mattp

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.

Just fantasizing that we are actually talking about bump 5003, that last photo could be on the rock band that appears in the background of the earlier ones, looking west.

Is that a glacier in the background of this last photo? I believe the crag I'm thinking of is on the bump labeled 5003 on your topo map but I'm not 100% sure because I never really took sufficient notice to even pay much attention to where it was. I just remember noticing it on the road hike to and from the N. Ridge of Pinnacle Peak.

I may be on thin ice arguing with the Klenkinator here, but if it was the cliff I'm thinking of, the background in the photo's above would be a hill above Reflection Lakes and would likely not appear in any photo's of Pinnacle Peak (it would actually be below Castle Peak more likely but even still well below the actual peak itself and very low on the approach). I took note of that particular cliff because the rock there did not look to me like the garbage up on Pinnacle Peak.

Probably the most important thing is to pay attention and take the time to stop when necessary to take clothes on and off to avoid sweating and getting your clothes wet from the inside. I did that traverse with leather boots and mostly army surplus wool clothing many years ago after attempting it once before but being turned around in storm winds so strong that we literally couldn't sit still without holding on to something. Frostbiting feet and hands was a real concern but we never got cold to the core and there were times when, even at zero or less, we hiked in shirt sleeves below timberline. It might be only for a half hour while on a steep climb, and you might have to put on down immediately upon stopping, but it IS possible to avoid sweating out your clothes.

Nope. We were pretty sure we knew who did it but even in those days we didn't use water boarding so we never found out for sure. After the beach hike, we took that group for an overnight on Mt. Zion and then completed a ski-hike from the Cle Elum River to Icicle Creek. And all of that with no smokes.

Yup. The guy had really given of his heart and we got a great "teachable moment" out of it. Those "kids" (some were 19 and 20 years old) were a lot of fun.

I was hiking the coast from Hoh to Third Beach with a group of ten juvenile delinquents from Maple Lane. One kid stole the tobacco stash and we had Kangaroo Court at Scott Creek. It was a HUGE deal and (to us) much more serious than any rocket ship deal. Had our inquest identified the culprit, he would have wished he was on that rocket.

My first thought was that it looked sort of like a small wall I've noticed right above the road headed toward Pinnacle Peak, as Jens speculates. I think the features may have been similar, but I'm not sure that wall was steep enough to allow these views of it. My second guess was that it may be somewhere on Guye Peak or in what Jim Nelson calls the low quality alps, as the ambiance seems to match. I suppose it could just as easily be somewhere on Pilchuck or in the Monte Christo area or ??? Great mystery! I bet we can figure it out.

That lit professor may be a bit esoteric for you, Mr. Maine, but even though I might roll my eyes in the back row right along side of you I think the rote memory and mindless competition that passed for "education" at UW law school was even MORE worthless. We could have been inspired to at least once in a while think about how laws make our society work or encouraged to practice some of the skills we'd need as attorney's, but there was almost no room for that. They made a big deal about how we were "learning how to think" but in reality it was all about how much minutia can you store up in your brain, spit back on a test, and then forget about as you store up the next load of crap for another big dump. You may be studying geography today, but I'd be surprised if you didn't think, years from now, that some of that unrelated fluff was worthwhile.

I hope not. Not until we are sure we've made it clear that we don't stand for that crap. Obama is making some good initial statements that may be intended to suggest he is fulfilling campaign pledges, but I hope somebody will hold his feet to the fire or I fear he'll backslide. As much as you would like to see us continue life as usual, I would not.

Hey thanks, Bill. I expected to come back and find more along the lines of "screw you - if you don't like it." And even in your own way, Fairweather, you too have acknowledged my point. (I should note,though, that the bit about my refusing to discuss anything is obvious horse dookie. Search "Bush" "Plame" "lies" "healthcare" or any number of topics and you'll quickly find literally dozens of threads where you've taken a narrow position and refused to discuss any other aspect of the topic at hand but sunk instead into dodge and insult while I've gone out and found new information to add and tried to circle back to drag you into a discussion.) Anyway, my point is that I'd like to see more substantive discussion. Like Bill, I actually learn stuff around here sometimes and I participate in these discussions not to see if I can outwit the other guy but because I'm genuinely interested in the discourse. Sometimes, as in this thread, it appears that many posters here have no interest in actual discussion and you two I noted here have a lot of company in this regard. Sexy Cocoa's post of a few weeks ago was right on. Anyway, I feel better now. I'll get down off my high horse. Carry on.

This thread is a perfect example of why I've lost interest in Spray lately. You guys apparently suggest you are superior but at least Bill first admitted that he rehashed some complete baloney though, sadly, his next "substantive" post indicated either that he misread the article he was commenting on or that the response had little substantive to say about it and then he bristles at a dismissive response. Fairweather on the other hand first insults the Gubernator for being infected with Democratness and then goes after J_B while he has contributed next to nothing of substance about anything. Bill at least leaves room for discussion while being superior. Fairweather none. I know: you guys will say "lighten up." But I think it'd be fun to actually talk politics some time. Have fun guys!

Right on, Porwit. That's a classic climb and to climb it in January is most classic. This is the kind of beta that we like to see!

I'm with you Bill: 48.

It's pretty much all good, Kevbone. At first, I never really liked his stuff because it was too "pop" for my taste and I thought I was more sophisticated than that but eventually I took the stick out of my you know what and realized that my narrow taste focusing largely on blues and jazz was a bit snobby. Springsteen really hit the note in a certain way and, while maybe not as exciting as some others from the same time frame, he was (is) iconic and broadly appealing in a way that the Talking Heads or Led Zeppelin or [insert your favorite rock band that released hit albums in the 1970's and 1980's] didn't quite match.

Yo Bill: Why piss on the parade? We know, you had a difficult time making up your mind who to vote for but lots of folks actually think Obama was a great candidate and will make a great president. Myself? I'm skeptically optimistic as your New York Times link suggests is a rather common take on him. I don't harbor any illusions that he's going to "fix" the economy or take either American foreign or domestic policy in a whole new direction but he's going to put people who think education is important in charge of education, and at least a couple who think the environment matters in charge of protecting the environment. He might even listen to his military advisors before starting the next war. And the fact that America voted for a black presidential candidate IS impressive. There IS much to celebrate and I for one will tip a glass of champagne toward Washington tomorrow night.

How big of a factor IS the taxation -- and how much does it vary? I have bought Cubans in duty free shops and they are still very expensive. And I believe my brother paid nearly as much for some Cuban smokes in Mexico just as a few weeks ago as you would in downtown Vancouver. (Maybe not quite as much, but they were seriously expensive.) Anyway, you don't have to buy them if they come onto the American market, and I'm sure our taxes will compete with any Canadian tax, but I agree the embargo should end.

Right on, PC. I wasn't suggesting that you had been particularly rude but was only offering my opinion that what we say here actually DOES matter.