mattp

If you're talking about Hatties, I think its an OK place -- and usually not very smokey in that back room where they serve food (to get there, just hold your breath as you run past the bar up front). Personally, I'd prefer some location a wee bit closer to I-5, but Hatties would work.

Any takers???

You heretic!!! (I do like it a little better, though.)

Jay- Over the last year I don't remember reading anything about the inspectors being denied access. Was that really an issue? Fairweather- You state the case fairly well, but don't you think the message we sent was really more like a general F#&K all of you - we have the biggest military and there's nothing you can do about it? After all, we lied about why we went into Iraq and justified the war by saying they posed a grave threat to the west when we attacked a country that we were counting on to be defended by a rag tag army incapable of putting up even moderate resistence, (let alone threatening anyone). I know, you guys say that even if he couldn't defend himself, Saddam was likely to supply terrorists with those evil weapons but now we can't find any of them and if they did and still do exist, we have even less chance to control who gets them. Even if your reasons are both valid and good ones, you can't really get around the fact that we lied or were extremely careless with the truth in our presentations to the public and to the world, we ultimately ignored the U.N., told Fance and Russia to jump in a lake, and have clearly said that anybody else who gets out of line is going to face the same treatment as Iraq. Some of you think that is good foreign policy. I do not.

Mount Rahm has been on my "hit list" for ten years. There is a tantalizing picture in the Bruce Fairley guide to Southwest BC, showing a viable ski route right from the summit, and it is a high peak in one of the more interesting groups of peaks in the North Cascades, the Redoubt/Spickard area on the Canadian border north of the Pickets. To further pique my interest, the old Becky map shows a logging road system relatively close to the foot of the run, so it has always appeared that it might make a good weekend outing. Despite the forecast for marginal weather and snow conditions over this Memorial Day weekend, my friends John and Kurt (that's "AlpineK" to you) were up for a ski trip so off we went. The logging road up Maselpanik Creek was used for logging over this past winter, and the road is in good shape for about 5 miles, though new water bars may discourage some drivers. After we reached the end of the line at a washed out bridge beyond which the road was infested with alders, the boys were raring to go and could hardly contain themselves as I tinkered with my pack and ski boots. Mr. K took off at a gallop, and John and I set off behind him. About an hour into the slash, I realized that I was no longer following K. What to do? If I go back, will I figure out where our paths diverged? Will I then be able to follow Kurt? What about John, now behind - I didn't notice any turn-offs and unless I find him first I could end up following Kurt while John goes the way I did. After pondering my options, I decided to continue on to the camping area we had discussed. All three of us were quite capable of wading through the brush and creeks and rotten snow those few miles on our own, and I figured I should just high-tail it up there and build a smokey fire so they could find me. The hike to the end of the valley where the creek comes down from the Maselpanik Glacier went fairly well, and we all ended up in the same campsite before dinner time. If you go, expect alders, logs, creek crossings, and very little that resembles any kind of trail. On Sunday we skied up Mt. Rahm in fog. Relatively friendly trees led up the hill to the right of an avalanche track still filled with enough snow to make the track itself a viable option, and soon enough we found ourselves in some small snow bowls and passed onto the Maselpanik Glacier. After traversing left, we found the north couloir/glacier that led directly to the summit at a relatively moderate angle, with a few short rolls perhaps reaching 40 degrees. There were no crevasses visible, and the steeper slopes were mostly pre-avalanched for us, making for somewhat clumsy travel but allowing us to feel relatively safe from the threat of being swept over the edge of what was really a diagonal snow-slope perched over a cliff. It cleared briefly as we sat on top and eyed Silver Lake below, and Ross Lake something like 7,000 feet WAY below. Glad we didn't come up that way, we thought -- 7,000 feet of pure unadulterated trail-less North Cascades hell. Nearby Mt. Spickard towered into the mist, and we could make out the Pickets in the distance. The summit register revealed that only one or two parties a year reach this summit, with a recent entry noting that someone had dragged their sorry ass all the way up there from Ross Lake! The ski down was somewhat unnerving. Just as on the hike in, the boys got tired of my dithering with my pack and Mr. K took off into the fog. John followed, and I ran third, skiing the left-overs. John and Kurt didn't seem to have much problem with it, but I found it difficult skiing the steep avalanche debris and, with cliffs below, I was well aware that a mistake could indeed be a BIG MISTAKE. I took it slow, a few turns at a time, both because I wanted to be careful but also because each time I linked more than six or eight gorilla turns and crashed over a dozen more death cookies, my legs reminded me that I hadn't been exercising very much lately. The next day, we climbed back up for another run on the Maselpanik Glacier. Surprisingly, we found some good corn which was a definite bonus-run on what we had expected to be a mediocre ski weekend. The hike out went without incident though a couple of ski-boots got filled with water, and back at the car we agreed that it had been a pretty good weekend - with a favorable fun-to-misery ratio. I would highly recommend this tour, but if you don't like brush it would be better to go earlier in the season -- or maybe just go somewhere else.

Josh- A standard formula that works fairly well is to take the angle that you perceive the slope to be, cut it in half and add ten degrees.

What about this? Senator Byrd's Remarks

In February, there was plenty of brush in Bedal Creek and even though there has been significant snowfall since then, I bet nothing below the high basin below the W. face has enough snow to obscure brush. In several places the winter-flattened brush and avalanche-flattened trees obscured the Bedal Creek trail for a couple hundred yards at a time but it was still very passable and you probably won't waste much time if you just forge on ahead each time you lose the trail. Depending on the weather (sun and warmth), those ramps on the south face that access the upper part of the mountain could be treacerous but overall, the Bedal Creek approach offers a pretty easy way to get to a moderate and scenic route up Sloan Peak.

Wearing shorts over polypro is popular with mountaineer types because it is a very practical way to dress in the Cascades. In cool-wet summer weather or in the winter, it allows you to have some coverage on your legs without having to wear a shell pant that causes unnecessary sweating or binding up, and the shorts allow you to sit down without ripping your expensive capilene. The long underwear is not tough enough for rock climbing or real bushwacking, but for general hiking, back-country skiing, or light-weight mountaineering it is not a bad way to do. Just don't let somebody from cc.com see you.

A "dogbone draw" is the standard bartacked draw with the carabiner keeper on the clip end. ChucK's been campaigning against them since the beginning of this site.

Peshastin is a great place for beginners - if they haven't been spoiled by climbing at a gym where all the holds are positive and a different color from the background, that is. I have taken many a beginner up Martian Diagonal and they all had no problem with it and were very excited by the top-out on a narrow crest, and the short rappel to get off. However, when I've taken relative newbies who had some prior experience in a gym, they were all wide eyed and asking where all the holds had gone.

Steven - Yes, I was talking about the descent couloir down to Sherpa Glacier. I don't think you will find any north or east facing couloir that doesn't have a cornice where it pierces the crest of the Stuart Range right now. Matt

There will be a cornice at the top of the couloir, but the gully is not technical at this time of year though some complain that it becomes icy in late season (I've been down it with one axe between 4 climbers in September and did not think it that bad). On the glacier, there can be some crevasse issues but not, I don't think, in May. You will have to be careful and good visibility would help to find the right place to get around Sherpa Peak to the start of the couloir, and avalanche precautions apply.

I believe that everybody I know who has ever climbed the Ice Cliff Glacier has described it as scary. I mighit try it sometime, but it seems to be something that most people do not repeat. (I expect 20 angry replies about how so and so had a great experience on it and how could I say something so stupid, but that's been the general tone of what I've heard over the years.)

In addition to what DBerdinka and others say, I would add that in the next couple of weeks I think you would find the NE face still very snowy and the descent would probably involve more difficult snow climbing (techincal or exposed or both) than the anything in the W. Ridge couloir tough, in addition to the steep snow in the couloir, the regular W. Ridge descent may still have some lingering corninces or other snow-obstacles on the W. Ridge itself. If you search old posts on this site, you will find that Wotan of Ballard described an alternate descent on rock just left (west) of the W. Ridge Couloir. I believe he described it as being relatively easy with anchors for rappelling where you need them. The same could be said for the W. Ridge couloir, however.

Indeed, Ian, I do keep a little extra.

Fence, just to be clear about this I should say that we all believe Clinton was a liar. Your initial completely vague assertions that he told some unidentified lie about Kosovo just didn't cut it and at least you have now told us how it was that you think he lied about it. It would further help to make the comparison if you could provide a single citation or source for what you are saying. Either way, however, I don't think that will change my opinion about GW and company. They went before the UN and the American public and offered what were either blatant lies or unchecked facts as "evidence" to justify the war.

