mattp

I'm sure that with modern climbing styles being what they are, nobody is going to be persuaded to use and old fashioned ice axe, but have any of you folks practiced the self arrest with both a 50 cm axe and a 70 cm one? How many of you have ever tried using a 70 cm axe on a mountain climb and traded back and forth with your buddy who has the 50 and a ski pole to see which was more useful on moderate terrain? How many of you, who worry about the weight of other items in your pack, carry an ice axe, ski pole, and a picket for a moderate climb?* Just curious. *credit to Lowell Skoog for pointing out that many climbers these days now carry these three tools in situations where we used to carry only the axe in the old days.

There are two routes between Total Soul and Silent Running, "Revolver" and "Penny Lane." I don't remember which is which. I believe both are 5.10, and the one next to Total Soul is pretty much a new line whereas at least part of the one farther right has been there for several years but has recently seen old hardware replaced with new. There is also the old route "Bushy Galore," up an intermitten dihedral system fully of bushes, for the 5.7-X bush puller.

What? Nobody wants to stand up for the righteousness of ski poles and the 50cm tool for general mountaineering?

I believe that the Adze is quite often actually MORE effective in slushy summer snow where the pick will just rake through if there isn't anything more firm within the top 6" or so and, yes, the Adze IS more comfortable. It is really not that hard to turn your ice axe around in the event of a fall -- especially if you practice it at all. I believe that plain old inexperience is probably much more of a hazard, as is wearing crampons on a slope where they are not necessary. I also believe that the modern practice of using ski poles on lesser slopes and carrying only 50mm tools is probably more dangerous than holding the ice axe "backwards" -- grab your 50 cm tool and lie down on the snow some time and look where that spike is in relation to your abdomen; then switch out for the more traditional 70 cm ice axe and check it out. I haven't conducted a statistical analysis of ANAM to see if my theory holds, but the short tols sure look like an obvious danger to me and, despite what they guy said, I would guess that the shortness of his axe may have been more of an issue in this recent accident than was using the adze instead of the pick -- it wasn't either adze or pick that went into his belly (I can't tell from the picture, but it looks as if it may be a "modern" length tool).

Catbird, you have way too much time on your hands if you have time to wash the smoke out of your slings!!!

There is a long tradition of naming themes up there. Besides all the Monarchy names (Monarch, Queen, Princess, Throne, Concubine, Page, etc.); there are the devilish ones (Cerberus, Ogre, Satan, Jezebel, Belial, Sciron); the Ape ones (Ape, Throwback); bears (Polar Bear, Cub, Horriblis); and now the Turtlehead theme.

I bet most of those who don't trust the supposed "liberal media" will not agree that the BBC could be seen as a benchmark against which to measure our press, Catbird. e BBC published that story about how the African uranium purchase was a bogus story -- way back in, like, January. It took our "liberal"press, and even our unpatriotic liberal politicians, six months to catch on.

Fairweather - Exactly what question did you answer in answering the "first question?" I asked how exactly it was that you think Clinton lied to us about Kosovo and how would the press' treatment of that lie show a liberal news bias whereas their treatment of Bush's "misleading" us about Iraq does now show an equal bias to the right? Times have changed is all you can say? Do I understand you correctly - that it it is only because of 9/11 that the press has temporarily "wised up" and they are going to go back to a liberal slant any day now? If they are following changes in public opinion (which I would agree with you is pretty sad), aren't they merely being commercially driven rather than idealistically driven? I am glad that you didn't say "Fox News" in answering "the second question." On this point, we may well agree. You can't get real news. The media is mostly presenting commercial messages.

By the way - what is with this "finally allowed inspections in." As far as I remember, the ONLY time in the entire twelve years or whatever it was that we did not have inspectors there was when WE called them back because WE were going to bomb. Yes, I believe that Saddam was interfering with the inspections at many points along the way, but "finally allowed inspections in" is clearly a misstatement of the reality.

He said that Saddam would not allow inspections. The truth is that WE decided to discontinue inspections at a time when just about everybody else in the world was urging us to give the inspections more time. Bush didn't say it had been "too little too late," or even anything remotely like that. I don't think "lie" is too strong of a word. Either it is "lie" or perhaps "self-deception." Is it OK for a Republican president to lie, but not a Democratic one? Does any of this have bearing on the question of whether the press presents a consistent liberal slant to the news?

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?