mattp

Flash, there is some truth to what you are saying about the fact that some may treat it like just another commodity to be sold to somebody who is looking for a thrill, and there is something sad about that fact. However, I bet the reality of what these gaper clients go through once they get over there is more like mountain climbing than some bought-and-sold amusement park ride as you seem to imply. Have you ever tried to climb a really big mountain? Even if you have a guide short roping you and a porter carrying your pack, climbing Mount Everest IS a big deal.

The Methow Inspiration Route is in my view better than "mediocre" but I agree with Erik if what he means is that there are better 5.9 rock climbs of similar length elsewhere in the State. I think the guidebook says something to the effect that it was intended to be a set up so as to be (1) straight-forward, (2) well-protected, and (3) a good introduction to sport climbing on Goat Wall and it falls just short of all three objectives. There are better 5.9 climbs of similar length up at Washington Pass, but they are trad routes, of course, and I think the M.I.R. can be an O.K. outing if what you want is a multi-pitch sport climb.

Fox- I agree with you to the extent that peak bagging isn't exactly my thing. But it is not a bad goal for someone to decide they want to climb all the Cascade Volcano's, or tag all the 9,000 footers in Washington or whatever, and just as worthy a goal as one that a "real climber" might set after identifying the six most appealing north faces in the range, or noticing a dozen three-star 5.11 muti-pitch climbs in the Index guidebook.

Good point, Iain. It is like another thread this morning where it was said that peak bagging is for geeks. Many of us climbers think we are god's gift to humanity or something and get all snotty about "lesser" climbs or "lesser" climbers. Mountain climbing, rock climbing, ice climbing, ski descents, even hiking -- it's all good. And it's all real enough to kill you.

I don't think many of us really will want to wade through all of that, Catbird, and it is really not necessary. The imporant points here are largely covered by Mike's report and related issues which were noted by Mitch in another thread: learn what you are doing before you launch out onto challenging leads on trad pro, consider using longer and more flexible slings than a short and stiff quick-draw for trad gear, keep track of where you are on the rock and where there is potential to hit something if you fall and your pieces hold or if they fail, double up the pro when you expect difficult climbing even if you think the first piece is solid, etc. You should do these things despite the fall factor you might calculate with your palm pilot, and you should do all these things whether you are climbing on ice floss or an 11 mil super-rope.

An honest budget discussion would at least have included the following line item: Iraq War: $30b +

It reminds me of when the Bush team presented a budget to Congress that made no mention of any expense associated with the Iraq war, even though by then they had already spent - what was it? - $30 billion or something on the war preparations?

What do you guys who thought it was OK to lie to us about why we were going to war in Iraq think about this? Sure Saddam is a bad guy and you may say that the ends justified the means, but is a lie used to promote a tax cut OK? (Whether an active lie or a passive "lie of omission" it is still a lie if you say or don't say something in a manner where you know people will rely upon your statement or would difinitely want to know about the matter you are not revealing.)

The road is fine. I heard from somebody over in Mazama that it was closed, and I said that was news to me because I've been up there three times already this year, so don't believe all that you hear. There is no longer a sign at the trailhead, though, and somebody keeps taking down the hubcaps that denote Darrington crags. There are patches of snow at the bottom of a couple climbs at 3:00 rock, and I'd take an ice axe if I was headed to Dreamer (it might come in handy for about 100 feet or so), but otherwise Darrington is "open" and the bugs haven't kicked in yet. Just tell the rain gods to let up a bit.

I could be wrong, but my impression is that it doesn't matter that much as far as protecting your eyes is concerned. You can use the most expensive Nikons, the styling Julbo's, or cheapest glacier glasses from REI or even the drug-store ones and they will all block the UV. I use side shields only in the most extreme conditions, like climbing at truly high altitude or when spending an entire day on a south-facing snow slope or something, and I have never had any noticeable ill effects (though a friend of mine said that I could have done long-term damage without knowing it). So buy what you want, and for the once a year that you climb Mount Rainier you can put duct tape on the sides if they don't come with side shields. There are other issues, though. Do you care about style? Buy what your friends are wearing, or buy something that is definitely NOT what your friends are wearing. You have to decide for yourself. Toughness? You probably can't beat some of the industrial grade safety glasses for toughness, and some of these come with tinted lenses. Cheap vs. Expensive? Expensive sunglasses may not actually cost as much more as you might think - in the long run. If you are like me, you will take care of the expensive glasses but the more moderately priced ones may end up tossed into your pack flap without use of the glasses case or sitting in the sand at your campsite or whatever. Tint? Rose colored glasses make everything look really cool. Yellow is supposed to cut through the fog better, but I really can't say that I could ever tell the difference.

Fairweather: Are you saying that the Unibomber was a liberal because he had a copy of "the earth in balance?" Come now. The guy was a freak, and most definitely NOT a liberal - he was some kind of anti-everything radical. You complain that it was I who made the broad statement that liberals are harmless, but actually it was n98947 who made the broad assertion that "liberals" are more prone than those on the "right" to resort to name calling, screaming and burning things, and I believe that what I pointed out is true: radicals from either end of the spectrum engage in bombings and burning things, but for the last twenty years the right wingers have vastly outweighed the left wingers in this respect - probably by a factor of ten to one in this country, at least. And for name calling, I don't think the left can even come close to the right. So the Dixie Chicks said their free-speech rights were being violated. Is this the liberal hypocrisy that you find so distasteful?

