mattp

Jay started out with this proclamation: he continued: And, clarifying after I questioned his position:' I think his main point was fairly clear.

If I understood him correctly, any stated opposition to torture on this bulletin board and in the national press at large, or most of it anyway, could only be partisan politics masked as humanitarian concern. I agree with you that much of what passes for civil discourse in this country is simply a ruse that serves more as a distraction than a debate, and I th ink this is actually party of Jay’s point or at least related to it, but JayB has never transcended partisan politics in any way. He forgets, for example, that John McCain expressed opposition to torture while I don't think McCain has ever said killing bad guys was a bad thing. Jay is clearly anything but transcending politics when he presents any torture complaints as purely the result of cynical democrats or liberals or whoever it is using the morality of torture to advance a partisan agenda.

I think that if you go out and practice you will likely conclude that establishing the anchor is actually the easy part. With a two man team, a crevasse extraction is generally pretty hard - unless the guy down in the hole can climb out.

I hate to be cynical but good luck on that one MattP You are right, of course. But even if he can make minor improvements at home, and pull off a couple of good moves in Iraq or Afghanisan, that'd be minor improvement and a couple of good moves.

Jay, you're still talking baloney here. Bush started two wars and handed Obama the third. Most of us who have been against these activities from the start, and any who have been against torture, hope Obama can turn all of this around. Many are concerned that he may dig us in deeper rather than turn things around, but the idea that if we called Bush and Cheney war criminals we have to say the same about Obama is ludicrous. Am I happy that he has said that we may use torture in isolated instances where he will give specific permission? No. But that is a much better state of affairs than Cheney or Rummy or whoever it was saying we're taking the gloves off now and having torture become common practice and show up on the 6:00 news. Am I happy that they are expanding the war along the Afghan Pakistan border and that this is and will continue to cause civilian casualties? No. Do I think Obama started this war? No. Tell me again: who are these people who say torture is bad but it is OK to kill indiscriminately? I see people for humane and legal treatment of prisoners of war demanding fair tribunals and more accountability for how we handle both the imprisonment and the interrogation, but I don't see anybody saying we should instead blow up their families with a "surgical" air strike.

Jay, I still don’t understand what you are getting at. Previously you said that the fact that “those guys” who complained about torture at Abu Ghraib or Guantanimo didn’t also complain about our bombing where civilians were present was “proof” of their “motives” in complaining about our use of torture. First of all, the demonstrations against the war in Iraq were the biggest such demonstrations since Vietnam, so I don’t think you can argue that lots and lots of Americans were not then and likely do not now remain concerned about civilian casualties. Second, many or most who have complained about the torture have also complained that we were lied to when Bush and pals wanted to go to war in the first place (not all-has McCain ever complained that Bush lied?), and most of these same people have complained that our government has hidden the casualties from us. Clearly most if not all of those concerned about our use of torture are IN FACT concerned about needless civilian casualties as well and complaints about Bush and Cheney are based on much broader concerns in addition to either. I can't think of anybody who has said it is OK to fight an unnecessary war and kill hundreds of thousands for it but it is a tricky thing, politically and for some it is challenging in an emotional way, to argue that our warriors are doing bad things. However, with the pictures that came out of Abu Ghraib, it is the opposite. It is politcially difficult to argue that it was OK, and equally difficult, at a gut emotional level, to justify it. Even most of the advocates for the war on terror had to publicly decry what took place there. That is why they blamed Linde and said that the acts were random acts of rogue agents. Further, it is perfectly sensible to argue that torture should not be our policy even if you (as you apparently do) think that there may be rare cases where the torture is necessary. I supppose we might have seen much of the same reactions if we saw the kinds of horrific and grafic images of civilian casualties as we saw coming out of Vietnam, but these images have largely been hidden from us through what I can only assume must be censorship. if you are complaining about the politicians on TV, I don’t think any of them have ever indicated they weren’t concerned about “collateral damage” either. They may be more hesitant to criticize our military operations than they are our torture of detainees because everybody has to “support the troops” but you can easily argue that torturing the bad guys is not a help in this war effort. But who are these people who “pretend” that indiscriminate bombing is more “moral" than our use of torture?

Did you locate a partner for tomorrow? I have not gotten a call back from my buddy for Dtown and I'm wondering if he'll show.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Jay. One cannot voice an objection to torture if they don't voice equal objection to bombing? Hogwash. Those who complain about torture don't complain about civilian casualties? Really? Somebody here argued that we were just as bad as the Nazi's in WWII? When? And protectionism? Say what?

I agree, Serenity, that waterboarding is not as bad as killing and that indiscriminate air strikes are war crimes. I also agree that we should make a rational decision regarding the best way to elicit intelligence but many if not most experienced interrogators say that torture is rarely the way to get good intelligence and, even if some believe it may work in a particular case, that rational decision must also be based on a broader set of factors and not just immediate expedience. Even if one out of X number of guys tortured will disclose useful intelligence that couldn't have been obtained any other way, it still may not be worth it if it erodes our image as a nation that respects our treaty obligations, feeds terrorist recruiting, and provides justification for others to torture our guys. As to letting sleeping dogs lie and that bit about concerned citizens who want blood now being the ones who wanted it on September 12? There was a lot of rage and bluster in the aftermath of 911, to be sure, but there were also a lot of people saying that war was not the answer. From day one I argued that our invasion of Afghanistan was a bad idea and that Bush was using 911 as an excuse for war. I am pretty sure that, even on September 12, most Americans would have said that we should not in the wake of that tragedy abandon the Geneva Conventions. Arguing that we should let sleeping dogs lie is arguing that we should not hold those responsible for national security accountable.

Right now there is soft snow on most of that 3 miles of road, too, though this will be gone soon (I hope). Meanwhile, the wooded approach is probably dry but that boulder field below the Witch Doctor Wall is probably now covered with firm snow, making it easier to cross/climb up to the slopes below Solar Wall.

Consider Washington Pass. The Beckey Route on Liberty Bell and the South Arete on South Early Winter Spire are both easy and excellent rock routes and, although a little east of your target area, they are more like traditional rock climbs than anything around Eldo and in an area that can be slightly drier. Nearby, Silver Star and Burgundy Spire offer two climbs for one approach, and a little more of an alpine feel. Although it is out of the glaciated heart of the range, Washington Pass would be my recommendation especially if the weather forecast is unstable because you'd have the option of climbing up on the peaks if the weather is favorable or heading down to the drier Methow Valley for cragging if it is not. Gene's suggestion of Boston Basin is a good one. That is a great little concentration of moderate climbs. However, I bet it is looking pretty snowy up there right now and the rock ridges may be all loaded up with cornices and such so that they are not really "moderate" climbs. Any place where you look on the map and see a cluster of glaciers you can bet it probably rains over 70 inches a year and if the weather is bad, it'll be wet there for sure.

You are looking at an extra three miles or so to Witch Doctor. Wetness? I bet the snow on the top of the dome doesn't much drain that way.

Agreed. I have never fallen into a crevasse. However, I think you and I have done most of our climbing in BC and Washington, no? I think climbers in such places as New Zealand and Alaska fall into crevasses more often.

I'm going to stand next to my boys, John Frieh, JayB and Fairweather. We should be looking at how to increase funding and general support for public lands and our management priorities are not necessarily adverse to the snowmobile crowd. I'm for human powered over gasoline powered recreation, for sure, and I have had my share of conflicts with rev-heads, but we all want access and I'm pretty sure that most of us will agree that different places will be appropriate for different activities and that those pesky snowmobilers or climbers or fisherman are not likely to disappear. Most probably even agree that there may be some areas where it would be cool to run natural or game preserves not for recreational use or minimally so. But we disagree when it comes to how much and where, for sure. There is a lot of common ground and we should be looking to build broader coalitions, not fighting with other interest groups.

Wrong. If you go to Everest or any other super high mountain you will lose virtually all muscle bulk. The thing is to bulk up before you go, for sure, and big guys tend to do better than little guys, but you'll come home looking like the 98 pound weakling. You're right, though: this was more of an anchor upgrade than anything else and it is not like adding bolts to the Bachar-Yerian. The thread is a troll and not a bad one at that but Mr. Dawg has, in my opinion, responded well. I'd like to see more of those pictures Mr. B tried to link. I tried to find them on the web, but was unsuccessful. Who is the poor schmoe who carried the drill motor up there? A guide or a Sherpa?

I like my Grivel Airtec. It is not the lightest option out there but it is a good compromise. I also have a Camp something or other all aluuminum shortie (50 cm) that I sometimes carry when I really don't plan to use it at all but the short length is not good and maybe even unsafe for self arrest (I'm afraid I could hurt my self with the pick being right under my abdomen and it is harder to control when plowing through chunky snow) while the super lightness means it just bounces off whenever I try to swing it at ice. I wouldn't opt for a smaller than standard head.

I may anger somebody by saying this but I have one piece of advice for anybody who doesn't want to share the mountain with snowmobiles: avoid the south side of Mount Baker in the snow months -- especially I think March through May or maybe June. This is the ONLY alpine (glaciated) place in the State where they are allowed and although the original post here complained that they violated their boundaries at Mount Adams (I'm not surprised) and they have been known to head into the designated wilderness near Mount Stuart, they generally stay out of designated wilderness. I've seen good and bad, but if you don't want to see them, try the Boulder - Park. I think they sometimes violate their boundaries and head up to the summit or over onto the Coleman, but I don't think they ever get over to the Boulder. I'm pretty sure they never get onto the North Ridge or the Cockscomb route.

True, Roll, but then it is not difficult to redistribute other items so everyone is carrying equally. Its all a matter of what you want, I suppose, and I'm just saying that big tents have their positives.

That Eureka looks like a fairly good tent. I had a huge Walrus tent that was not really made for mountain storms but I got away with using it in the Coast Range a couple of times before, on the third trip there, it blew up in a storm. Fortunately we had been flown in for that trip and had other tents to cram into for the rest of the time. It was nice to have a big tent so five or six guys could fit in one, and if you divide the weight by the number of people who fit inside, these big heavy tents don't end up weighing more per person than many of the two man tents people use in the mountains.

You walk fast. That 45 minute walk took us an hour and ten minutes yesterday. It was nice up there, though. mountainmandoug reaches for the crack that he finds disappointing a snowy Exfoliation Dome in the background The good news is that the roadbed doesn't look as if it has been damaged. When the avvy debris melts, we may be able to drive right in (assuming that somebody has by then picked up the unclaimed firwood).

Mankato has good advice but the extra walking may not be all that bad. I have been up there for a July 4th climb when we had to walk for Morrison Creek campground (I think that was the one - about 3-4 miles short of the end of the road) and with a little off-trail shortcut through the woods it didn't add much to our trip.

What? Where were you when I needed a friend, Off White? In the early season I once found the Cascadian Couloir to be OK. I don't know, but I bet the road will be open to the Beverly trailhead, at least. 2004 TR

I just want to say it is a great day when we have newbies getting good advice about how to learn to climb, a discussion run amok in the gear forum turns to crap and straightens itself out without moderator participation, we have new route photo's from Nepal, and there's a new recipe for French bread! And I had a good timat at last week's climber's picnic and ski fests, too!

Nice. Don't let a small number of the natives scare you away. We like trip reports around here.

Nice!!! I suppose you think slugs are your friend, too.