr. Shapp, but Mastsernate asked where there were some good walls to practice on and I just assumed he wasn't looking for a place to practice hauling his luggage through the woods and over a bunch of moss-covered boulders. Most of us don't need to practice that particular aspect of climbing 'cause we do enough of it as it is. Had he asked where there was a real scenic grade IV wall climb, and added that he didn't mind a bit of jungle crawling, I'd have said "go for those new routes on Witch Doctor..."