Yes, I do. Those that burn ski resorts, research labs, or expensive homes or even those who throw bottles at cops, are not liberals - they are radicals. And you know what? By far most of the violent radicals we have seen in this country in the past twenty years have been from the far right, not the far left. Do you remember reading anything about Oklahoma City bombing, the Militia Movement, or the NeoNazi's? How about the bombings and killings of abortion providers? As to name calling, don't you think the names called Bill Clinton and his darling wife are at least equal to those called GW Bush and his? Again, I refer to the book "Blinded by the Right." It is a muckraking book all about the smear tactics of the right and although it is not the best read in the world, the author notes in the preface to the second edition that not a single rightist propagandist mentioned in the book has come out and said that anything he wrote about them is untrue. Now. Are you going to tell us who it is that won't let you boycott those Dixie Chicks?

N98947, you are the one getting all hostile here and I think that on the bulletin board it is those that profess to hate the liberals that consistently spew the most name calling and seathing animosity, not the other way around. The same is also true in the nation as a whole: check out the book "Blinded by the Right," by Brock. Liberals may rightfully be accused of being smug, or they may be out of touch with reality, or you could probably think of some other valid criticisms of the "liberal hypocrites" that won't let Fairweather boycott the Dixie Chicks, but name-calling, screaming, and torching things are not really "liberal" trademarks. They are the tools of the desparate, the uninformed, and the juvenile on all sides of any issue.

I think Catbird is right, however, that there wasn't nearly as much opposition to invading Afghanistan as Iraq. I didn't think it was a good idea and I still don't, because it seems we really haven't changed much in Afghanistan, but as Catbird points out, Afghanistan was harboring terrorists and public support for that war was stronger (international support was too).

Fairweather- You actually started this particular exchange by noting that some liberal hypocrites were denying somebody (you?) the right to boycott the Dixie Chicks. You still haven't answered my question: what are you talking about? As far as denying free speech when it comes to criticizing the government, I'm not sure it meets your definition of a "governmental attempt to stifle free speech" but anybody who criticized the war plan was branded a traitor by the Bush administration and the press -- remember the reaction to some remarks by Patty Murray and Jim McDermott? And the White House press briefings are nothing but a joke. Remember how Helen Thomas was blacklisted and sent to the back of the press room when she did not follow the softball script? Yes, you might say these are public figures who had a responsibility to support the President in a time of war, but someone else might say they had a responsibility to ask questions that nobody else on Capitol Hill or in the Press was asking. ChrisT- Sorry to dissapoint but we can't entertain you all the time.

Fairweather: Did you NOT say that it seemed somehow hypocritical that some "liberals" were criticizing a boycott against the Dixie Chicks and Danny Glover? Isn't any boycott against them based on the dislike for their recent criticism of George Bush and company? Like I said, just what are you talking about here? Who is the liberal, and what hypocrisy did they speak in criticizing a boycott that you implied support for?

What are you talking about, Fairweather? I just ran a couple of Google searches and I didn't find anybody saying you don't have a right to boycott whomever you want. Glover was quoted with some vaguely angry response, and the actor's guild said an attempt to blacklist certain stars for their anti-war points of view should not be tolerated, but that was about it. To say that American citizens should have a right to criticize their government is not some "liberal" hypocrisy -- it is a Constitutional right and a predicate for democracy.

Sounds like you could use a pint or two to help ease the suffering. You can bring the devil dog and a box of dog biscuits and we'll send an emissary out to the bike rack every ten minutes or so.

I don't think so, Flash. The general idea is that its OK to lie if your lies are intended to promote a policy of world domination by the US and its military. That Jessica Lynch thing was just good P.R.

AlpinFox- So maybe it took 4 or 5 hours to go three miles, but it WAS off trail and you DID have to slog through rotten snow and avalanche debris in addition to the brush and difficult gully crossings. When you say the bushwacking was "pretty bad," what other North Cascade no-trail approach hikes might you be comparing it to? I'd say you didn't do too badly on the approach if you couldn't even start up the road until noon, chatted with other climbers while you unloaded your packs, and made it in to the base of the North Face to camp. Later in the season Dru's approach might be better but I bet your way was faster this weekend.

It looks like no contest at this point. See you all at the Latona. Lets just hope they have cleaned their taps.

Good one, Fox. It sounds as if you got the right day for that route. Tell us more about the rocky peak "not too far off?"

Catbird - Read back to some old threads. You will see that most complaints about the book have little to do with its being too general. But it IS a whole 'nother topic that we don't necessarily have to dive into again.

I tell you, that place is death death death. Don't listen to Alex. Go anywhere near there and you will surely bite it.

It IS still avalanche season. In the North Cascades, we heard (but didn't see) spontaneous avalanche activity of the rather loud variety on Sunday, and while the wet snow we skied didn't really propagate real avalanches so much as sluffs and very large cinnamon roll snowballs that would chase you down a ski run, there were creep cracks opening up all over the place and there was definitely that potential.