mattp

I'll be there even if it is cold and rainy. We've always found something to climb, even on the cold and wet weekend of ropeup 2001 or 2002 (I can't remember which). [img:left]http://www.washingtonclimbers.org/Climbing/peshastin.jpg[/img]

I agree with Pope too. Can we all just get along now? Several here took offense when I posted that the Cascades are what they are and one thing they are not is really big stuff on the world stage, but that is OK by me 'cause they hold plenty of adventure and are certainly as beautiful as any range I've ever visited. Unless we are in some kind of competition with the Alaska Range for who gets written up more its mostly a blessing that permits are easier to get. We are and will likely continue to see reductions in roads and trails, though.

Yup, Wayne, that could be all of us when gas costs $106 a quart and we are unemployed. The end is near, but THIS GUY has it together!

There have always been some people who choose not to publish their climbs,and for a variety of reasons. Some people are shy; others may be secretive for competitive reasons or because they may think that publication can only bring impact to an area. Personal attacks over style or sandbagging or whatever can drive people underground. There was a fashion for NOT publicizing climbs in the 1980's, but I don't hear much talk about that any more. On balance, I think we are finding out about more new routes and faster than we used to -- at least with regard mountain routes. However, while collecting information for the NWMJ each year I have made phone calls and sent direct inquiry to guides or friends of friends or whomever and there have always been routes that didn't appear on cc.com and some where they said "yes, I did a route on __________, but I'm not publishing it."

I was the one who wrote the summary, Darin. It wasn't out of any sense of real disdain or criticism, however: I got my information from climbers, guides, rangers, and my own observations. And yes: the Internet. Depending on where you come from and where you want to go, there is good and bad in the trends I described.

Darin, you are right on several points. I don't support eliminating capital gains taxes or further deregulating the industry. I'm not saying I think the Republicans have a good plan, but that there might be something to the idea that it might be cheaper insure against some of the risk rather than to simply wholesale purchase what we know to be a pile of garbage. I understand and appreciate that the Democrats HAVE imposed some accountability on the whole thing and what at this point appears to be the most likely eventual agreement will not offer the blank check sought by Mr. Treasury, but in the sound bite department I have heard more from Republicans about how the average guy like you and me is getting screwed by all of this and it really does stink. I'm not saying sound bites are substance, but at least they are mentioning the idea that this is really going to benefit the banking industry first, and we're hoping for secondary benefits for the rest of us. Isn't this kinda sort of sounding like trickle down economics?

What I don't get about the whole thing is why are the Democrats trying so hard to adopt Bush's proposal in the first place? Should we really be buying out all those bad accounts? I don't understand all the complexity of the banking industry but it seems to me that the populist rhetoric coming from the House Republicans has some appeal to it and may, for once, actually have substance as well. Strange times indeed.

I agree about the bait and switch thing, Tvash, but I think your argument about the stem cell research is a bit one sided. Although the technology is new and perhaps not yet proven useful, there is now a discretion between ALL stem cell research and EMBRYONIC stem cell research. He's splitting hairs, perhaps, but on the other hand the Gregoire people are using a broad brush to try to put him in a box that doesn't exactly fit. Either way, though, I read the papers at least every other day, listen to NPR regularly, and watch TV news several times a week but I have not seen much real meat in this campaign. Rossi IS a social conservative and he is running on the same old Republican platform we've come to loath. Meanwhile, Gregoire is not any stark raving liberal but she certainly seems to adhere to the straight democratic playbook as far as I can tell. Both are rather dull and we don't hear much about the issues; all of the TV adds I've seen, and the bits of the debate I heard, were very uninformative. In the newspaper I've learned even less.

It looks like they listened to TVash. It looks as if they'll commit to just a few billion at a time: Wall Street Journal And they are retaining some oversight: Stir in a little populism, and we have a deal!

Good plan. They can start with you and me both and we'll see how "Trickle up economics" works out.

Clearly there is a yes or no answer, Fairweather. You may dislike GGK, but Rumr asked a simple question. You could even say "No, but...." It wouldn't be the end of the world to admit a Republican has done badly by us.

You may rightfully scoff at the notion of a tightly controlled conspiracy, Rob, but clearly there is some truth to what joblo says. A whole lotta folks have made a whole lotta money and nobody is denying that they have used their connections and their lobbying influence to be sure that the fox didn't guard the henhouse.

Serious question: other than Democrat vs Republican, what really is the governor election all about? From the candidates, all I've really heard is "we can build our way out of gridlock" and "I've cured crime" and "she is a tax and spend liberal" and "we've made great progress over the last four years." Dino is clearly much more of a social conservative and Christine Gregoire has as far as I can tell been an unexciting governor. Because they decline to talk much about the issues, the whole thing has been quite a bore, which is rather sad in view of the fact that it actually matters who is governor.

Maybe we'll see Obama debate himself. That would be neat: ... Give him the truth serum and it might be more revealing that McCain v. Obama.

Viktor, I've sent some info in a private message. In public, I want to say that I have always thought your drawings were excellent. They are attractive and informative and, in my view, just plain fun to look at. I know photo's are de riguer these days, but a drawing or two might be helpful for some of the routes or crags that merit extra attention.

Sherri, I agree with you about Castle Rock and, for that matter, Snow Creek Wall. Parties routinely have difficulty identifying some of the most classic and seemingly well-known climbs in the entire region and each subsequent edition of a guidebook seems to provide less and less information in the interest of saving space because there are so many other climbs to cover. This is not specific to Viktor's books - the same has been happened with all the books whether from Beckey, Carlstadt, Brooks, Whitelaw, or Smoot. Midway has been depicted incorrectly since the very first guidebook it appeared in, and classic climbs like Saints and Angel have always been poorly illustrated. Orbit has confused many many climbers over the years. Etc. I once proposed that we create some on-line mini guides for cascadeclimbers.com and I even worked up some prototypes but the project never got very far. I have also posted topo's like one for Midway and another for Mary Jane though, in the first instance, I drew some quips and criticism for devoting energy to describing such an easy climb. Cascadeclimbers would be doing more to live up to it's stated mission if we saw more of this.

Good catch there, Fairweather. I had very little time on break at work and just liked the sentiment. I didn't really pay attention to who wrote it or whether I had previously thought the author was in the "good" or "bad" column. Question: beyond pointing out my error, do you have an reaction to the piece itself? I personally think it makes a good point about how the candidates are not addressing real issues in an honest fashion. I think the same can be said about discussion here on cc.com. Gotcha and slam wins out over stating a position every time...

