mattp

Mtnguide, you are absolutely right - except that the issues you describe are not limited to the South. I grew up in the liberal town of Ann Arbor, Michigan, but I can tell you I had friends who celebrated lynching as a noble cause and the town was, when I was a kid, nearly 100% segregated in terms of housing. The Klu Klux Klan remains active in Michigan. Klan appearing in Michigan politics in last few years; marches in 1990's. The neighborhood I live in here in Seattle had a covenant banning sale to blacks, asians, or persons of arabic descent as recently as 1982.

Ah, but Bill. You've asked for sources in the past. Rather than simply accept what Jindal says, you might look it up. Google Search stimulus package unemployment benefits and here are the first 5 results: Center for Budget Statistics Broad range of economists agree the extended UI benefits are more stimulative than tax rebates because the benefits go to people who are struggling to make ends meet and will spend the money. They are timely and temporary. Think Progress Site points out that even by Jindal's estimate, the stimulus package would have funded 3 years worth of expanded benefits for Louisiana Citizens and that there is nothing in the stimulus package that would stop Louisiana or any other state from phasing out the expanded benefits when they have used up the extra Federal money. TP also notes that Mayor Nagin speculates that this was political posturing on the part of a politician who has presidential ambitions. LA Times Piece on health insurance. Bloomberg Press Piece says that stimulus package "fundamentally alters unemployment" but does not define how; complains that lax filing requirements will encourage abuse. FOX News Editorial says stimulus package will increase unemployment. My conclusion? This story is all about politics as usual. The governor is grandstanding and he's gambling that he will gain politically by denying unemployed Louisiana residents the proposed increased unemployment benefits -- or maybe by simply making a grand gesture and then accepting the money anyway.

Bill, we spend at least as much as the stiumlus package on military efforts every year and I don't remember very many public debates about any of it except the occasional argument over some new weapons program that even the generals tell is us pork and won't make us safer but we build it anyway. Here are two cites, which you have to read with care to note some of the nuances: Government's Presentation War Resistors' Presentation (The government one doesn't show the present wars or interest on past wars and the war resisters one doesn't include social security and I'm sure you can find other problems in both presentations) Anyway, I don't know if the stimulus is going to work or not, or whether inflation is a bigger danger than the current economic crisis that it may help alleviate. Those would be good topics for discussion. So is spending, but we spend that much on social security or on military efforts EVERY YEAR. Don't you think much of the Republican granstanding over this aspect of stimulus package is a cloak for we-hate-socialism Republicanism?

The climbers in the report you link approached the ridge from the west and Beckey says to approach from the west, but I've always approached from the east. It is a simple gully with a final 25 feet where I have used pro in approaching the notch on one or maybe two of four trips. The west side approach may well be just fine, but I think it involves more climbing on exposed terrain based both on my own initial assessment of the route and on the picture in the report you link; also, return to skis below the west side approach sounds more complex based on the narrative in the report you link. Those folks did not suggest the west side approach was a bad way to go but, if you start on the east side of the ridge, descent from the summit is easily made via a gully to the south and a traverse to the Pinnacle-Castle saddle, then back to skis below the approach gully.

More commonly climbed is the White Salmon Glacier to "Hell's Highway," which is mis-labeled as "The Hourglass" on the topo map (or is it the other way around - I can't remember). This one is a ski route for more moderate skiers than is the North Face.

The North Face route is a great winter climb but it doesn't make Ade's list because it is too easy. For some guys around here it is a ski route.

I've done the North Ridge 3 times and found it great all three times -twice with more wintery conditions and once in the Spring when it was loaded up with large cornices but the rock was relatively bare and we did not use crampons at all. There is a short steep section on the third pitch where you climb a steep face right on the ridge almost like a gendarme. I'm guessing this might be where Jason and Dan bailed. I've protected here with pitons and stubby ice screws and tied off flakes; it wouldn't be a good place to fall but the difficulties are over in something like 30 to 40 feet and security comes sooner than you expect as you look up from below (it has been fifteen years since I've done this climb so my memory is slightly dim and I did bail from this point on one attempt but on that occasion my partner had been trying to bail as soon as we left the car so I attribute the bailage to an overall lack of momentum). In the picasa photo linked above, what I'm calling the second pitch of the N. Ridge is probably where you climb a steep gully left of a vertical tower that I think appears where the right skyline leaves the frame (I didn't count what can be slightly tricky topping out on the access gully as a pitch, though I've belayed it and used gear there). My guess (above) was that Dan and Jason bailed on the next step, just above the horizon in that picasa photo. Higher on the route we traversed well onto the NE Face for some reason on the first time I climbed the route but I didn't see any reason to do this on subsequent climbs. I said on another thread that the North Ridge is a "moderate" climb but it is certainly much more serious than the uber-classics on Chair Peak or those on Lane Peak nearby. It is definitely technical and exposed where technical, and you have to be able to lead somewhat unprotected climbing but the difficulties come in short bursts and it has good belays so if you break it up into short pitches the whole thing is rather manageable. It is an exciting climb for being so easy to access and relatively short overall. Fred's guide does not list the history, but I was recommended this climb by Willi Unsoeld back in the 1970's and I got the distinct impression that he thought of it as a winter classic by that time.

