Fairweather

I've read that McArthur was furious about the bombings and felt that they somehow violated the soldier's code of conduct. I think LeMay and McArthur were polar-opposites with a common goal. On another matter; a naval blockade of the japanese islands was under consideration. Starvation is the ultimate weapon of mass destruction and an estimated 10 million civilians could have perished. Starvation/Blockade? Invasion? Withdrawl??? I still believe Truman made the correct choice.

I felt his politics often permeated his reports inappropriately, but you can't deny he was a class-act. I have only now learned that the guy never even graduated from high school, and later became a self-taught, reading-research machine. I regret that I didn't know his bio before his death. My respect for the man would only have been enhanced. A life worth envy and respect.

I think it's actually 6500. But, in short, yes.

He's now 16. 125lbs. (I'm 165lbs) We've practiced crevasse rescue many times over the years, but honestly, I was a bit nervous about having the mountain to ourselves. Had I gone in and bonked my head on the way down we'd be pretty screwed, I'll admit. I'm confident he could secure the rope, but he was under pre-arranged instructions not to seek help by traveling solo, rather to wait on site for 24 hours min. The boot track that was put in the previous day made me feel a bit better about the crevasses, but you never know. I went with the AMGA-suggested loops in the rope for (hopefully) quick extrication and, of course, on the descent sent the kid out ahead. Our rope was 8mm x 37m and I nagged constantly about rope tension. This was the first time I've taken the kid on a significant glacier w/o the presence of a third adult climber. Although he's been slogging around on glaciers since age 6 or 7, I don't think I'd have taken him out alone until just recently. Call us if you need a father-son team to join you! My 2 cents. FYI: My cell phone (Cingular) had a strong SOS-only signal available from the summit, all the way down to Snow-Dome.

I would love to see the scouts get back to their wilderness exploration roots. They did some incredible stuff in the olympic mountains and throuought the cascades pre 1960's. First ascents, even! The old boy scout camp at Lena Lake reborn...that would be neat.

Nice pictures. I've always wanted to climb Overcoat Peak from this side via that northeast snowfinger. Looks like a great place to hike!

I think I read that idea was considered, but since the bomb had never been tested in a "weaponized" form, there was a very real chance such an announced demonstration could turn out to be a 'dud' - thereby lessening the psychological effect on the Japanese audience.

Fuck off, liberal shit-bag. They died because they were hit by lightning and were horribly burned, or their bio-electric was severely, likely painfully, disrupted. Keep your bizarre political analysis away from the death of innocent kids, adults, and an organization that does so much good.

It was the efforts against Iwo Jima and Okinawa - where tens-of-thousands of Japanese civilians comitted suicide rather than face surrender - that so horrified American military and political leaders they concluded (correctly, or not) an invasion of the main islands would be a nightmarish event for all involved. FDR promised America a total victory. Truman delivered on his promise. I'll admit that I do have problems with the Nagasaki attack. Three days was not adequate for the Japanese government to understand what they were up against. I think the US just wanted to see if a plutonium-based weapon would work as effectively as the uranium-based Hiroshima bomb did. Oh well. Also, let's not ever lose sight of Japanese brutality throuought the western pacific in the years prior to their demise. It was far worse, and it was much more personal...if that really matters.

If you can find a copy of "Mountain Fever" by Aubrey Haines, buy it! It has this story, as well as many other first-person accounts of early Rainier climbs. You won't be able to put it down. Another book, that shares some of the stories in the above, is "Island in the Sky". I think The Mountaineers published it. Not as good, but it may be easier to find.

Now we're on the same page! I have no doubt married life is superior to the great lonely. 20 years. Singles are often so self-absorbed that they seem.....boring. Now, if I could just talk my wife into letting one of her young, hot, single, self-absorbed, lonely nurse friends join us for some.....

The guy is just a nastier version of Joe Wilson or Richard Clarke. I'm not sure what the law is in GB, but the morality is clear, and guy is obviously walking a fine line. I'd hate to see him near any armed British troopers who have read his perspective: Main Entry: se·di·tion Pronunciation: si-'di-sh&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin sedition-, seditio, literally, separation, from se- apart + ition-, itio act of going, from ire to go -- more at SECEDE, ISSUE : incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority

Easy there, big boy. I think you have established a pretty consistent pattern of personally attacking those with whom you disagree when they've pointed out you made a factual error or when they are starting to draw you out in an argument. Only when they attack first, as you so often do. Your tactics are altogether different. Slimier, for certain. Let's not indulge this time. AK; it's time you got back to polishing Matt's boots. Tick tock!

