mattp

One of Goldberg's primary examples of the libera bias in the news - the accusation that in mainstream news media they always identify conservatives as "conservatives" but fail to identify liberals as "liberals" has apparently proven dead wrong. In 2002 a guy named Geoffrey Nunberg undertook to study this question and found that, if anything, the opposite is closer to being true (the "liberal" media identify liberal experts, polititicians, and organizations as "liberal" in situations where they tend not to identy their conservative counterparts as "conservative").

Not only did our press completely ignore the news from BBC - at the time of the President's Stae of the Union speech that the uranium purchase thing was bogus but, about six weeks ago, President Bush said that we went to war in Iraq because "we gave him [saddam] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." I don't believe a single reporter asked for clarification of this statement that was clearly, at best, "revisionist history." I don't think any commentator on NPR, in the New York Times, or anywhere else made much mention of it either, even though Bush made this statement at a time when the Democrats were jumping up and down about how he had lied in the State of the Union Speech. That's the liberal media for you - slanting the news to the left and telling us what to think.

Cluck - You said you were looking for short grade I climbs, but then you cited Sahale and Shuksan as examples of what you are looking for. In my book, these are both pretty big hikes and much more than a "short grade I." If a big hike with a glacier and an easy rock summit is what you are looking for, you might look at Silver Star Mountain, Silver Star Glacier. At this time of year, the campsite below Burgundy Col may be without water, so it'd probably be a good call to head in via Silver Star Creek. Whitehorse and Sloan Peak are also good candidates.

I agree with ChucK and Alex that the method of racking gear is not critical. I climb with partners who use a variety of methods and combinations of short or long shoulder slings, double slings, or racking everything on their harness. I find it easy to accommodate their preferences and I can lead just fine with no shoulder rack, one or two -- the only thing that really bugs me is when I am climbing with someone who gets impatient when I want to deviate from their "system." I bet most parties lose a lot more time screwing around placing and moving a nest of anchors and equalizing everything or insisting upon "directionals" on 5.2 terrain or whatever, and then breaking down the resulting convolutions, than they do with the exchange of gear.

Thinker, I think that in noting that the gyms are all set up for a static belay, you have hit on to what may be an indication that the high performance lobby may be overemphasizing the value of letting let rope out and providing a dynamic catch. RuMR was hurt by a "short catch" so I'm not saying there is no usefulness in this technique, but my guess is that the insurance people or the gym owner's association or somebody studied the matter and concluded that benefits of a fail-safe static system outweigh the dangers of the short catch or the static belay (and they even use static ropes, do they not?). Of course, if you ARE a high performance climber, and if you ARE experienced at catching real falls, and if you DO have good judgment, the dynamic catch may well be a good idea - ON OVERHANGS.

Eden, I've got no problem with the debate over the use of a gris gris. I thought it silly that Necro and RuMR were arguing about whether RuMR had made an overly broad, and therefore arrogant, statement. As to the gris gris, I gotta say that I find them clumsy to use but that is only because I am an old guy who has barely figured out what to do with quickdraws and I am always suspicous of a gadget with moving parts and stuff...on the other hand, I laugh at kids these days who don't know how to belay with an ATC or a hip belay, but I bet that most of the time most belayers are probably more effective using the gris gris.

Fairweather, you'll find that Brock is a whiner, too, but I think that he paints a picture that is more compelling than that painted by Goldberg, if for no other reason than the extensive detail and long history he provides.

RuMR, Perhaps it is the suggestion that belayed climbing with a gris gris is completely safe, when all of us know that "accidents do happen." But don't sweat it. I'll climb with you even if you insist on feeding out the rope rather than reeling it in -- as long as we're on overhanging terrain.

I'm with you, Lummox. But in Sport Climbing, in particular, many are apt to say that if you aren't falling you aren't trying.

Kitten, I think you are correct that "climbing is a must in the climbing community." Climbing is kind of a disease; those of us who take to it tend to get addicted and we are likely to become hostile if kept in a cage without an opportunity to climb. I have destroyed prior relationships over this selfish and self-indulgent habit and now am married to a woman who feels neglected at times, but who seems to understand that it is an important part of who I am -- does that make me a dirtbag?