THIS libtard thinks Krugman makes some sense. How to get America's groove back By Thomas L. Friedman Syndicated Columnist Of all the points raised by different analysts about the economy last week, surely the best was Rep. Barney Frank's reminder on "Charlie Rose" that Ronald Reagan's favorite laugh line was telling audiences that: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.' " Hah, hah, hah. Are you still laughing? If it weren't for the government bailing out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG, and rescuing people from Hurricane Ike and pumping tons of liquidity into the banking system, our economy would be a shambles. How would you like to hear the line today: "I'm from the government, and I can't do a darn thing for you." In this age of globalization, government matters more than ever. Smart, fiscally strong governments are the ones best able to empower their people to compete and win. I was just in Michigan to give a talk on energy. I can't tell you how many business cards I collected from innovators who had either started renewable-energy companies or were working for big firms on clean-energy solutions. It just reminded me how much innovative prowess and entrepreneurial energy is exploding from below in this country. If it were channeled and enhanced by better leadership in Washington, no one could touch us. If I were to draw a picture of America today, it would be of the space shuttle taking off. There is all this thrust coming from below. But the booster rocket — Washington — is cracked and leaking energy, and the pilots in the cockpit are fighting over the flight plan. So we can't achieve escape velocity to enter the next orbit — the next great industrial revolution, which is going to be ET, energy technology. In many ways, this election is about how we get our groove back as a country. We have been living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. President Bush has nothing to offer anymore. So that leaves us with Barack Obama and John McCain. Neither has wowed me with his reaction to the market turmoil. In fairness, though, neither man has any levers of power to pull. But what could they say that would give you confidence that they could lead us out of this rut? My test is simple: Which guy can tell people what they don't want to hear — especially his own base. So what would get my attention from McCain? If he said the following: "My fellow Americans, I've decided for now not to continue the Bush tax cuts, because the most important thing for our country today is to get the government's balance sheet in order. We can't go on cutting taxes and not cutting spending. For too long my party has indulged that nonsense. Second, I intend to have most U.S. troops out of Iraq in 24 months. We have done all we can to midwife democracy there. Iraqis need to take it from here. We need every dollar now for nation-building in America. We will do everything we can to wind down our presence and facilitate the Iraqi elections, but we're not going to baby-sit Iraqi politicians who don't have the will or the courage to reconcile their differences — unless they want to pay us for that. In America, baby sitters get paid." What would impress me from Obama? How about this: "The Big Three automakers and the United Auto Workers union want a Washington bailout. The only way they will get a dime out of my administration is if the automakers and unions come up with a joint plan to retool their fleets to get an average of 40 miles per gallon by 2015 — instead of the 35 mpg by 2020 that they've reluctantly accepted. I am not going to bail out Detroit with taxpayer money, but I will invest in Detroit's transformation with taxpayer money, provided the management and unions agree to radical change. At the same time, while I will go along with the bailout of the banking system, it will only be on the condition that the institutions that got us into this mess accept sweeping reforms — in terms of transparency and limits on the leverage they can amass — so we don't go through something like this again. To help me figure this out, I'm going to keep Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson on the job for a while. I am impressed with his handling of this crisis." Those are the kind of words that would get my attention. The last president who challenged his base was Bill Clinton, when he reformed welfare and created a budget surplus with a fair and equitable tax program. George W. Bush never once — not one time — challenged Americans to do anything hard, let alone great. The next president is not going to have that luxury. He will have to ask everyone to do something hard — and I want to know now who is up to that task. Thomas L. Friedman is a regular columnist for The New York Times. 2008, New York Times News Service

With Paulson proposing that there is to be no possibility of Congressional or judicial or administrative oversight of any kind, you gotta wonder if "curing the system" is really what is intended.

There's good cragging around Lake Taupo and the volcanos in Tongariro National Park are a lot like the Three Cinders, but slightly more exciting.

Gawd, I hope so. Despite my post above, I can't imagine how ANYBODY could prefer McCain. As I've said on a number of issues, I believe that there is a large amount of inertia in the system and neither one is going to "change" as much as any of us might hope, but they are different. McCain talks about and promotes war over diplomacy says giving more money to the rich is the answer to our economic woes says we can drill our way to oil independence has taken to some of the most dishonest election tactics we've seen in recent years repeats the right wing mantra that government is bad and will continue to make it so Obama talks about restoring cooperation with our allies and promoting diplomacy over war says that those who are hurting need tax breaks more than those who are not, and balancing the budget is part of restoring our economy wants to pursue renewable energy sources and turn away from oil has thus far avoided stooping to McCain's level of dishonest campaigning says that government functions can be improved Even if you believe these points are all just electioneering, it is the Republican foreign and domestic priorities that have caused or at least failed to address our biggest problems today -- the middle east is not going well and our economic system has been badly damaged by greed unrestricted through deregulation. Even if you hold the cynical views expressed by the right around here, I'd say an Obama who is held back by "the system" would be better than a McCain who is driven by it.

Yup. Purely partisan politics might suggest that we let the Republicans win this one so THEIR guy has to face the mess that THEY have created. After all, it doesn't look like the next President will be able to punt on either Iraq or the economy. Then a Democrat might offer to save the day in 2012.

On more textured rock, I've found Andy's garden trowel to be a pretty good implement. It can dig when digging is the game and it is stiff, for prying at stuff. If it has a sharp point, it can get into many corners and pockets as well.

Fairweather, do you think: