mattp

On Saturday, I climbed Exfoliation Dome with a couple of my friends who are DTown regulars. We climbed the "avoid the west slabs route" and, although it wasn't exactly in prime condition, we had a pretty good day. The road in there was driveable in a normal car all the way to the roadfork at five miles from the Mountain Loop highway, and on the left fork about 200 yards beyond the bridge over Clear Creek. Although the Granite Sidewalk was frosty, there really wasn't any snow until about 3,300 feet and it was only patchy at that elevation although there was a pile of frozen avalanche debris below the West Slabs. We may have made the first winter ascent of the dome, though it wasn't a climb under full-on winter conditions. press here for the full story

Brian - That is a very exciting route report! I have not climbed on the Witch Doctor side of the dome although I have been over to look from the groud, and it looks WAY cool but all my friends who have climbed over there said that, when you actually climb something, it is DIRTY. Let me know if you ever want to go back. -Matt

John- I was up there last weekend and it appeared to me that you could probably have climbed the slabs on the right without encountering too much technical difficulty. It looked like a lot of wet rock, but It apeared that there was a way through it with no more than very short sections of 25 degree rock between large ledges and the shortest part of it was no more than a couple hundred feet high. However, a friend of mine has bolted a route that he says is 5.10 in that area, so perhaps my "from the ground" analysis was incorrect. Also, the passage right next to the main waterfall that you and I rejected as too dangerous when we were there looked to be a reasonable option -- on that day. If the upper part of the face appeared to be in shape and one of these options didn't look good, I'd be willing to fight my way up the bush to the far right and I'd be interested in going back there with you. I'm not kidding - I think Big Four is cool. -Matt

Fromage- I would delete Buckner from your list and add Shuksan. Although one of the highest Cascade peaks and fairly easy (technically), Buckner has a slightly gnarly approach to the standard route that I have not done but which I believe to be not all that exciting while Shuksan (via either Lake Anne to the Fischer Chimney's route or the cross country "trail" to the Sulphide) is just as high (maybe 30 feet higher ?), heavily glaciated, and about as scenic as it gets. A climb of Shucksan includes glaciers travel and a rock pyramid at the summit, and it is more distant from surrounding peaks. Indeed, in my opinion Shuksan is one of the most beautiful peaks in the State. I am assuming that you are asking about relatively non-technical ascents, and both of these routes on Shuksan would fit the bill. I would not overlook Mount Baker, either. Though a volcano (volcano's may not be seen as classic Cascade peaks), it has an easy approach to either the Coleman Glacier route or the Easton Glacier route, and it is way scenic.

Yo PP- I read the New York Times today, scanning for possible liberal bias. What I saw was lots of news, that I couldn't really tell was either liberal or conservative, and there was a big story about how G.W. Bush was getting serious about corporate fraud and was seeking increased funding for the Securities Exchange Commission. And there was one article, pure propaganda, about a meeting wherein G.W. met with some Iraqui opposition leaders and assured them that we were going to set up a democracy after we are through taking over their country. In light of the fact that everybody who has commented on the slim-to-non-existent prospects for our being able to set up a democracy in Iraq (including Bush administritation war-planners), I thought the article was bordering on rediculous -- but the Bush "party line" went unquestionned. In all fairness, I should point out that in section 7 there was a book review of a book that's theisis was that G.W. Bush and his pals were evil. Is this the liberal press that you oh so complain about? By the way, I am still waiting for you to explain how the story about the flap at August country club was proof of bias. Even if it will take two or three sentences, I am sure you are up to the task of explaining how such and obvious example of bias should be interpreted.

Yeah, and I hear it's "not in," too.

Cracked - the buttress can be less technical than the N. Face, but I bet that it was more technical than the N. Face when Ray climbed it a couple weeks ago. Now? I don't know. I haven't been up there for a year or two.

