mattp

A note of caution that is well warranted. This is true of just about any real alpine ice climb. Be careful out there, folks!

Do you know anything about what you are talking about here?

I've climbed it in July and October. Both times we belayed 2 pitches; in July it was one 75' steepish but not vertical pitch followed by another of about equal length that was at most 45 degrees and in October we found an approach pitch that was full length and maybe 40 degrees and then a near vertical but short second pitch.

About 20 years ago I was on a Royal Nepal flight that refueled there, and I was surprised to look out the window and see that they were using hand laborers to excavate and move dirt in the construction of a new terminal. I figured: hey, if they don't have a bulldozer at the national airport, they probably just plain don't have one. Then I went to Nepal and saw them using hammers to chip road-cuts and make gravel on the nations biggest "highway."

The North Ridge of Mt. Baker is not at all difficult. The last time I did it, in late July, it was well within the ability of someone who'd spent a day practicing on seracs first.

You can put it in Fairweather's "there's no point" column. If you don't acknowledge that the Republicans' going from supporting the UN to thinking it is an instrument of the devil, supporting public education to seeking to sideline it, talking about national healthcare as a good idea to calling it "evil socialism," and launching an obsession with stem cell research is a sharp turn to the right, --- all-the-while proclaiming the Democrats' interest in national healthcare (first proposed by Nixon) as a sharp turn to the left and forces the Republicans to move right, I'm out of ideas as to how we can have a discussion. There is truly no point. Rock on, dude. I'll be back to talk politics with you another day, but not today.

Mount Stanley, near Radium Hot Springs, BC., was my first alpine ice climb. It was in great condition, all good solid ice, and fantastic. I'd recommend looking in Canada for alpine ice, tough you might find a short pitch or two on the N. Ridge of Baker or an icy patch here or there elsewhere in the Cascades.

It might not work once they are actually attacking but I've found that pretty much all barking dogs will turn and flee if you just bend down and pretend to pick up a rock. This has worked with dogs in Asia and Europe as well as here. I think it is a universal language.

While we're on the subject of chomper dogs, I have a story some of you might appreciate. Anybody here ever hear of the Darrington Mountain Man? He was an escaped murder from Bulgaria, and he lived in a hole under a stump on an outlier ridge of Whitehorse Mountain for years and years. He stole food from homes down below in the Swede Haven area and they never could catch him until they used some kind of motion detector set to monitor a trail they thought he was using. Sure enough, the alarm rang one night and Snohomish County's finest went out there and nailed him. Trouble is, they brought a bad dog with them. They had bought a discount police dog from Lewis County or some other outfit who had found they couldn't control the dog and had to get rid of it. The damn thing nearly chewed off the bad guy's foot. After the arrest, the murderer sued Snohomish County and won a large award because they had reason to know the dog would hurt somebody and it did. Then the homeowners who he'd broken into were able to sue him or collect criminal restitution with the funds he would never otherwise have had. Snohomish County probably didn't buy any more bad dogs after that, the murderer went to jail, and the victims got compensated. And some of you around here complain about our justice system! Seattle Times

It wasn't all for nought, Off. Lots of people made a lot of money off the deal and we now have a base in southern Iraq that I bet we don't plan to let go of any time soon even if we do "bring the boys home."

I used to do these kinds of tests with groups of beginner students. It gives you a sense of what works and what doesn't, kind of like doing some aid climbing to learn what kinds of placements of rock gear are likely to actually hold. Since most of us don't carry calculators and x-ray glasses a gut sense analysis based on prior experience, even if the testing method is flawed, is worthwhile. It is not a bad idea to consider the information presented in Freedom of the Hills, or the latest analysis from engineer-geek-climbers.com but these kinds of field tests are very helpful.

Here you have it: a conservative is (apparently) telling the truth!

Hey Puget: What do you say? Should Internet users be able to use the names of your biggest heros in vain?

Maybe I've been lucky, but in recent years I have not been to Index when it was near as busy as it was some times in the 80's or maybe early 90's. I remember seeing it so busy the parking lot was a complete zoo and cars were parked along the road, multiple parties were at Private Idaho and Lookout Point, and several parties down the road at RacerX and, what is it? Beetle Bailey? By the way, I mostly climb at out of the way places where there is nobody around - and I enjoy it. However, I find it easy to have a good day at a busy and crowded crag. I simply adjust my expectations accordingly and accept the fact that I may not be able to max out the training factor or have extended private time on the climb that I am going to flail on. Sometimes I even have a good time while passing another party or being passed and it doesn't turn into a mess.

Fairweather, I am no supporter of all childlren left behind, are you? I didn't say anything about how education should be Federally controlled -- I said that Republicans don't support public education. Many of my Democrat friends send their kids to private schools, but virtually all of them vote for school levy's and at least SAY that public education is important. Environment? Are you kidding? Clinton promoted the salvage rider but Bush, with a Republican Congress behind him, has gutted the EPA and cut enforcement of environmental laws dramatically. I have a friend who used to run one of the EPA district offices and he says the agency has become a joke. Talk to those environmental groups that you hate and they will tell you what he's done for public lands. 25 years ago, the Republicans were for handgun control. Gay Marriage? Why would this be a national issue when education is not? On immigration, I think you are closer to the mark. Both parties are pandering. The Republicans have to a much greater extent used it as a scare issue, though, as far as I can tell. And fifty years ago they were saying that place of origin should not be a factor in deciding who can come to the US and we should be open to all. They have backed WAY away from this position now. Close the borders, screw public education, the biggest tax cuts for the rich in modern times, logging in designated roadless areas, lets drill ANWAR, negotiating with anybody who doesn't already agree with us is pandering to Hitler, searches without warrants are OK as long as the government simply says that a terrorist might be involved? You may support most these things but that doesn't mean they don't represent a shift to the right.

I think you are basically right about the general approaches these presidents too, Bug, though my father who is a professor specializing in American foreign relations and has served on a committee reviewing classified material under consideration for release to scholars and knows quite bit about this says that Reagan undertook a surprising amount of negotiation with Russia and in arms control talks actually compromised quite a bit though he didn't talk that way in his speeches. Nixon went to China. It was more or less our first diplomatic effort with "Red China" and other presidents have followed his lead. In the current atmosphere, no Republican president would do that. They'd be called appeasers with copious reference made to Chamberlain in the 1939's. But there are subject areas to consider, and as I noted above, the Republicans are veering right on issues like protecting the Constitution, Federal intervention into States rights, public education, welfare, healthcare, and the environment. Immigration too. Meanwhile, the Democrats have fallen apart but their platform hasn't moved nearly so much as far as I can tell from looking at a few websites including the one I linked above.

Ah yes, you don't state the Republicans are moving toward the center. My brief research doesn't find much support for the notion that the Democrats are moving significantly left, however.

Fairweather, I agree with some of what you say here. For sure, the current era's problems DO appear more scary if one doesn't know about the serious challenges we have faced in the past, but a look at the last 200 years of American history is not really as helpful as a more focussed look at American politics for the last few decades in evaluating whether the Republicans have moved more to the center while the Democrats have moved way to the right in recent years. That was your assertion, wasn't it? I just looked at a website that listed the Democratic and Republican platforms for the last 100 years and did some other spot checking on various issues. For the last 50 years, I see an evolving trend where, interestingly, the Democrats started out complaining that the Republicans were weak on defense but by 1980 that had reversed. Anyway, both parties say the US can and should remain the top military power in the world but they both agreed that negotiation with our enemies was a key to national security in 1960 while the Republicans have almost completely abandoned that idea as a sign of weakness. 50 years ago, the Republicans supported the UN. Now they do not. On Social issues? The Democrats have been supporting welfare while the Republicans have been attacking it forever. But it was Clinton who made "welfare to work" our National policy, not a Republican administration. Public Education? The Republicans still maintain stated support for public education but their policies and proposals have steadily eroded that support in favor of charter schools and faith based initiatives, etc. The Democrats have been pushing handgun control for at least 30 years. Nixon said "Guns are an abomination," and favored a ban on hanguns in 1969, President George Bush, Sr., banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes." Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." Roe v. Wade happened in 1973. On the issue of gay rights, the Democrats have moved more to the left and some Republicans have nudged toward a more centrist view but I'm not sure the party as a whole has. On what other issue does your characterization apply? Oh yes: that list of political party platforms makes interest reading, but there is a lot of material there and, as you might expect, much of it is blah blah blah BS try to sound good and snipe at the other party. website

I'm not sure I remember a time when they were as pure as all that, but I agree: In many respects the Democrats are no better than the Republicans and the whole damn thing not only stinks but it is a disaster. It'd be nice to think O'bama could take us in a new direction but even if he WERE inclined to try to do so, he'll almost certainly be tied to the trough and beat into submission -- even by members of his own party. Still, though, if we see more analysis of what has gone wrong with American politics, and despite JayB's rhetoric about nobility I think even a "tell all" book like McClellan's is part of that analysis, we may one day be able to engage in some reflection on what the nation should or could be.

Fairweather, you are missing the point or making things up again. Go re-read that Florida thread. And these people who know me: are they the ones who told you I am a pothead and read the Stranger all the time? Give it up, buddy. Go back to calling somebody you don't know "fucking commie" or, if you want to talk about politics, I'd be glad to do that too. And hey: earlier in this thread, I was sticking up for your "hood." I also said that you make some OK points once in a while. I'm sorry you are so tweaked that I said you've been manipulated but I honestly believe that the President lied about the war and those, including you, who supported it from the beginning were very clearly manipulated. How many times have you called me much worse?

no. The turd works in the Whitehouse. Or maybe a bunch of turds. Just ask McClellan (I'm not sure he clearly identifies which one is "THE" turd.

Actually, KK, I think Hugh was just being flippant. Either way, he certainly doesn't have the market cornered on bullshit accusations or epithets and, according you your pal Fairweather, I'm the elitist around here because I said he's being manipulated if he actually believes that the scientific community is in substantial debate over whether or not global warming is real.

Well, he does live in Tacoma. Wow, both an elitist and a racist. You're a typical leftie. typical tacoma apologist Yup. Instead of debating the issue, he resorts to ad hominem attack. How 'bout it, KK? What do you think about TACOMA?