mattp

Tomcat- I believe that we gain a greater sense of our freedom and where we stand in the world when we travel outside this country and when we actually pay attention to what is going on throughout the world than we could ever gain by being forced to serve in the military for two years or whatever. I know plenty of folks who have been in the military who don't seem to have thought one iota about what it means to live in a free country. Some of them even think it is treasonous to speak one's mind!!!

I may be misinterpreting Tomcat's remarks, but I think he said that those who have served in the military have more right to comment on the horrors of war than those who have not. I say that is bullshit. If you have served in combat, you know first hand what it is like in a way that I can not. But that does not give you any greater right to comment on whether this or any other war is a good idea. Remember, nobody here is arguing that Iraq is not in violation. I don't think anybody here is rooting for Saddam. The question at hand is not whether we support the troops, but whether this invasion is a good idea at this juncture. I don't buy the argument that nobody should criticize the war until it is over. As citizens of a free country with a relatively free media and with democratically elected leaders we have a civic duty to think and talk about what our leaders are doing in our names. If we believe the government is not acting morally, and if we believe that we might even in some small way be able to influence events by expressing that belief, we have a moral duty to display our objection to what is being done in our names.

RobBob, I share your support of and respect for our troops. I do not agree, however, if you think that it shows a lack of support or respect for out troops to criticize the policies of our President, who I believe did not have to and should not have led us to this point. Aside from a few misguided and generally young idealists, I don't see many Americans burning flags or spitting on soldiers -- but I see a lot of Americans who are hoping and praying that our national leaders can be driven to choose a new path away from the stated policy of world domination. We are all hoping that this invasion can end in success and that it can end with a minimum of death and destruction.

eric8- We don't have to go in there to prove that he probably has banned weapons or that he is violating U.N. resolutions. We already know that, and I don't even think the French or the German's debate these points. The question is whether these things justify the current invasion at this time. The gassing of the Kurds supposedly happened in 1988. I say supposedly, because there are some who argue that it did not take place as reported. I would have to agree that it is despicable that he would promote a policy of paying the families of suicide bombers, but my guess is that this is much more of a bellicose bit of rhetoric than it is an inducement for the bombings. George W. Bush keeps telling us that Saddam "arms and harbors terrorists" but I don't think he hast been able to come with a single recent example.

Roger that, Colonel. Much of the debate in American political life is rather like that which takes place here on cc.com -- folks are just talking to hear themselves speak and so they can feel good about themselves. However, I'd generally rather see even a pointless discussion than no discussion at all.

Uhh, guys.... I think it is hard to argue with most of what Necro stated: 1. It is morally wrong to kill. We are waging a war to disarm a regime that we say has weapons that nobody can find. We have argued that has a nuclear program, for example, that all knowlegable experts have agreed DOES NOT EXIST. It's not that Saddam wouldn't like to have such a program, but the fact seems to be that he does not now have one. Similary, we have said that Iraq supports terrorism, but our government has not provided any evidence that he has done this in recent years -- and indeed has put forth some "examples" that have proven to be exaggerated or perhaps downright false. 2. In the coming days and weeks, innocent people ARE going to die in large numbers. Both Iraqis and Americans. As a direct result of this war, Americans will die not only over there but also over here -- if al Queda or any other rogue who dislikes what is happening can pull it off -- and I don't see why they couldn't. 3. Bush has made choices that had a lot to do with taking us from relative peace and prosperity toward war, uncertainty, and continued economic slump. 4. The Bush administration is attacking Federal funding for public education, and is putting in place policies that reduce funding for various State programs while increasing certain mandates that they spend on things like, for example, homeland security. 5. In the name of national security, there has been an increase in surveillance of American citizens, detention of aliens, and "trials" without the Constitutional protections such as the right to confront one's accuser, the right to an attorney, the right to timely prosecution, etc. We can only expect that such practices will increase because our government is telling us that this is necessary for our security. 6. This administration, led by our president, has stated that they will pursue a policy based in the U.S. fundamental right to act as it deems fit without being accountable under a whole host of international treaties and agreements, and without being accountable to the U.N.; and that this fundamental right is based only on the fact that we are the sole superpower and deserve to remain that way so the rules that apply to the rest of the world do not apply to us. 7. We are a nation of sheep. YOU CAN JUSTIFY ALL OF THIS, PERHAPS, BUT I BELIEVE MOST OF IT IS TRUE. I understand the idea that Saddam presents such a lingering hazard that he has to go -- and that it is better to take him out now than to wait any longer. I don't agree, but I understand the argument. I understand the argument that this is a crisis which justifies some suspension of some of the Constitutional protections that we have enjoyed in the past, or the argument that tax breaks for large and powerful corporations are going to benefit the average American citizen. But to me the outbreak of this war shows the failure of our administration's diplomatic efforts at least as much as it shows what a bastard Saddam is. I don't agree with Necro that all of our freedoms are illusions, I don't agree with him (if this is what he is saying) that it is George W. Bush's fault that millions of people are starving on our streets, and I don't agree that the start of this economic slump was George W. Bush's fault. But these are sad times. Let's hope that this Iraq business is concluded with a minimum of death and destruction.

