mattp

Nice! Did your inspection reveal a serious problem? Did you replace bolts or just tighten a nut or what?

I don't think it is very common for folks to call "off belay" before they are anchored unless they are being sloppy - most commonly when they are on some kind of "bomber" ledge where they feel that falling off is not possible. The suggestions that you should discuss these kinds of issues with your partner are sound, though I rarely do actually go through such a "checklist" before climbing with a new partner.

KK, do you really think that we could stop illegal immigration, or that it would solve California's problem if we did? FactCheck.Org on the cost of social services for aliens

I frequently start taking the anchor apart as soon as the leader calls "off belay." I'll generally leave at least one solid piece in place until I'm on belay, though.

I climbed Backbone in early May with an average early May snowpack and we brought comfy loose rock shoes and the shells of our plastic boots for approach and deproach. On the actual rock climbing, there was enough snow just to provide some drinking water but not to impead climbing or require donning the plastic shells.

If Zeta wants to ask about something you feel you answered two years ago, nobody here is compelled to repeat their prior posts. Meanwhile, suggesting somebody go back and read through all the nonsense in that original Mt. Hood thread in an effort to gain a rational analysis of the matter is, at best, less than helpful. I understand your point, Sobo, that there may be little new that can be said of the matter. I also agree with the idea that asking for a thoughtful or sensible discussion on cc.com may border on wishful thinking sometimes, but beating a dead horse, rehashing old arguments, and complaining when the other posters do not discuss something in the manner we feel is appropriate is pretty much normal on cc.com and just about any other Internet bulletin board.

No, you didn't beat that point to death. You took it one step further and the point you beat to death was that partisan politics was the motivator for this free pass and that it "could not be supported on ethical grounds."

I'm with Billcoe here, Mr. Fox. Most of the time I'm most comfortable using a figure eight on the rope, attaching me directly to the most convenient and in my perception (hopefully) "bomber" piece, and then I use other extensions of the rope or maybe runners or whatever seems best to back up that anchor with other gear. I realize that I could "build" a theoretically better anchor with a coredelette, but I like the simplicity of tying directly to something I perceive as solid. Only if I have doubt about my "primary" anchor point, or if there is something else funky like it is not where I find it convenient or something would I actually prefer to use some kind of equalizing set up though, if it seems easy to set up two side-by-side anchors with a sliding X or something I may opt for that. And, in the case of a situation where the anchor points are not convenient, I may not opt for an equalizing rig at all but tie directly to the bomber anchor but use slings or something else to take advantage of the more convenient anchor point. I guess what I'm saying is that, for me, simplicity is as important as SRENE or some other theoretical concept.

You may not be ready for longer routes like Serpentine or the West Ridge of Stuart unless you are feeling pretty confident with simulclimbing or unroped climbing in exposed settings. I'd look to complete at least a few grade II rock climbs with my partner before we moved up to grade III's, and then do at least a couple of those before trying a grade IV. (Note: I just looked up the West Ridge, and Beckey suggests it is a grade II, but reports from most people I know who have climbed it suggest it is probably a grade III. I know, route inflation and who is the chump blah blah blah but most people seem to find it to be a full day and often more.)

I may have posted this before, but I am always a little surprised at how so many new climbers focus so much on "building" strong anchors. I don't mean to suggest that belay stations are not important - because they surely are. But in my climbing experience it has almost never and maybe even never come to pass that the belay anchor itself took a large stress load when rock climbing. It is the pro that catches the fall that takes the big fall factors. Again: I don't mean to suggest belay anchors are not important. And the the thought of a falling leader pulling off the belayer is pure horror show. But it is the falling leader that you must worry most about in my opinion and the piece of gear placed just below their fall is probably more crucial than the belay anchor.

So how would she do - head to head with Cheney? Which one would "break" first? I have to agree she is rather a disagreeable sort of person, but what do you want to bet she's got more stones then Dick?

C'mon, Jay. If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and guys like him - particularly if they actually were shown to have given intelligence that actually made us safer - were the only ones tortured there would be no big issue. You know that. I agree with a lot of your statements about how Obama has not and likely will not depart from the overall war plan in Iraq and Afghanistan - both wars that he INHERITED FROM BUSH, by the way. But do you suggest that Obama would have invaded Iraq in the first place? There's nothing purely partisan about thinking we might want to wait and see just what he does before we pronounce the Obama administration a complete disaster. At least he's said that torture is not going to be our FIRST choice of interrogation methods and that war and the abrogation of treaties is not going to be our FIRST choice of diplomatic method.

I would expect the first pitch to be wet but it is doable when wet. The rest will likely be OK.

Yeah, but he asserts that you pretend to dislike torture if you don't complain about 100 days of Obama with equal venom as you did about 8 years of Bush. What I want to know is who could resist the CIA interrogators longer - Pelosi or Boehner? Which one of them is secretly heading a terror cell or might they turn each other in? Or should they simply bomb their homes? I'm tired of both of them and they must be linked to al quaeda.

Do you think they could get her to "admit" that she was properly briefed by the CIA?

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.