He was briefly on line today, but he's waiting for the M's to kick butt and then we'll see him all over this board! "Sadly," we may have to wait a while (and I love Pete's usage of the word "sadly" so much so that I've adopted it in other contexts). Is Seattle the new Boston?

I've said it on here before, but the North Ridge of Pinnacle Peak is an outstanding little winter climb. It is five or six short pitches from the notch (approach from Pinnacle-Castle basin), all with good belay's and moderate though exposed and exciting climbing.

Well, Kevbone's right about one thing. I don't think we've been trying very hard to catch Bin Laden. Had capturing him been our objective, we would not have spent six weeks with a bullhorn, pronouncing to the world's media: "we are going to invade about a month from now so we can capture him" and we would have certainly done things differently at Tora Bora, and probably at many points since. Here are a few cites: Time Magazine 2002 Time Magazine article quoting “senior Bush aides” admitting that the month it took to build up forces for the invasion of Afghanistan gave bin Laden and his senior leaders plenty of time to carry out evacuation plans. 60 minutes 2008 broadcast where commander of unit supposedly sent to capture Bin Laden at Tora Bora says operation denied chance of success when various proposed tactitcs were disallowed by higher ups. cursor.org Blog or news page quoting General Meyers to say, in 2002, we were never after Osama anyway. Media Matters Article about Bush’s saying he didn’t think about Bin Laden any more - in 2002 and repeated in 2003, and then denying he’d said this in 2004 debate. Time Magazine Article saying search efforts lukewarm in 2005. wired Wired blog qutoing Musarraf saying “we are not looking for Bin Laden.”

There was a guy on NPR this morning talking about how "smarm" is destroying our ability to communicate because it tends to isolate us from each other and it blocks further discussion. Hence, I combine my witty rejoinder with an invitation: I'd sincerely like to see Fairweather show up at a cc.com social event some time.

Fairweather, you're kidding - right? You can piss on somebody else's campfire all you want but you can't pretend that you are into "real world connections" and that is not to be found on a site like cc.com or, for that mattter, facebook. Suggesting you have superior social skills is questionnable, as well. You've been on this site for eight years and it was big news when you went for a climb with Off White one day. Show up for a single slideshow, spring picnic, group outing, pub club gathering, or ropeup in the year 2009 and maybe you can make a friend. Unless, of course, you are so wildly in demand that you don't have room for any more friends.

Quite honestly, Fairweather, I don't think you'd like it anyway. Facebook is for folks who want to connect with a broad circle of friends but it is not such a great place as cc.com to entertain yourself by farting in church or poking people in the eye. Abe Lincoln is a war criminal and I can beat you to the top of Mailbox Peak won't draw much attention over there and guarding your anonymity kind of defeats the point. Having been a daily poster around here for seven or eight years, but avoiding any pub club gathering, slideshow, spring picnic, or ropeup makes it fairly clear that you aren't into the networking aspect of this site.

A guy who has been a long range planner for DOD says we should break up the U.S. Military, and nobody around here finds it interesting? For you with short attention spans, I'll try to summarize a couple of his arguments: We don't need the huge military that we have as it has been 50 years since we faced an imminent threat and nobody can even remember the last time one of our guys shot down an enemy jet. Homeland security is a joke. We need a more focused military fighting force that is not subject to International law. The U.S. military does a poor job at nation building and policing and we need to build up that capability. The Constitution already provides a framework for splitting up the military as he proposes with its reference to an Army (a fighting force) and Navy (oriented toward promoting and protecting trade). Barnett takes jabs at anybody and everybody, and he's entertaining. Its worth a watch.

What are you putting on your profile, Halifax? I figure anything I put on the Internet, whether it is "public" or not, is prone to being downloaded, reproduced, and made available in some fashion that I might not foresee or approve if I was actually asked about it. To me, the obvious best practice is just not to put anything private in your profile.

An interesting video. Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon's new map for war and peace.

As with the coffee case, Bill, I think you'd find you've been misled if you looked into this. For example: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.mencimer.html My trial lawyer friends tell me it is almost always the DEFENSE attorneys who request a jury because juries are consistently suspicious of the plaintiff's counsel and stingy in their verdicts. Ask every one you know about frivolous lawsuits, litigation costs, and unjust jury awards. Then consider how they are likely to react if seated on a jury.