If you read last year's discussion, you know that the ice is northeast facing, at about 5500 feet, and it is usually "in" all winter. There are some smaller sheets that can be top-roped, but the top of the main ice curtain is a little more difficult to reach without leading it.

I think another reason is because the interior ranges just plain get more snow, not only safer snow.

If nobody volunteers, bus 17 heads along Westlake and stops right in front of the Sloop, or damn near. I bet you'll be able to get somebody to give you a ride home, at least.

Lately, 7:30 has been a better bet if you don't want to have to down the first three pitchers by yourself.

Censorship: what is it? As I indicated already, we received several requests to delete some of the angry criticism of Dan. We refused to do so, even though we thought some of that discussion was unnecessarily hostile, because we felt that folks should be able to express their opinions on this board. After receiving complaints about the level of general B.S. in the thread, I discussed it with others and decided that I could ask folks to stop spraying completely unrelated banter on the thread without stifling anybody's right to express theirself. Is it "censorship" to require someone who wants to post snafflehounds and pagetops to do it somewhere else on this board? Is that truly stifling anybody's right to express themself?

I believe Blix is working on it as we speak. A full report will be presented to the spray council and then we hope to pesent a reforendum.

Indeed, Ehnmic, it would be different. I have known a lot of climbers who sought to introduce their children to the world of climbing and, just as with any other parenting issue, there are a myriad different ways to handle these issues. But when a father seeks to impel their son to perform in such a dangerous endeavor, I think there is great potential for the son to be unable to excercise their own independent judgment. I don't know them and I know nothing about their plans. I am not expressing any opinion about the relationship between Roskelly and his son.

Dru- Believe it or not, we have been engaged in private discussions with some people who ARE interested in bringing more information to this discussion. We HAVE discussed with them exactly how that might be done, and whether THAT THREAD might be the appropriate place. I agree that a ten-page rant wherein all the important points were made in probably no more than 25 out of over 200 posts has almost by definition lost focus and that there are few people who are going to come into the discussion at this point and try to read the whole thing, and I agree that there is nothing "sacred" about it. But the fact is that I hiave disussed the thread with many people and there are lots of readers who feel it WAS a valuable discussion and who have thanked me for intervening. But I have no witnesses, of course. I can supply the GPS coordinates, if you would like.

I believe I read in the P-I that he was, like, 16. It serves me right for taking that as correct. Indeed, I would say there is a difference between being 16 and 20, and the fact that he has prior high altitude experience makes a difference too. I thought it was an interesting question, however, whether a father should or whether any of us as fathers might take a son on a dangerous expedition.

Robbob- No, it was not your posts that led me to shut down the discussion. It was the repeated posts from Dru and his avatars, and some others, where the only message was "I have a right to spray on this thread no matter what you, Mr. Moderator, may think." They weren't even pretending to address the topic of the thread, but simply posting bullshit and urging others to do so. I clearly explained several times in both public and private statements (the latter sent mainly to Dru), that we have received specific requests to control the banter on that thread and I asked that folks cooperate and stop fighting to be able to simply dump spray on it. Indeed, there are several people who have indicated interest in continuing the discussion but who said they would not do so unless the discussion was going to be severely moderated. We have repeatedly been asked to delete some of the angry criticism of an "obvious hoax," but we refused to do so precisely because we feel that people should be able to say what they think on this bulletin board. I did state, more than once, that I thought we had already seen 39 angry posts complaining that the liar should be discredited, and that the point had in my view been amply made. But I did not delete anybody's post to that effect. I discussed this thread with others before I took any action, and the off-topic banter was something that we felt we could try to reduce without stifling anybody's right to express themself. Can you really say that Dru's right to pile on extra posts so that he can claim another page top should outweigh the concerns of somebody who is interested in using this board to explore a hot topic that is obviously of interest to so many people? If you want to call me John Ascroft Jr. because I am willing to stand up to somebody who is fighting for their right to seek pagetops, go right ahead. Like Erik said - if you or Dru or anybody else just has to spray, simply copy any portion of the thread that you like and paste it to the spray forum.

One nearby and extremely accessible trail project that I believe was funded at least in part with funds from the Fee Demo program is the trail to Big Four Ice Caves, outside Granite Falls. On that trail, there is a very large new bridge over a pretty small stream that is, like, 75 feet long and built witih 4 or 5 foot high glue lam's and would be strong enough to hold a sherman tank. The whole thing was helicoptered in there. The prior footbridge in the same location was less than a tenth as big and to replace it would probably have cost 1% as much. I think a good argument could be made that this is an example of government waste at its worst, but an equally good argument could be made that the Ice Caves trail is the most popular hiking trail in the district, and it is appropriate that they spent a large percentage of their trails budget there and made it something that serves families and probably even wheelchairs. If it was in fact built with funds from fee demo, it might be interesting to mention that the program supports this kind of project in addition to more remote and primitive backcountry trails.

I could lbe wrong, but I think almost nobody who was in on the committee meetings related to the fixed anchor ban would describe Scott Silver as either patient or "not wacko." From what I understand, people who were for and against the ban found him to be, at best, unnecessarily divisive. While he certainly couldn't be said to be objective about fee demo and I would question some of his "information," I do think he has worked hard on the issue and would be a good source.

RobBob, you are mistaken if you think that I would feel compelled to shut down this thread. And I'm hurt that you would say such a thing. Meanwhile, back to your regularly scheduled program. I find it amazing, and somewhat worriesome, that a famouns mountain climber would take his fifteen year old son (or is he sixteen?) to try to climb Mount Everest. Not surprising, perhaps, but .... What do you folks think about this?

wdietsch is probably right about how you probably won't be able to drive very close to the mountain, but about a month ago I believe the road to the south side was driveable to pretty close to the trailhead at Morrison Creek, which is really not all that far below the higher Cold Springs trailhead that usually doesn't open until June or July. I'm jut guessing, but my bet is you will be able to get much closer to the mountain on the main south approach than you will on the road to Bird Creek Meadows, for the Mazama Glacier. I've never been up the Mazama, but I have been up the Avalanche and I've skied the SW Chutes several times. I would not recommnd the SW Chutes as a climbing route unless you are looking for workout on a relentless climb of 3500 feet up one single slope. Either the Mazama or the Avalanche Glacier route would have more variety of terrain and things to look at. Wdietsch is also probably right that the crevasse issues will be minimal in April, but I wouldn't assume there will be little or no objective hazard. On any of these routes, you could encouter an avalanche hazard and there is at least some possibility of encountering rockfall (particularly during a warming spell) or steep icy slopes where you dare not stumble.

I would guess that one reason it may be the case that climbers from out-of-state get into trouble more than locals (if that is so) might be that they are less likely to turn around or cancel their climb when the conditions are less than optimal. If you live here and you have a partner or two who are also local, you can wait for a weather window more easily but if you're going to fly out here from Chicago, you purchase your plane tickets a month in advance and can't so easil postpone your climb by a week or two. Once on the mountain, the same factor will come into play: the local can turn around while telling themself that they'll be back next week. The vacationer cannot.

Indeed I did downclimb those blocks. That was more frightening than anything I found higher on the route.

Nathan mentions a short pitch on steep rock at the base of the ridge. When I did it, the tracks all went straight to a short rock pitch, and I believe folks were going that way because there was an easy path between crevasses that lead straight to that spot and they didn't want to or maybe didn't have the skills that would have been needed to climb in and out of a crevasse to get somewhere else. Not wanting to test a new path unroped, I went that way too. But that rock pitch was SCARY! I had the distinct impression that I could easily pull out the wrong block and bring the whole thing down on myself. Had I been there with a partner, I would likely have insisted upon going around some other way.

Actually, it think it was MS4+. It was mixed spray, or spray covered information. In better conditions, it might have been only S2.