Read the discussion, Flash. Attitude was responding to where I wrote: I do not question the "laws of physics." I question the application of those laws.

Excuse me for being so brash as to question your application of a numeric formula, Attitude, but I thought this was supposed to be a discussion of the pros and cons of the use a certain technique and you did in fact state that "on a vertical face, it takes an object about 0.6 sec to fall 10 ft" as if this were some inarguable and invariable fact. Please also excuse me for raising the same kind of counter-argument to your statement that reeling in the rope increases the force on the piece of gear that is going to hold the fall: I think that a shorter fall may well result in lower forces being applied, and the belayer who is watching the fall while they reel in the rope will indeed have locked off (and hence stopped reeling in) at the moment of the catch -- it is a natural reaction. I don't purport to know everything about the situation and I have not studied the matter in any great deapth. However, if you are belaying me, I want you to be ready to try to reel it in.

I used to know someone that used a ratty old windbreaker, a garbage bag, and an umbrella. He called it "Scottish goretex." And he did just fine.

Don't worry Greg. I don't think anybody expects you to have all the facts and figures stored in your head and, even if you did, a single study or even ten different studies would probably not completely answer the question.

You can't dismiss the laws of physics, Attitude, but the "laws of physics" as you state them do not necessarly include all of the relevant factors. Your calculation of the rate of fall is only correct if you assume no friction and no resistence from a climber trying not to fall. If the holds on an overhanging wall suddently blow, your victim may fall at formula speed. However, if he or she desparately tries to cling to a lower hold after missing a reach, or if they fall on terrain that is not quite so steep and slide down the rock or maybe bounce off a couple lower footholds, they will not reach the formula speed quite so fast.

Greg- Gun control may be an issue where the media distorts things though, even so, the distortion may not come from a liberal bias as much as a tendency toward sensationalism. Certainly I would agree that you are much more likely to see stories about people being shot than about how people were not shot, and therefore the dangers of having guns in the home are going to be highlighted more than the safety presented by their being there, but this is different from a deliberate attempt to slant the news for a political purpose. I am not convinced that any purportedly rational analysis of the incidence of in-home shootings or shootings by friends or family members vs. the numer of crimes averted is misstated -- are you?

Consider the Fischer Chimneys on Mount Shuksan. It is highly scenic, and has everything that you described. The Sulphide might not be a bad choice, either, and if you don't mind having to bash a few bushes, the North Face or the White Salmon might be OK, though at this time of year they will probably present greater ice climbing challenges than you describe (I don't mind crawling through the jungle but, in my opinion, the bush below the N. side of the mountain is not as bad as commonly reported on this site).

At the suggestion of Fairweather, I took a book about the liberal media on a recent climbing trip. As it turned out, we had enough tent time that I actually read the thing: Bias by Bernard Goldberg. I had been assured that this was a well-written book and that the author makes an "airtight" case; instead what I found was a poorly written book that showed no signs that it had been very well researched and in which at least a third of the discussion was devoted to whining about his former employers and waging a personal attack on Dan Rather. There was almost no attempt to undertake a substantive analysis of whether any patterns in news reporting actually supported the author's thesis (that the media consistently slants the news to the left), and even on an anecdotal basis there were not very many real-life examples of the bias that he was complaining about. Don't get me wrong: I agree with many of Goldberg's complaints about how the media tends to favor sensationalism over substance and that they are more concerned about marketing and ratings than they are about presenting important news stories, and I agree that politically correct thought-minders do us no favors in the discussion of any political or social issue. I don't know, but I am also willing to believe he may be correct that, more-often-than-not, individual news reporters may be more liberal on certain social issues than the "average American." However, I believe he far from made his case that the "liberal media establishment" has slanted everything toward the left. Look at the way the press has handled G. W. Bush, for example; or the Enron business; or Israel. On a more local basis, look at how we have been informed about Sound Transit or the WTA riots. Is there really a consistent liberal slant to the news, when it comes to news that matters? Has anyone else read this book?

