Jim

Wow! This is inspiration - good trip report. This may even make me drive to Everett for the show. No problem with your description - you're obviously stoked over the acomplishment - you should be!! Congrats and keep it up.

JaYB said "Same reason we sided with the Russians during WWII, then spent the remainder of the century in conflict with them. We made an unsavory alliance to neutralize the greater threat, as we percieved it at the time. Duh. This is not a new strategy, and its persistent recurrence throughout history suggests that when one is operating in the real world - hard choices and compromises are an something that one occaisionally has to contend with. I hate to be the one to break this profoundly disconcerting news to you, and regret that they exluded this and many other unpalatable aspects of reality from the curriculum at the Socialist Fanatasy Camp. " Oh it's clear now. No reason to potentially learn from our mistakes in the past and taking a long-term view of diplomacy, we'll just muck along in our short-term visions. This has proven costly over and over again. You could make a reasonable argument regarding the circumstances in WWII and the Ruskies, but the common enemy kidna falls flat with Iraq and Iran. I'm not disputing the contentions of the article you pointed out - that Iraq was run by a nasty guy who was trying to worm out of the santions using his people as pawns. It's just that there is always a historical amensia associated with these "bad dog" stories. I think the circular logic goes something like this: Iraq is better than Iran so we give chemical and bio weapons to Iraq. Iraqi leader pulls on leash too much and steps out of line. Invades neighbor. Bad dog! US must discipline bad dog - But - leave him in power 'cause heavens knows we might get something worse like an Islamic regime rather than a secular one. Iraq leader thumbs his nose. Look - bad dog has WMD (see number 1). Must discipline bad dog. Give me a break! The old "this is the way the world works" or "it's worked before it will work again" standards are lame. Cue: wave stars and stripes, talk about respecting human rights, discipline bad dog.

Intersting article from an "insider" with the peace movement, but despite his supposedly first-hand knowledge, conviently lacking in context. Some great quotes: "Our myopia arose largely from the fact that we accepted—or at least did not publicly challenge—the demonstrably false notion that Saddam's regime acted in the best interests of the Iraqi people." Hel-looo! Then why did we buddy-buddy up to him, supply him with chemical and bio-weapons, arm him to the teeth during the Iraq war, and fail to crunch him in the first Gulf war. Ahh, national interests. This is essentially another "bad dog, no bone" story.

I was able to find partners pretty easily over there on two visits, though the last was about 12 years ago. I camped at Mer de Glace, which used to be a free mud-hole in days back. It's a bit spruced up now but you can still find climbers there. The American Bar is also a good place to find potential partners. And there are some good moterate snow routes that you can do solo, with assistance from the telefrique (sp?). You can always hire a guide for a day if you want to try something ambitious that you can't find a partner for. Avoid the main guide service in the middle of the square, frenchies with their noses in the air and charge an arm and a leg. While hitching into town I got picked up by a young guide for a smaller group - seemed very friendly and enthusiastic. Search around the side streets off the square. Great place though a bit busy.

There's few pure crack climbs at the Gunks. It's a sedimentary conglomorate layer laid down and tilted escarpment. Tricams come in handy for lots of horizontal placements. Also means lots of overhangs.

Well, it's just my opinion but I've climbed to 5.10b at both areas and especially at the lower to mid-grades that's my impression. I noticed it when I first came out west and climbed at Index. Have you climbed at the Gunks? If not you should give it a try. Go in the autumn when it's more comfortable and the leaves are changing. Very accessible and fun place.

It is a good question. Monsanto is interested in one thing, their bottom line. And like some of the other big names they are pushing the issue on the EU (and us) but don't want to label their product to give the consumer the ultimate choice. Seems like if you're a free market person (which relies on a free flow of goods, services, and information) then labeling should not be a problem.

Just addressing another misconception. You're welcome.

The escapee problem is true. A couple of years ago there was a large Atlantic Salmon escape from pens in Puget Sound. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife actually gave dispensation to anglers to go catch as many as they could, no limits and no license needed. It was for a limited time. The other problems that have come up is the waste products in confined areas from floating net pens. There's been some recent court decisions in BC forcing fish farms to keep areas fallow for longer periods to allow the seabed to recover. Also been problems of increased sea lice infections of native strains in areas where there are floating net pens. And one other item - Atlantic Salmon have been found migrating with native salmon during spawning runs in BC. No spawning has been documented but they are using available resources and the trend is disconcerting. And yes, use of a public resouce for private profit should be a concern. Sounds familar, eh?

I used to climb the Gunks a lot while an undergraduate. I was used to the overhangs back then, maybe less so now. But I definately think the lower grades are sandbags. At 5.10 I'm at my leading limit so the overhangs and exposure may be clouding my perception, but I would still say the Gunks are two letter grades harder at 5.10. Though I would say while the moves are harder, overhanging, and more exposed - you can usually count on a rest after a crux.