That's easy. Just head up there and look around. That N. Face of Chair is pretty good because it is overall a simple and barely technical line up a somewhat imposing face, but all you have to do is head up there and pick a gully and start climbing and I am sure you will find something. Bring a pair of binoculars and scope it out as best you can, and then be prepared to find out that you may have made a bad choice. But it is really that easy. With recent warm temps, there may not be a lot of ice but there will certainly be a lot of steep snow climbs that could provide plenty of entertainment and I am sure it is there too if ice is what you want.

PP- I might go for your "pot calling the kettle black" analogy, except that early in the thread, I DID provide examples of stories that I thought were slanted and I stated in what manner it was that I thought they were slanted. Nobody, including yourself, has asked for any further discussion of these examples. You, on the other hand, thrust three "examples" but are too busy to explain how they exemplify anything. I agree that my review of the web page headlines the last two days is certainly not proof of anything but I believe it is illustrative of the point that, on the surface at least, there is no obvious bias in the last couple days' headlines. Again, PP, do you mind fillin me in on how the Augusta story proves ANYTHING? You apparently have the answer to this question, and I would guess that it would not take more than a single sentence to describe your reasoning, but you are utterly unwilling to disclose it.

PP- You can do better than that, honestly. If you are going to make an argument - go ahead and make it. For example, how is it that the story about a flap over a golf tournament at an all-men's country club shows that the NYT or the press-at-large is biassed? Your "examples" are flung out without any explanation just like Mtn Goat's (weren't they his?) pointing to gun control and taxes - without any explanation of how an actual news story was slanted. Again I will note that I conceded that you may be right about these stories, but you have failed to make your point. And once again you say you are too busy to do so in the same breadth as you fling the condescending dismissal of my attempt at reasoned discussion. And, by the way, you had an opportunity to share a with me and you stood us up.

Trask - Maybe I should preemptively put Mtn Goat on my buddy list? RobBob - Personally, I find NPR rather disappointing. All that smart-ass liberal banter is simply that -- just like the crap on the right-wing radio stations. And the news? There has been little coverage about the suffering in Iraq that follows our bombing or results from the sanctions, there has been little follow up on what is happening in Afghanistan now -- and nothing about the recent pipeline deal that may have been the real reason for that war in the first place. There are commentaries about how Bush's tax cut will favor the rich, yes, but the presentation of the news just does not satisfy THIS liberal. Never-the-less, for the sake of this discussion I am willing to concede that NPR has a liberal slant to it (I just think it is lame).

Good morning again, campers. N Y TIMES HEADLINES Today, America's "liberal" flag bearer, the New York Times, carries headlines critical of Iraq and of Korea, and has one that says the US has asked that a judge to deny a terror suspect access to a lawyer because it could harm the interrogation. Other headlines say the US economy is dissapointing, and that stocks are up. It says Nuclear plant emergency plans are inadequate, that the US is suing Tnet over medicare billing and threatening the Europeans over some issue related to modified plans. The Senate has passed a stopgap finance bill. The only headline that mentions the administration directly states that "Bush Says Tax Proposal Will Be Fair for All Incomes." I detect no liberal bias though of course I do not know what ACTUALLY happened yesterday. NY TIMES EDITORIALS The editorial page, as usual, is tilted in favor of the administration if anything. Of eight listed, it has one saying that Bush's tax proposal is right on, one saying that some of the conservatives who support Bush are against condom use and this undermines the battle against aids, one saying the quest to disarm Iraq must not fail but peaceful alternatives must first be exhausted, one saying the detention of enemy combatants without giving them a lawyer is "disturbing," one saying that congress "finally" helped the jobless, one saying that police should videotape confessions, one saying that black's enjoyment of freedoms is resented by Afrikaners, and one saying New York City workers should reject a contract. PP AND MTN GOAT CITE NO EXAMPLES OF LIBERAL PRESS At risk of engaging the likes of PP and MtnG again, I will note that they still have failed to show how the mainstream TV or newspaper press has a liberal bias. I am willing to admit that one could argue that NPR is liberal oriented, though I would argue that the conservative talk shows at least counterbalance it if not vastly outweigh it. But newspapers and TV? I have been looking for news that will counterbalance the Administration's propoganda for the last year and I just can't find it. Mtn. Goat has not put forth any specific example of a liberal bias, and PP cites three examples of how the NY Times is liberal-slanted, but did not even bother to argue that any TV station consistently slants things to the left. PP's examples just don't do it for me because he has failed to state whether, in the case of the "economy grew at 3.1%, slower than expected" the "slant" was liberal or conservative or whether the real news story was the figure itself or the fact that greater growth had been predicted or relied upon. PP's second example, that the NYT printed an op-ed written by a U.S. diplomat who had a direct stake in the matter he wrote about but failed to state his background, again does not convince me of anything. PP has not stated whether this failure to reveal background aided a liberal or conservative view of the matter, and he has not addressed the question of whether such "disclosure" appears in other op-ed pieces, such as the one written by George Mitchell two days ago. And then there is the "Augusta fiasco." PP has not stated how the NYT coverage of this matter may have shown liberal bias; he seems to assert, rather, that the mere fact that the story existed is evidence of that bias. THE LIBERAL PRESS IS A MYTH. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Wotan was up to 8,000' above VanTrump yesterday, and said the snow was "good but not corn" (in advance, he had thought they might find corn).