Josh doesn't like people with whom he disagrees. He is unable to comprehend that someone would hold an opposite view, therefore is incapable of properly debating (much less proper spelling) and immediately resorts to insults and name calling. I'll give PP credit! He doesn't get down in the mud with junior. High ground all the way. I prefer to throw it back at young idiots like Josh.

Great! That 'direct' looked like more than we wanted to chew off. I think you can see the tracks in one of my pics from a previous party and that rock cross-over you mention is apparent. Did you come down through Crystal Pass, then? Did you see any ashes on top? ....I guess there was a burial several days before our climb. I assumed this was the only reason ashes would be up there, and when I asked the ranger at OGS about it the next day, he seemed shocked that the remains hadn't blown away. Whoever you were.....you picked a great spot to rest! I would really like to go back next year and do a cross-olympic trip through Queests Basin and out the N Fork Quinalt. That was our original plan this year...but you know how it goes. Glad your trip went well! Got any pictures?

You know I'm a big pro-access guy, but I honestly think severe limits, or a ban on camping at Lunch Counter should be considered if things don't improve. Or maybe (gasp) a toilet structure of some kind...or even a stone shelter should be built to concentrate the effects. You're right, Matt. It's a sewer up there. Nothing more disgusting than climbing past old soiled underwear and dessicated feces with tattered bits of paper sticking out of it. I always pick up other folks litter...but I refuse to put someone else's shitty briefs in my pack.

Isn't that a bit like asking, "how were the snow conditions in North America last winter?"

Planet $

Good story in Tacoma paper. I met Jo long ago. She was a nurse at Mary Bridge Children's Hospital and looked after my son when he was a patient there for a couple days after his birth over 16 years ago. http://www.thenewstribune.com/soundlife/story/5055731p-4609741c.html

So Lake Cushman and Lake Chelan are "natural" too??? They were both raised from their "natural" state. Dam = Not Natural. My point remains, despite AK's predictable insults. Fuck off AK. I've had enough of your moderator shit...and this isn't even spray.

Given the fact that Colchuck Lake is not even a natural body of water, how can a few social trails or the sound of human emotion be considered such a blight? Hmmm?

Thanks, I have. And I care to listen to more of the issue than what is in one article. I am sick and fucking tired of people bitching about us being dependent on middle east oil and at the same time supporting administrations like the one we have. NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE WITH THEM IN POWER!!! Vote in people who actually see the point of doing long term work to reduce our dependence, such as, again, fuel efficieny standards, alternative energies, etc. rather than giving oil companies more money. So you're saying oil dependence is a new problem? So you support drilling in ANWR to reduce our addiction to Saudi crude? More Gulf drilling? Wind? Your Kennedy clan friends stopped an offshore windfarm that would have interfered with their ocean view. Enviros have shut down windfarms in CA because of bird kills. You support more nuke plants? How will solar be stored? Are you the guy who wants to tear down hydro projects? Face it, Josh. You're a victim of hysteria politics, angry prof's, and junk mail...or maybe you're just mad that your rich daddy gave away half of your inheritance trying to get Kerry elected. I really don't know. But just because someone points out a flaw in a single idea, and jabs at someone like AlpineK who has bitten down on it hook/line/sinker, does not mean they don't support change. In the meantime, get a grip junior.

Better check the Bio-Fuels Farce thread, JoshK. Even j_b sees the issue clearly.

I'll post the article here, since you all seem more interested in hurling insults than actually reading the story. I'm not anti-alternative fuels, but when a Cornell/Cal-Berkley (for God's sake!) story raises questions, don't you think you should use some of that critical thinking you tout so often?? Catbird seems to get it.... Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy By Susan S. Lang ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study. "There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable." Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76). In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that: * corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; * switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and * wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that: * soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and * sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and state subsidies that are passed on to consumers and the costs associated with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures were not included in the analysis. "The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products." Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations. "Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says Pimentel. "Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits." He says the country should instead focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion.