W

First of all,if the freezing level jumped all the way to 7000' after so much new snow, that sounds like a recipe for extreme avy hazards. Moreover, I can tell you that the worst conditions for trying to effect a rescue (or just trying to go climbing...) on peaks like this is leaving from the parking lot in a cold rain and climbing up into high winds and subfreezing conditions. I would vastly prefer that it were snowing at all elevations, even if it were 0 degrees F, than to get soaked in the rain then climb into a blizzard up higher. The conditions on the Cascade volcanoes in winter storms like these are easily enough to put anyone's life in jeopardy, so Jon, while your question is understandable I think you should assume that everyone is doing the best that can be done, and, that the above mentioned adage about not placing undue risk upon rescuers is- rightfully- embedded deep in the minds of all SAR personnel.

Thanks for sharing this, actually. When I first visited Slesse in 1995, we went too far up the logging road on the approach and ended up coming to the propeller cairn. I had known about the crash but had thought little about it until then. It became a lot more real when we found a doll, and a toothbrush.

Right you are. But the coup could have solved the problem by removing Allende from power and putting him and his people on trial for violations of the law. They could have then had new elections and let the people decide what's next- given Allende's failing popularity, it's pretty unlikely the leftists would have retained power. This seems to be exactly what is happening in recent, non-violent coups in Thailand and Fiji. Perhaps Allende's supporters would have forcibly resisted, but there are ways to retain law and order without pulling the trigger on everyone. Allende's wrongs, and an intense dislike for the political ideals he stood for, in no way justified what followed. Okay, point taken. I suppose if someone held a gun to my head and forced me to choose between living under Castro or Pinochet, I'd choose the latter because there's some badass climbing in the south of Chile and I could sneak over the border to climb in Bariloche also. And I don't like the tropics for much longer than a week at a time. Seriously though...I admit it'd be a lot easier to stay under the political radar in 70's Chile than in Cuba. But either way you're still at one level or another living in fear of the leadership. What sort of life is that? More on point, I refuse to make statements like "at least he wasn't a communist" that in some small way diminish the horrors he inflicted on his people. We can talk about which political system we'd choose not to live under all day long, but the fact is that no one in these countries really had a choice in the matter, they got what they were born with, and I doubt the killing and fear meant anything more or less to them than it would anywhere else. The occasion that has prompted this discussion is Pinochet's death, which seems an appropriate time to discuss his legacy. "Why the leftists don't hate leftist dictators just as much" could be a valid discussion point, but really, in the end all this is doing is causing people to flee to their corners and, inadvertantly, the atrocities committed by both rightist and leftist dictators begin to grow justifications. We'd be better off focusing primarily on the things we agree on- like, Big Government Killing Citizens=BAD.

Allende's government was disastrous, repressive, and very unpopular- but it was still an elected government. I'm not sure that a violent overthrow of the government followed by not just a reciprocal suppression of free speech, but a physical purging and extermination of political opponents and anyone suspected of having an opposing viewpoint can be considered "less evil". If Pinochet's coup was truly meant to "save Chile", then an immediate restoring of the constitution, free speech, and an new election would have certainly been the lesser of two evils and might have served justice. Instead, his aims became immediately clear as we have seen. What's the difference? Speak up against a communist regime or a right wing military dictator and either way, you'll have the electrodes hooked up to your nuts in no time. I won't pretend to "prefer" one to the other just because the label is different. This is where it starts. Maybe if our biases were more tempered, we would not as a species continue to allow sympathies to develop for the motives behind the Castro's and Pinochets of the world. Maybe the far left has sympathies for Castro and Che and in some ways forgives them for the murders they committed, because, deep down, they actually still think communism might work. Communism seems noble as an ideal, but it is an utter failure for the same reason- it's an ideal, that has no basis in reality as related to human nature, pretending as it does that individualism can be eliminated. Especially when the very propagation of such an agenda is just another form of individualism in itself. The end game is that everyone becomes either "useful" or "expendable" for one's needs. We're doing injustice if we do not promote full and universal condemnation of such leaders and actions regardless of how our political biases want us to explain them away.

Pinochet and Castro, while miles apart in their political views, are actually very near to one another in their tactics- both spoke to the people in terms that cleverly disguised their blatant grab for consolidated, personal power. Which can be the only way there are so many people in Chile who still think Pinochet was a "hero" who "saved Chile from Communism". And Castro took power under the ruse that he was saving the people from a brutal dictator and creating an "equal society". Both countries exchanged one form of oppression for another in different clothes. That Pinochet supporters can to this day openly excuse the torture and killings of thousands and the suppression of free speech as "necessary" to "save Chile" prove once again that ideologues and nationalists are the most dangerous individuals in any society. Historically, humans are inherently self-serving enough that they will excuse almost any atrocity committed in the name of their own agenda. End justifies the means, yadda yadda. I wonder if, many generations from now, the collective consciousness of humans will ever embrace the means AS the end.

A friend got a spendy ticket there once. His quote afterwards was "I think I just bought the Concrete Police Department a year's supply of inflatable dolls!"

CONCRETE!!!

Solid Gold- not a good choice when your finger pads are already cracked and bleeding A couple more less talked about but great ones: Left and Right Mel Cracks The Bruiser Womans Work is Never Done Ball Bearings Baskerville Crack Friendly Hands

My new favorite is Coarse and Buggy. One of the few difficult crack climbs in Josh that is actually a crack climb and not hard runout face climbing leading to a 5.9 crack. Some old favorites: Tax Man Geronimo Rollerball Head Over Heels O'Kelleys Crack The Flake too many to list indeed

Pretty classic Joshua Tree stuff...runout face to reach the crack. Semi-Tough (nearby) is another one of those routes that got a 10d rating because someone just didn't want to call it 5.11. Short, but relentless.

I think it's also worth noting that removing Saddam has had the unforeseen (?...it's important to always have an enemy, apparently) consequence of increasing Iran's regional power and influence. Saddam was a major check on Iran and also made Iraq a formidable geographic boundary from bridging Shia Iran to Shia Syria. Iran likely sees today's Iraq as a golden opportunity to create a expansive Shiite sphere of influence- the resulting posturing and perception of "threat" (depending on who you believe) is of course causing the US government's grand plans for the region to backfire completely, not to mention, makes the Sunni/Wahabi Muslim Middle East countries very agitated.

Fairweather- Just to be clear, I left the NPS 7 years ago. I worked as a climbing ranger on Rainier from 95-99, and I never have worked NPS in Alaska or anywhere else. Although I might have some insight into the workings of the system that others might not, I don't consider myself a spokesman for the NPS anymore than the next person. The reason I believe that the Parks should continue to be held and administrated solely by the government is simple- the parks are a national treasure that are part of our heritage and something with which we can all collectively identify. While government institutions have proven to be inherently flawed, our government is also the only real agency that is at least in theory supposed to represent the collective interest. Private interests work for the individual and no matter how well intentioned, I don't believe will put the land and the public as the top priority. The government is composed of a collection of the same self-serving individuals therefore is not immune, but at least we have the ability to scrutinize the government and hold it accountable. Yep. No doubt about it. All air taxis are currently concessioned and pay the NPS a healthy fee for being able to land in the park. Landing is the key word. The airspace is free and therefore the NPS cannot charge air taxis for scenic flights that do not land on glaciers, although many of those do. But this allows air taxis from other places like Anchorage, Willow, Cantwell, etc. to do McKinley scenic flights w/o paying a fee. The hot button issue of late has become the noise generated by all these planes. Personally I find it conflicting to try to choose sides- when I've been climbing in the Ruth in June or July, the airplane noise is really- really- annoying. Yosemite seems more peaceful some days. About the time I start thinking they should somehow limit this, I remember that I flew in there on one of those planes too. It's a double edged sword. The NPS is monitoring the noise now with sound meters and observers taking field obs. While the NPS may have no real way to limit flights, the factor that can't be ignored is the air traffic safety issues- the number of planes in the air at any one time is often downright frightening. While the Talkeetna pilots all communicate with known checkpoints and agree on common directions to travel through narrow passes, other aircraft from outside Talkeetna do come into the mountains and don't always follow the same protocol or know how to call their checkpoints. I'd have no problem with this either, but given the level of use and traffic on the west buttress, that will never happen. It's a new world. To be honest, Denali would be utterly trashed if the rangers were not up there doing what they do, and in the long run, that alone makes it worthwhile. There might be no way around a mountaineering fee, but no doubt about it, that price is absolutely absurd, especially when it is essentially trying to fill a shortfall of costs associated with other park operations that don't seem to involve the climbing program. Hundreds of thousands of people visit the north side of the park each year and aren't being asked to bear any of these costs. I tell you what I would rather see- I'd rather see the Denali NP entrance fee go up to $50 for every user, scrap the special use fees, and have all the park's current services remain intact and funded by the entrance fee and any additional government funding required, with oversight on park spending budgets that will ensure that the park isn't paying for pork. If only all users were this conscious, but sadly, what I've seen some users doing on Denali and Rainier, and elsewhere, makes it clear why some level of official stewardship is necessary in high use places.

The official answer will probably have something to do with the high traffic, heavy user impact, and resulting environmental degradation (if you have ever seen the 17K camp no explanation is needed...). On the other hand, it would be quite interesting if we could accurately quantify the change in climber numbers on Denali if the NPS were not on the mountain at all- some have postulated that many wouldn't otherwise attempt it knowing that SAR personnel and a medical camp wasn't relatively close by. Then again, being one of the good old 7 summits, I'm not sure the numbers would drop as much as we would hope.

There is no defined "crux" on this route- it is mostly walking on a broad ridge with a couple of narrow sections, and navigating some well concealed crevasses splitting the ridgecrest. The cornices that do exist are very easy to get around. There is nothing even close to 55 degrees. On the section between 12,400 and Foraker you will traverse some sidehill slopes up to maybe 35-40 degrees, and on the final 5000 feet up to the summit it does not exceed 40 degrees. Crosson might have the steepest climbing of the entire route, but not much steeper than the above.

Fairweather, Some of the very same people who are the driving force for increasing Denali mountaineering fees are working hard to provide additional "access" to the park, at no extra cost to those users- From the 2001 AAC newsletter: "As a result of legislation passed by Congress at the urging of Alaska Sen. Frank Murkowski, Denali National Park and Preserve is investigating three primary issues: 1) whether it is feasible to charge mountaineers for rescues on Mt. McKinley, 2) whether it is feasible to require climbers to show proof of medical insurance before being issued a climbing permit, and 3) whether any adjustments need to be made to the fee structure for mountaineering permits." Murkowski has been trying very hard to open the south side to full access for snowmachines for many years, as well as pushing for a major new road and railroad to be built into the north side of the park. While the above article reference is several years old and doesn't speak about the current fee increase proposal, Alaska's entrenched conservative delegate has not so far lodged any objection to it. I don't doubt that some of the "environmental elitists" are applauding any effort to keep humans out of wilderness areas, but can you specifically cite any source that such groups have had a direct involvement in the creation of these policies in the NPS? Because in the years I worked for the NPS and with my continued friendships with a number of the Denali and Rainier managers, my impression is that the fees are the result of not only a stifling bureaucracy and inefficient spending, but most of all, a systematic, decades long, bipartisan neglect of the National Park Service as a budget priority. Demonizing park employees as elitists bent on keeping the park to themselves is inaccurate at best. The problem is far more complex. Perhaps this warrants a further discussion of what the future purpose and role of our National Park Service should be? The NPS was founded on the principle of providing access and enjoyment to the land while preserving the land in its original, unspoiled state "for future generations to enjoy". The NPS was not founded simply to provide unbridled access. Regardless of its purpose, the fact is that the Parks are vastly underfunded by Congress. This is my mind doesn't therefore justify open ended increases in special use fees that will keep us all from affording them, but I think the public should demand that the Parks again become a priority. I have a suspicion that the end goal has been to bankrupt the parks to the point where they will be able to justify a large sell off to private interests for the administration of the park lands. In my view that would be not only the worst possible turn of events for the care of the land, but also would only guarantee a further increase in costs to you and I for using it. If you decry the NPS using public access as a cash cow under cover of the government, why would we feel any better if it were private citizens getting rich off public land? Fairweather I know you have a deep distrust of anything related to government (who doesn't?)...but I feel very strongly that the NPS is one government institute that, although in vast need of restructure and reprioritizing, should remain in the domain of government control; provided that full public accountability and oversight into operating budgets and wasteful spending can be achieved (can it?), this is what in the long run will be best for the land and for continued, affordable, future access for the public. I am very strongly against the Denali (and Rainier, etc.) Fee in the first place, and even moreso against the increase of it. I am not justifying them, but such fees are becoming popular because the parks otherwise do not have the budgets to provide for proper visitor management and access services, much less for things like road and building maintenance. While many would be happy to see the NPS mountaineering ranger programs dismantled entirely, as a long time user of both Denali and Rainier, it is hard to deny that the volume of visitor use on these peaks demands it and the presence of the rangers has made a positive impact on both safety and mountain cleanliness. The new age of visitor use includes mountaineering on a heavy scale, and in my view, the federal government should be providing the parks with the money they require (and not a penny more) to accomodate this- not pushing the cost off on the public a second time.

Thanks Oly. 2nd question- what is LAME? (Dru, spare us the endless spray opportunities here) So far my experience is that the iTunes store has the widest ranging selection I seen. If it isn't found there, I usually can't find it anywhere else.

(Home computer not in front of me right now) Is it still possible to then rip the CD back to your computer setting the songs as unprotected MP3 files? I've been able to do this with the old version of Itunes but haven't tried this since the new version came out.

I agree with the base point here, but the tricky part is, at what point or at what level might inclusiveness of all "user groups" turn what you love into something you do not love? What one person considers wilderness, another considers an abomination. For example, if 4 wheelers were allowed full access to backcountry trails in wilderness areas, the ORV riders would likely consider their experience a full "wilderness experience". But hikers who went out to the mountains and trails specifically to spend time away from the noise and pollution of mechanized travel would be appalled and never want to go there again. True enough, they used cars to get there, but at least it ends at the trailhead. Is there a line to be drawn somewhere that will allow reasonable access to a broad base of users but which ultimately meets the original intention of wilderness? I think we can all agree that wilderness, at the least, is land undisturbed by human development. However, this premise of wilderness operates chiefly from the notion that humans are something altogether separate from the "environment"- in fact, we ARE the environment as much as the trees and the water and the mountains. But unlike other elements in the environment, we are blessed (or cursed?) with the opportunity of choice, and consciousness of our actions and how it affects things around us. Are these really choices, though, and are we really conscious? I've always wondered if the cities, pavements, clear cuts, pollution, etc, is just as "natural" in the scheme of the environment as, say, animals creating game trails, birds making noise, trees making a valley look green, floods carving a canyon. After all, why would we purposefully choose to poison our environment? But that seems to be exactly what we are doing. It's the order of things, apparently. Time will tell if our ability to "choose" manifests itself into an actual change in the behavior of our species. Our city living has given us this false sense of separation from the environment and spawned this concept of wilderness. Since that die is cast, however, and with all of our comfort oriented technology, I think retaining wilderness is crucial to a broader based awareness of the natural world outside of human influence. I once heard a guy in my town in Alaska complaining about people moving in from the lower 48, saying: "they say they're just trying to escape from the big city, but in the end they just want to turn it into the shithole they left!" So how do we balance out the need for wilderness without loving it to death?

Not sure how influential he was, but Mark Knopfler has always been one of my favorite guitarists. Has a very definitive personal style and sound.

Have the following items for sale, all are used except where noted: North Face Kichatna Gore Tex Jacket, Men's L. Green. Some wear on the sleeves but otherwise good condition. $75 Moonstone Goretex Bibs- Men's Medium. 2 Front bib pockets, rainbow drop seat. Some wear and tear on knee and thigh areas. One suspender buckle needs replacement. $50 Climb High Blizzard Supergaitor, Large. BRAND NEW. $70 ($110 New) Patagonia schoeller pants (can't remember the model, but they are not the Guide pants). Men's Large. 2 zip pockets/Drawstring waist closure w/zip fly. BRAND NEW- never worn. $75 ($150 new) Mountain Hardwear Fleece Jacket- full front zip. Charcoal/Black. Men's Large. $40 Patagonia Men's L Puffball pullover. Black. Faded but in good condition. $40 SOLD 4 Used BD express ice screws, 1 non-express- these are not factory sharp, but are still usable. $7 each.SOLD Please use PM's for all offers. All prices are negotiable if buying multiple items.

Why does Thermogenesis always gets labeled as a "hard" route? It's 3000 feet of 40-50 degree snow that happens to lie directly under seracs...making it an endeavor requiring fitness (i.e. speed), and luck, and not a whole lot of technical skill.

Some great WI4's and (usually) moderate WI5's: A Bridge Too Far- steep crux pillar then fun rambling Eliot Left Hand- fun rambling then sometimes funky crux pillar Malignant Mushroom Weathering Heights- thin at start; similar to "Snowline" Cool Spring (says 5+ in the book but usually has a 4 or 4+ line on the left side) Murchison Falls- has an alpine feel to it. R+D- might be too late though, high avy danger. Lacy Gibbet- remote, long approach, lots of WI4 terrain, Easy 5 at the end. Super Bock- Cool pitch through arch, difficulties gradually increase to final high quality WI 5 pillar.

I remember that incident, but I thought I remember that was considered an accident? I assume you mean that this would be why Rumsfeld would have been meeting with Saddam? In any case... I find it completely easy to see how we could have supplied Saddam with loads of weapons to use on the Iranians given that Iran was, at the time, the enemy of the day. And also, covertly or otherwise, stood by while American companies peddling nasty chemicals sold them to Saddam.(As if the US Government was unaware this was going on? Come on...). I'm sure that no one at the time foresaw the events of today- but they should have. You roll around with a skunk what do you end up smelling like? And today, well, it's understandably embarrassing and shameful; and it exposes the hypocracy of the politics of convenience.

Post 1979 Tehran hostage ordeal and standoff with the Ayatollah...followed by the brutal Iran-Iraq war...how preposterous could it be that the US would pick sides, and choose Saddam and Iraq as the lesser of two evils? I doubt even Reagan could have foreseen the conflict we have today. The politics of the day coupled with the picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam speaks volumes, but why is it a surprise?

We did play a lot of frisbee on the beach at Railey- the secluded one in front of the ritzy joint, with all the sunbathing topless French models. "oops, sorry about the errant throw"