Yo Trask - If you want to point to something us "liberals" would appreciate, check out today's story about the new rules regarding diesel-burning construction machinery. I bet GregW and his friends are not too happy with that one.

Sexy- I agree with you 100% but DDT is a poor example to use in converssing with someone like Mr. Goat who seems not to care much about the environment. I used to have a chemistry professor who, to prove a point, would actually eat the stuff in front of the class to demonstrate that things aren't as simple as they might seem. DDT was used so widely because it was thought harmless after it was shown not to hurt humans. It had not, however, been tested for its effects on birds.

Good morning campers. The "liberal" New York times has, as it's first headline displayed on the front page of the electronic edition the following: "Democrats Who Backed Tax Cut in '01 Balk Now." This headline appears under "business" news and is repeated again in the "Washington" section, a few lines down. Out of 25 headlines displayed, it appears twice. The headline most critical of the republican party or the Bush administration is the following: "Biowarfare: Military Says It Can't Make Enough Vaccines for Troops" This headline, too, is repeated twice. The following each appear once: "McCain and Lieberman Offer Bill to Require Cuts in Gases" "Bush Signs Bill to Extend Unemployment Benefits" 'Just thought you'd want to know what our liberal press is forcing upon us today.

I know that. I was trying to poke a little fun at the tangent you and Mtn Goat took there.

JB You have fallen victim to the liberal media. Really those cars are safe and there is no reason that we should seek to conserve oil. Everybody should drive a Ford Excursion Eddie Bauer Edition but the New York Times is owned by somebody who drives a prius and wants to ram it down our throats.

Sorry for my contribution to the situation, Tex, but I for one enjoy having the opportunity to discuss politics with completely nutty viewpoints like those held by Fairweather and GregW, Peter Puget and Trask -- there is no other forum (some place where we didn't at least pretend to have some common interest in climbing though Trask may not quite apply here) where I'd be able to do so as easily.

It's too late.

For those who are late to this discussion, here is a synopsis so far : The press faithfully reports every speech and press release coming from the administration, and presents all that they say as fact. The press gives "equal time" to those who say greenhouse gasses are not contributing to global warming despite the fact that almost every scientist in this field now agrees that they in fact do contribute to it. Not long ago, there was some dispute but now there is not. In at least two instances, the press criticized George Bush prior to his election. The press reported on a "scandal" involving a country club admitting only women. The New York times reported that economic growth was "only" 3.1% where as the other papers said it was just plain 3.1%. The New York Times has staff editorialists who regularly write in criticism of the government. Mtn goat sucks. No JB sucks. What the hell is peer review? Other Western countries have more critical discussion of political issues in their press.

