mattp

I take it from your response that the press did not in fact point out Bush's blatant lie, but merely restated it without question (I was away from the newspaper for two weeks, so maybe I missed it when they pointed this out). No, I do not think it is OK for a Democratic president to lie any more than a Republican one. You, however, think it is OK for our president to lie to us if you agree with his objectives ("The American public was/is apparently willing to accept that they were misled to one degree or another. Frankly, I am too.") Do I read you correctly? If you think I am a big fan of Bill Clinton, you misunderstand me completely. But what about the liberal media establishment? I still don't understand the complaints about how Clinton lied to us about Kosovo, but I am willing to believe that NPR and the New York Times and all of those liberal media people failed to do their job and question Bill Clinton about these matters. Can you fill us in on how that may have happened? And if you can fill us in on that, can you explain how that is somehow different than the "pass" that is being given GW Bush and Co? I agree that the American press sucks. Probably the world press. Do you know of a news source where you can get honest, accurate, thorough and balanced news?

I agree with you there, Snoboy, but I would point out that some times, a simple job of replacing some chains can turn into more than that. Anybody who takes it upon theirself to mess with a belay station (or even a single bolt, for that matter), better be ready to break tools, or to find out that the threads on the bolt become stripped or whatever, and have the sense of responsibility and follow through to come back and fix it. I'd be hesitant to suggest that anybody who doesn't like a chain should be in a hurry to go up there and change it.

Did I miss it? Did they point out that the president completely misconstued the situation? I'm not talking about the big flap over the Nigerian uranium - a story that was published by BBC about 6 months earler and completely ignored by our press at the time - but about his statement about the situation with the inspections, immediately before the war. Are you really saying that you don't mind if our president lies to us about current events???????? Do you want our elected officials to make policy and sell it based on lies? Would that apply if a liberal Democrat was in office, or only if it is a conservative Republican?

So, do you think it is fair reporting to repeat Bush's complete distortion without pointing out the mis-statement of history? I KNOW what Fox owners would say, but what do YOU say?

Fairweather- I'm with you on wanting news to be news, and editorial to be editorial - to the extent that is possible. Is it "fair reporting" or "balanced news" to repeat Bush & Co's press releases without questionning them? Is it "balanced" to report that Bush said that we went to war because Saddam would now allow inspections - without making any effort to point out that in fact Saddam DID allow inspections (albeit with the threat of military action, but he did in fact allow them) and that WE decided that continuing those inspections was no longer in our interest? That is what the "liberal media establishment" (including NPR) did. They reported Bush's words, with no question. I didn't see where a single reporter raised their hand and said, "excuse me, Mr. President, but is that what you meant to say?"

Fairweather, thanks for the reply. I was afraid you might not be willing to defend your pal, Goldberg, and I was trying to provoke you. Perhaps it worked. Yes, I can assure you I read the same book. Every page of it. As I said on this particular point (the number of homelessness stories), I do not find it evidence of an attempt to distort the news that reporters who are interested in homelessness may have had other issues on their minds during the Clinton years. The numbers may have resulted from all the "liberal" reporters gettting together and agreeing that they better lay off that issue or their hero Bill Clinton might look bad, but I doubt it. Most liberals I know were not enamored with Bill Clinton. Did these evil liberal reporters misstate the issue somehow? Do you really argue that those numerical studies show that when somebody writes a story about homelessness they are trying to make the President look bad? And yes. I think NPR has become rather mainstream and they are now nearly as bland as the rest of the media. At one time they were provacatove, but now they have become afraid to rial the powers that be. They peddle Bush & Co's propaganda just like anybody else, and rarely do they offer us any critical perspective on important current issues. However, I'd like to see them rial the politically correct once in a while, along with the Administration.

I agree with what you wrote, Ade, but I think you don't know the history of Dreamer. It was retro bolted (pro and belay bolts were added) immediately after the first ascent, then again in the late '80's, and again late '90's. People are still calling for more bolts, so maybe about 2008 somebody will go back and add some more. Frosty - We did not bolt Superfly on the lead. If we had, there would be a bolt that you would clip from standing in that little scoop just before the crux, and you'd then have to run it out to some stance around the corner past the crux. Instead, what we attempted to do was to bolt it so that you can not cheat the crux, but so that there is no really severe fall potential (you can still take a 20 footer). We also tried to put the bolts in a relatively straight line, because with the deviation lower down on the pitch and again after that crux section, we knew the rope drag was going to be a serious issue. The result is a little contrived, but that is what we were trying to do, anyway.

Lum- "Complaining" does follow from a certain state of mind. I knew that there would be climbers like Brian who would not notice the off route crack just above, because they'd be standing there looking at the 25 foot traverse and the most obvious path accross there does not go near the crack. For this reason, I think it would have been justifiable to add the extra bolt but I chose not to -- and the reason had more to do with the fact that I didn't want to install a bolt that would piss people off than it did with the idea that the bolt did not belong. So far we have managed to avoid any kind of bolt wars at Darrington, and I hope to keep it that way.

Brian, there is a crack right off the belay on that alternate pitch 8. All you had to do was step up a few feet off route and you could have plugged right in. I thought people would complain if I installed a bolt where there was natural pro available. That traverse is 5.6.

Yes, Fern, I think many people agree that it is more acceptable for someone to solicit donations when they are maintaining older routes than it would be for them to do so when putting up new lines. But I think Meingh's site raises other questions. To refer back once again to a local Seattle example, I'll ask this: what if Brian Burdo, when he installed all those chain links stacked on washers for bolt hangers at Little Si, had instead taken donations and thereby been able to afford real hangers? Wouldn't that have been better? People who think Little Si is a travesty may argue no - that it would only have encouraged him to install more bolts - but I am not so sure whether there would have been more or if those installed would simply have been better. Similarly, as Veggie points out, the plea at Meingh.com suggests that any significant donations might be taken as an endorsement of activities that a significant number of climbers do not approve of -- aside from the underlying question as to whether sport climbing is legitmate at all, what else do we think about this? Would it be better to try to undermine Mr. Meingh or, perhaps, is it a good idea to praise at least the fact that it appears he may be trying to do a good job of it? Is the fact that he set up his site, and a bulletin board for discussion, a sign that he may be likely to be more responsible about what he is doing than somebody who seeks to avoid bringing attention to what they are doing?

Another example of the shoddy work that went into Goldberg's book, Bias: He devotes a chapter to complaining that the liberal media made much noise about homeless people during Bush I and somehow indicated that Clinton solved the whole problem but then Bush Jr. brought it back (the chapter is called "How Bill Clinton Cured Homelessness). However, in the ABC and CNN pieces that he cites as examples of this, it was clearly stated that the current rise began in 1999 and 2000 - during Clinton's reign. Reporters who cover the issue are probably likely to be politically liberal on social issues, at least, and somebody with a liberal agenda on social issues may have had other topics to report on during the Clinton years, but I don't think it can be argued that, in these two stories cited by Goldberg, there was some liberal conspiracy to distort the truth. See: book review by FAIR . Where are Fairweather and Peter Puget to revive the argument that the liberal bias in the media is so clearly obvious that everybody knows it is true?

This morning, on the way to work I heard two news stories on NPR, that ultimate bastion of the allegedly liberal media establishment. These showed, if anything, a CONSERVATIVE slant. The first, a story on the bombing of a mosque in Iraq, told of how there was an ongoing struggle between a younger generation and elders in the Shiite sect, but then quoted Akhmed Jalabi (or however you spell it) as attributing the bombing to "Saddam Hussein loyalists." Jalabi was identified as a "member of the Iraqui National Congress." My question is this: what kind of an expert is Jalabi, who I believe is a puppet put forth by Bush and Co. with little if any legitimacy in Iraq, and isn't this an attempt to legitimize him in the eyes of the American news listener? Don't they paint a simplistic picture of the situation when every bomber in the country is passed off as a "Saddam Hussein loyalist?" Isn't the suggestion here that if we can only root out all remaining "loyalists," things will settle down? The second story was one about Arnold Schwartzenegger. It described his adoring fans, and contained a couple of snippets from a speech wherein he said there were no superheroes in the real world, and that he would balance the budget without raising taxes and that he would not have to cut any funding to education. The story noted that he had refused to talk to reporters about a thirty year old article in a men's magazine, giving no hint of what that article may have said, and quioting him as saying that he wants to look toward the future rather than dwell in the past. I don't think Gray Davis is being given such treatment, is he? And of Cruz Bustamonte, the story noted that he can't lose - he will either be governor or remain in his current position as lieutenant governor. NPR doesn't sound so unabashedly liberal to me.

Russ- I do not mean to seriously suggest I am going to start soliciting donations. Darrington is a cool area, and I've had fun up there over the years, but its a hobby interest and I'm not planning on taking any more formal step toward trying to be Mr. Darrington. I'm wondering, though, whether somebody who wanted to adopt a climbing area might well use the web in a manner similar to Meingh.com without being seen as self-serving and silly.

Russ- Thanks for your support. If I had a "send money here" plea on my Darrington Rock Climbing web page, would you send me money? Should I quit my day job? I guess one thing I'm wondering is this: Darrington was neglected for a long time, and the area was known for sketchy bolts and long runouts and bad trails. The replacement of old bolts, in particular, happened largely because of the support and encouragement from that money jar and the donations from the Washington Mountain Alliance. We felt (or at least I did - Dave can speak for himself) that we had some kind of broader responsibility when we were using other people's money and, while I was already starting to replace old bolts up there, I did more of it after we got that kind of support. Might the internet be a tool for somebody to use for funding the replacement of bolts or the restoration of eroding trails at other climbing areas? If so, how should they go about it?

Yeah. Toyota's suck. I bought one that was totalled before I bought it, and I totalled it once more. The damn thing drove like nothing had ever happened.

Fern, I am not arguing with you, but I'm kind of interested in what would give the guy "background credibility." Like you (I'm only guessing what you think), I found some smug amusement in thinking that the guy must be rather egocentric to think that people are going to pay him to put up sport routes. Also like you (again I'm only guessing), I would be surprised if he got much in donations from this solicitation -- but then again people get lots of money from all kinds of idiotic inernet scams that are probably far less trustworthy than his solicitation. But what of this "credibility?" Would if affect your judgment if he had a link with Kevin McLane or Scott Flavelle -- and why? What if this "lost crag" or whatever it is turns out to be lauded as the best sport crag in BC? In reflecting on my own experience, I wonder why our money jar in Jim Nelson's shop was all that different. Yes, Dave had been an author of a Washington climbing guidebook, but his name was not on the jar. Was it different because the jar was on the counter in a shop operated by someone who had credibility as a guidebook author himself? Or were we just being egocentric idiots to think that someone might want to donate to what we saw as a worthy project? Was it crucial that we were not only putting up new routes but also maintaining old ones?

Those guys may be a little self-indulgent if they expect unknown climbers to support their drilling activities, but putting up or maintaining bolt-intensive routes is very expensive. If you use what I consider to be decent hardware for the belay stations, whether a pair of hangers with chains attached to them with screw links, or pre-made belay stations from Fixe, it costs $12.00-15.00 for a belay station. For pro, I like powder-coated bolt hangers, and each stainless steel bolt with hanger costs over $3.00. A few years ago somebody suggested putting a "donations" jar in Jim Nelson's shop when Dave Whitelaw and I put up an 8 pitch route and started replacing old bolts on many of the classic older routes in Darrington. We were pleased that somebody thought well enough of what we were doing to suggest that and over the next few months we collected a couple hundred dollars. I don't expect other people to pay for my new route, but I have probably spent over 25 days and at least a couple hundred dollars doing road and trail work on existing roads and trails and replacing pre-existing hardware that was installed by somebody, 25 years ago, who isn't coming back to maintain their climb. I have also been given a lot of bolt hangers strictly for this maintenance work, and for that I am grateful. If somebody set out to replace all those chain-link hangers at Little Si, I bet there would be lots of folks willing to donate. I bet that, withoiut some kind of sponsorship (donations), nobody will ever set out to improve things there.