My memory may be a bit off. It looks as if the main gully on that side of Ellinor is a little closer to the summit than where I described. Washington seen from Ellinor: Ellinor seen from Washington

It is easy to get from one to the other via the back side. There is a gully leading down from Washington just south of the summit block or maybe a little way down the ridge near where the standard route comes from the front side, and another gully leads down from Ellinor just NE of where the south chute tops out. Both are easy to spot from the basin below.

I agree with you 100% about torture, Tvash, and you have never seen me argue in support of any trampling of civil rights but I cited the arguments about Lincoln and Roosevelt to suggest there may be room for discussion with our more right wing friends here at cc.com and even maybe those who we scream at in vain when we see them on TV. The book I quoted from is interesting, in my opinion, in that it presents a plausible argument that what the Bushies did was not as completely aberrational as you and I frequently might suggest. I think we can pretty clearly distinguish Bush and his buddies' interpretation of expanded presidential powers from those of Lincoln and FDR and even Bill Clinton (even if you maintain a critical view of these past presidents), because as Kevbone suggested much of what the Bushies did was in pursuit of a "war of choice" and because, as somebody else said (was it you? No, it was Joseph) the pursuit of presidential power seems to have been an end in itself with Bush Co., but never-the-less I think it is interesting to consider Goldsmith's arguments. Meanwhile, I find your insistence that torture is torture and anybody who would split hairs a little ironic in light of your arguments, above, that there is rendition and there is "rendition." I'm hopeful that Obama will take us in a completely new direction when it comes to these matters, and I am taking him at his word for now. Further, I have argued that tenor and tone are nearly as important as the actual nuance of policy. But I am at present only hopeful - not 100% certain.

Fairweather, All insult aside, I find it interesting that you would call me ideological in a post where you suggest such disapproval for Lincoln and Roosevelt’s crimes while arguing that Bush did nothing sinister. Go back and reread my post: I contain a cite to and restatement of some of the arguments from a guy who was a member of Bush’ team who has written a book largely in DEFENSE of your hero’s policies. I also specifically wrote that the guy has a plausible argument that Bush’s actions were not as much of an anomaly as I or some of my left leaning friends might believe. Was the whole invade-on-false-pretenses-thing and ignore-the-downside-risk thing and the torture-memo business a whole package that was put in place by Bill Clinton?

Fairweather: Why would you suggest maintaining an "open mind" about the Bush Administration at THIS point? They are no longer in power and we don't need to fall in line or risk aiding the terrorists any more and, as Joseph points out: we have more than sufficient facts to bring judgment on at least some aspects of their conduct. As one who frequently trumpets their interest in history, what do you think of any possible parallels between Bush and Lincoln or Roosevelt? Or, to focus on more recent history, was Bill Clinton taking steps that ultimately led to Gitmo and Abu Ghraib?

You may be right that a Democratic president would have done a lot of the same things, STP, but I haven’t heard anyone suggest that Gore would have invaded Iraq without U.N. support or that he would have been anywhere near such a loud-mouthed cowboy and, when it comes down to it, brazen criminal. And, also, without the parallel universe it is hard to know what might have happened but we’ve all read about how the Bushies ignored and poo pooed the Clinton teams warnings about terrorism in the nine months leading up to 911. True, 911 was completely unlike anything that had ever happened before and Jack Goldsmith, in his book about the Bush anti-terrorism program, points out that Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt similarly exercised expanded war and presidential powers that were not necessarily Constitutional in times of crisis. He also pointed out that more recently we might be said to have been on the path toward Iraq and Gitmo and Abu Ghraib when Bill Clinton ordered the Tomahawk missile attack on Khadafi and had the Office of Legal Counsel determine, in 1998, that we were in an armed conflict and not just a law enforcement effort against Al Queda. He points out, too, that under Clinton we detained Haitian boat people at Guantanimo for many of the same reasons we sent the captives from Afghanistan and elsewhere there under Bush: that they feared these captives’ use of the American legal system if they were detained on American soil and also, in the case of the new war on terror, it was thought that homeland military bases would be softer targets for terrorists wanting to score a coup by blowing up an American facility holding their brothers than would Guantanimo. excerpt from book Goldsmith makes some compelling arguments that the Bush administration practices were not as much of an historical aberration as they are often presented but, still, it is hard to imagine that Gore and his cabinet would have gone to anywhere near the same lengths to proclaim Europe irrelevant, or to publicly proclaim that the terrorists should “bring it on,” or that we were “taking the gloves off,” you think? As with the argument over Obama’s rendition policy, above, tone and tenor can be quite significant. When you had an administration wioth high ranking people who had previously announced that they were against the U.S. being bound by International law, is it any surprise that they actually operated in such a manner?

Damn! That was one of your nine lives, for sure.

Extra points for the Klenkinator! You bring some rational analysis to the table. However, I think we are looking at a S. or SSE facing piece of rock if you assume the first shot with the guy pointing is a morning shot.