Peter- Again, I noted above that I see a distinction between what may arguably be a liberal editorial bias, and a bias in the presentation of news on page one. I return to my original examples re the war and the global warming and I note that neither you nor anyone else in this thread has really explained how the treatment of these or any other issue has been liberal slanted in the American mainstream press at large. The Augusta story may be your example but I don't get your point. Is it simply the fact that the times ran the story about Augusta the editorial bias of which you speak? How is it that you think they unfairly presented this story? As I said, I didn't pay much attention to it. So maybe I do deserve that "e" after all. Thge 3.1% story may also be your best example, but again I repeat my prior question. Was the significant story of that day that the economy grew by 3.1% or that it grew by ONLY 3.1%. I am not sure what would have been "balanced." The fact that three papers put it one way and one paper puts it another is not, to me, proof that the one way was imbalanced. It may show that on that story the NYT placed a different slant than the others, but which is even and which is slanted. ALso, I somewhat agree with Jim that more significant is that either way, they all ran the same story with the same "growth" statistic in the headline. My review of today's editorials just reflects one search - right now - in response to Shuksan's suggestion that the NYT is editorially against Bush. I said that on any given day I thought the times would show as many for as against the Bush administration and I just thought I'd check. Maybe I would have to perform the same count every day for a month to be sure, but my impression (though I generally skip the editorials when I read the paper) is not the same as yours. Yes, the New York Times is more critical of the Bush administration than some newspapers, but it is hardly what I would call "liberal media." After all of this about the NYT I want to ask: what about the rest of the newspapers that are nationally distributed and what about the TV? If on some "objective" scale the NYT exemplifies a liberal media, is the media at large also liberal?

Sorry Peter. I replied to you and to Shuksan in a single post and I guess this confused you. I know you did not originally comment on the editorials. Also, I don't know what the point about the omission of the editorialists' background was -- do you think they unfairly present the background of some commentators but not others? Or do you think the New York Times is just lame not to reveal that someone writing about an issue had an axe to grind? What would you like me to respond to? And what do I think about the Augusta fiasco? I'm not really into political correctness, despite my possible appearance to the contrary, and I didn't really pay much attention to it. Did I miss something really important? Can I please have at least a "c?"

Looking at (not reading) today's editorials in the New York Times, I see one that looks against and one that looks to be in support of the Bush administration: The Wrong Stimulant: The new package of tax cuts has less to do with the economy than the White House's belief that it needs to take action, any action, to show that the president cares. California Curbed The decision by Interior Secretary Gale Norton to reduce water flows from the Colorado River to California's Imperial Valley and urban consumers in Southern California was right on the mark. I see one that is critical of Israel and one that is almost certainly pro-Israel: Israel's Misaimed Anger By preventing Palestinians from attending a meeting in London, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel has effectively undermined Tony Blair's initiative to encourage Palestinian reform. After the Storm, By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Here's a prediction: In the end, 9/11 will have a much bigger impact on the Arab and Muslim worlds than it does on America. I see one that is critical of democrats and one that is favorable about republicans: W. and Karl, Going to a Garden Party, By MAUREEN DOWD With Tom Daschle out, the Democrats don't even have seven dwarfs. They have six coifs and that's not counting Hillary. How a Republican Desegregated the South's Schools, By GEORGE P. SHULTZ Considering the Nixon administration's commitment to desegregation of schools, it is lamentable that the Republican Party's stand on equal opportunity is being questioned. And one more: Chasing Campaign Dollars The ever-accelerating schedule of primary and caucus contests means that fund-raising must begin earlier too, even at the risk of the public's becoming more jaded than ever. So, on balance, the sum appears "centrist" as DFA postulated though it does have more republican-leaning editorials than those favoring the democrats. Oh -- PP. I'll have to read more about that fiasco. I wouldn't want to come as some uninformed, knee-jerk liberal.