Catbird- I believe it is a better idea to travel on the middle third of the rope, with each climber carrying enough rope to reach the other. That way, you have the option of lowering a second rope to your victim after protecting the edge of the crevasse so it won't cut into the lip, and you can do things like haul up their pack, or rap down to provide first aid, or whatever else you may need to do.

In a word, yes. Didn't they say he had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons? Didn't they make a big deal about how our troops had to carry gas masks and special suits to protect themselves because he was likely to use these things against us even if it meant he would kill lots of civilians in the process? Weren't our soldiers almost certainly ordered to look for and secure any such weapons? Meanwhile, do you want to fill us in on the Kosovo lie?

I'm sorry you feel misunderstood here, Fence. I said that "they" tried to suggest that Clinton was as bad of a liar because he lied about the blow job - and I failed to point out that it was actually Cavey who tried to make that particular point. What I said was true, however. You repeatedly asserted that Bush did not lie, then you switched tactics and insisted that you were all along arguing that all politicians lie. How is that misconstruing what you said?

It won't work, Ursa. Mr. Fence, like way too many Americans, refuse to look at the facts of the situation because they don't want to question their fearless leader. Yesterday we saw a couple guys repeatedly assert that Bush was not a liar while refusing to address the specific examples given. After this was pointed out, like ten times, they changed their argument to say that all politicians lie, and they say that Clinton was just as bad because he lied about a blow job and about not inhaling. Realizing that this is rediculous - the idea that lying about one's private life is somehow comparable to lying about the need to go to war - Fence told us that Clinton lied about Kosovo but he is unable to tell us what Clinton said that was a lie or when he might have said it. You can't have a logical discussion with these guys. That is why Alpine K says we're all a bunch of suckers, I bet.

So like I said, it sounds like you think the ends justify the means. You and Mr. Bush may be right that it was a good idea to invade Iraq -- we shall see. But they lied - and you apparently agree that it looks as if they lied, although you offer as an excuse the possibility that they were merely misinformed. You seem to think that is OK, but I don't like it. If they lied I don't like it and if they were making national policy decisions based on "misinformation" that could easily be debunked, I like it even less.

Gotta love those pop-ups. Maybe if we play our cards right, Jon and Tim will set up this site to generate a bunch of that kind of stuff. "The world's tiniest horsecock" and "Your computer is infected -- you need the spray fest eliminator or you'll never get it to shut down." That'd be cool.

Actually, I "said" cronies and you think I was "implying" Republicans. But you misunderstand me here if you think I am suggesting I believe in the Democrats. I certainly don't like the Republican party and I disagree with just about everything they stand for, but I think the Democrats are a bunch of spineless politicians that show no signs of leadership whatever. The point of this discussion, however, is that Bush, Powell, Cheney, and their gang, along with the conservative talk show hosts, think-tank denizens and other associated cheerleaders, are shameless liars. They lied about why we went into Iraq and, although I wouldn't be surprised if they found WMD there, I would be equally NOT surprised if they made up false evidence and lied about finding them. In my eyes and, I believe in the eyes of the rest of the world, our administion has zero credibility.* You are correct that we don't yet know what they may find there, and it is too soon to tell how things are going to end up. We can, however, make judgments about events that took place in the run-up to the war. They lied. Plain and simple. History may or may not show that invading Iraq was the right choice but I believe that unless someone completely re-writes history, we will not find that they were telling the truth when they offered the "evidence" discussed above. *Funny thing about the term "credibility." The war mongers have been redefining the word by saying that "credibility" has nothing to do with being thought to speak the truth, but that our credibility lies in being though so completely irrational that we would launch an attack with little or no justification if someone doesn't do what we say. Like I said, war is peace. Lies are truth. And credibility is madness.

I have said several times that I would not be surprised if they find something, Mr. Fence. But I do think they were lying to the public and the UN - repeatedly - in their efforts to win support for the war. At this stage that may not matter in as far as the most important thing now is to be sure that Afghanistan and Iraq are able to move ahead toward improved political and economic life and hopefully the future governments there will end up being more friendly to the West and the Moslems of the world will not see us, in hindsite, as infidel invaders who should face retaliation by suicide bombers for the next generation or two. However, I believe we have seen a clear example of how Bush and his cronies will lie to get us into a war. I believe this undermines our credibility and I do not think the ends justify the means.