I thought the lower ratings (under 5.9) were much harder than those at Index. For 5.10s I'd say the Gunks were two letter grades harder than Index. Above that I can't say - didn't get there. Though I get up the occassional 5.11 out here - I can't imagine I would at the Gunks. Lots of overhanging and exposed stuff to make you think - even at 5.6 (High Exposure).

Had the opportunity to crag at the Gunks for a couple of days while visiting back east. Though hot and humid, and dodging thunderstorms, we managed to get in a half dozen routes. Don't know of any place comparable out here with the density and number of great moderates. And no bolts means no sport climbers!!!! I found the ratings stiff and the exposure constant. Great place.

But can't you make biodiesel from used cooking oil? Or am I thinking of something else?

Interesting viewpoint Trask. Seems like conservatives (or at least the neo-cons in power) are straying from typical conservative ideals - some of which I agree with, others not. One of the big ones is fiscal responsibility. I'd rather have tax and spend than the current borrow and spend.

Formidible, Magic, Le Conte, and Dome. Were the best. Ditto the above on Spider - yuk - nice views, crummy rock. Don't rush thru this area - if you have the time camp high at the cols if you can instead of down low where most parties do. Have to do this again before I get creaky(er).

[ It's not about getting back any sooner, it's about seeing and doing more and the sense of accomplishment. For some people packing as many miles, peaks, sights and memories into one day can be just as enjoyable (physically and mentally) as hanging out in Leroy Basin and enjoying the downtime. Yea, I hear you. But I would have to say spending a couple days at Ice Lakes is pretty cool, as was napping atop Maude. As for Logan we skied the Fremont and yo-yoed it and around Park Creek pass for a long day. The light and quick can be fun too, but there's a lot you end up jogging my - IMHO.

Done these over the course of a couple of days after Bonanza. I guess it would be possible to do all three in a day, but why? It's such a great place up there I'd prefer to savor it. What's the rush in getting back to the city?

Scott has won the Western States 100 three times now. He works in a sports shoe store on Capital Hill. I've run with him once - let me rephrase that - I started the training run with him and others, we saw him in the parking lot at the end.

Bonnanza is a great peak - sees few assents because it's way out there. I've only heard the SE ridge can be some interesting route finding, only been up the MG myself. Good luck, and please post a TR on your return.

While economics is often good at measuring movement of capital and direct cost benefits, it rarely acknowledges wide-ranging social costs. Such as cost to folks of lower wages from Walmart, environmental costs, community-social costs (degredation of main street businesses), and social costs of medical care if your employer doesn't provide it. Economists often ignore these because it doesn't fit into their system of analysis. But that doesn't mean they are not real costs to people, just ignored in the calculations.

This gleefully ignores the fact that unfair trade practices are used by larger countries against smaller countries that don't have the resources to subsidize industries or commodities. If the markets were truely free you might have a good argument. But in practice the less developed countries just become little economic colonies of the bigger boys. How quaint.

But they were doing just fine without Walmart, likely had a higher base wage, and had more jobs not less. Even from a narrow view of economics only what's is the benefit to these people. Oh yea, cheap toilet paper. No thanks IMO ethical choices should be a part of business and personal decisions - the dollar doesn't rule all.

While this may be true, "free trade" as practiced by the big players, especially the US is not "free" at all. We force the hand of small countries to open markets to our products but then refuse to stop our subsidies that can, and do, have large effects to their economies. Case in point is Ghana where they dropped their barriers to agriculture products from the US, where cotton produciton is heavily subsidized. So there went local profit centers. They don't have the resources to prop up their agriculture as we do and have little recourse. Oh yea - they could take it to the WTO - they have lots of resouces for that too. As usual we apply the rules of free trade as we see fit to meet our "national interests".

I think the vast majority of people are smart enough to decide if wage and benefits are good enough for them. That's a cop-out not an argument. If you mean tough luck that's the way it works - that's an opinion - and in my opinion still ignores most of the issues I raised.

The essence of the "all capitalism is good" argument for Walmart deftly ignores the social costs, as if all that matters is the cost of toilet paper and canned green beans. As if life in rural areas was somehow oppressed by local merchants before Walmart came to liberate them. And ignored is the economic data that wages drop when Walmart comes to town and that 2-3 local jobs are lost for every gained Walmart job. Check out "In Sam We Trust" it's very well documented. I'm not against capitalism but when pushed to it's logical Walmart conclusion it favors profit (usually for a small elite) over any social benefits. Gotta save costs so keep wages extremely low, fire anyone who smells of union, fore employees to work off the clock. If Walmart really cares for its employees then why don't they provide a reasonable health plan, a livable wage, and drop their slew of questionable business practices (for which they'er in court all over the US).