I think cavey and Erik said it all on page 1: some people are more sensitive to giardia or other water-borne nastiness than others but, for most of us, if you don't get your water from immediately downstream of some popular camping area or from the Duwamish river, you probably won't get sick. I have never carried a water filter, I don't use iodine, and I am not all that careful about my water sources. In Asia I got giardia. In North America I have only once gotten sick from bad water - and it was when I got water from a faucet at a gas station.

I'll say. I have twice drilled a hole for which I did not have a bolt, and then gone back several few months later to install the bolt. These were both on rock that was less than vertical, so the holes pointed upward. With rain washing bits of debris down the cliff, the holes had become obscurred so that, on each occasion, I had difficulty locating the hole even though I was standing on exactly the same footholds from which I drilled it!

Squire Creek Wall has just about everything a big hunk of granite has to offer except straight-forward and well-protected climbing. You gotta cross the world's biggest landslide, ford the creek or use a 1/4" cable as a zip line, crawl through the brush, solo up wet slabs and climb hand over hand up old pieces of tat just to get to the wall -- and that is the best way I have found to get there, after four visits. Once you get on the rock, the climbing is some of the best that Darrington has to offer, but there are probably no more than a dozen 3/8" bolts with decent hangers on them in the entire place (there are lots of 1/4" and smaller bolts, and most do not have hangers; there are also a bunch of home-made hangers and just plain weirdness). Also, because it doesn't get much traffic, you have to dig grass out of the cracks before you can place gear in them, and there are more than the usual number of expanding flakes. Not only is there no easy approach, but there is also no easy "walk off" and nothing that modern climbers would describe as an established rappel route. The wall is very big and complex; routefinding is made more challenging by the fact from no place on it can you see all the way to the top and bottom at the same time. What I believe to be the easiest route on the main wall involves at least 16 pitches of climbing, none easier than 5.8, and this reaches a point that is still several hundred feet below the top. The wall is also geologically active; on all four visits I have made to the area, these being in the months of September, December, March and June, I have seen massive rockfall. It is extremely beautiful, though, and I'd be keen to head back up there again some time this Fall.

"Not Fred Beckey's" goes up the main wall, just right of the middle of this picture. 5.10b. 16 pitches+. The wall has a lot of great climbing on it, but be prepared for adventure. I'm not kidding.

According to gripped.com the climbs in the area are up to 20 pitches. Ray's picture showed "Airport Wall," and I've been told that the obvious rib/arete right up the middle of the thing is a bolted 5.10 face climb (that's "slab" for you sport climbers, but it's steep enough that I don't think the hard part will involve the type of smear and palm tactics you'd employ at Static Point).

We've argued the gun control issue before, Greg, and I think you are right when you say that most of us folks who are in support of gun control are not going to believe your NRA-sponsored "facts." However, I bet you would very likely similarly reject any study that showed that there was serious risk associated with keeping guns in one's home, too. This is one of those issues where our society is just about as polarized as we are on, say, abortion. In the context of the question of whether or not there is a liberal bias to the news media, can you or the NRA provide a statistic that shows that the purported bias against guns is anything more than the sensationalism or some other kind of market-driven slant that all of us agree exists in the news?

Nunberg may be a liberal but, on that question as to whether the media disproportionately labels "conservatives" in an effort to make their liberal counterparts appear more mainstream, he at least made an effort to back up his assertion with some kind of analysis of actual fact, whereas all Goldberg could offer was an unsubstantiated assertion. When questioned about this, Golberg said "I didn't want the book to be written from a social scientist point of view." In other words, he doesn't think that he should have had to have any actual data to back up his point.