Just don't take me to the sport crag. First of all, I'll whine about how steep it is and, second, I've been reeling in the belay for so many years that I just might do the wrong thing. Old habits die hard.

I don't think it is rediculous to discuss the merits of reeling in. Like I said above, if you are ever belaying me, I want you to reel me in when I fall unless I am falling from an overhang where there is nothing to hit. Thus, as has been said already, there is some judgment involved and a discussion of the pros and cons is not a bad thing. I don't put much stock in the numeric calculations, though, just as I dismissed similar mathematical speculation in discussing fall-factors or a prior discussion of whether double rope technique may foster a less dynamic belay. It is not a bad thing to try to quantify or rationalize the discussion, but the simple fact is that, when you get out on the cliff, there are many more factors than a simple equation might suggest. When I am leading, I try to put in a piece right off the belay - a good piece that is "omnidirectional" if possible, not because of a fall-factor issue and not so much because I am afraid that higher pieces might zip, but because one look at the situation usually suggests that it is easier for my belayer to set up to brace against a pull in a single direction and I want to know that the pull will come in the direction they are prepared for. My point is not to dismiss the discussion above, but to suggest that it is often much more intuitive, and much more obvious, than numerical calculations and point-counterpoint might suggest. On just about anything other than a sport climb, if I see my partner start to fall I'll be reeling in the rope - even if only a half of a pull - and he or she will be glad to fall eight feet instead of ten, or ten instead of fifteen, or whatever. And, by the way, I believe I might well be able to take in 3 reels and then be ready to catch the climber, using an ATC, in a situation where the fall lasted 1.3 seconds. Maybe not, but my point here is that after you have belayed falling climbers for a while, you get preetty good at it.

Actually, Phil, what I am referring to IS the practice of reeling in the rope. I generally do not want my belayer to be running backwards, because they might trip over something or fall off the belay ledge, either of which might well result in their dropping me. I would agree that thinking about the "what if's" is a good idea, though, and running backwards or jumping up while catching a fall are probably more often than not best applied at a crag with flat ground beneath it. Run a search for the prior discussion.

Yes, but I don't call most of Index Town Wall or Castle Rock "slab" climbing.

RuMR, I was somewhat convinced by the prior discussion that what you are suggesting (longer falls are safer) may be good for sport-climbing falls (i.e. bolt pro and overhanging rock). However, where the rock is not overhanging, and especially when I am worried that my pro may not be all that good, I'd still rather take the shorter fall. I would guess that if you look at any statistical analysis of climbing accidents outside of the gym, and even if that includes sport climbing areas, there are more injuries caused by the climber hitting things on the way down than the smack down caused by the short catch.

We have had this discussion on this board before, and it was clear that opinions on the matter may vary, but I believe that in almost all cases I would generally rather have my belayer reel in whatever slack they can. I say this because I am always fearful of hitting things on the way down unless of course I am falling off an overhang, and in that case I am just plain fearfull of falling. In the most recent discussion that I recall, one cc.com poster made a case for how it is better not to reel in the rope, and he even advocated what in effect amounts to letting some rope OUT by having the belayer remain unanchored and then jumping up just as they make the catch in an effort to add some additional slack or cushion that would absorb some of the shock to be placed on the climber and to the top piece of gear, and which would reduce the force of a rapid swing back in toward the rock. I would rather have my belayer reel in as much as they can because I have never heard of an injury stemming from the shock of a short catch (I'm sure it happens), and I think that the danger of hitting footholds or ledges or gear on the way down is greater than the danger that a short catch may increase the severity of the slam back into the rock -- unless perhaps you are falling from overhanging rock (around here, that is most common at the gym or at some sport crags). I am not overly optimistic, either, that a dynamic belay will allow my sketchy TCU with only two cams in the rock to catch me when it would have failed otherwise. I'd say that, on average, most non-overhanging bits of rock offer the possibility that the falling leader will hit something on the way down even if they place every possible piece of pro, and I have never heard of an instance where trying to reel in slack caused the belayer to drop the climber because they were not "locked off."