Jim

We left one car at the Annette Lake TH early Sunday morning. Should have done all this on Saturday when it was sunny. Skied up from the Silver Fir chair (in drizzle) then the groomed trail to Ollalie meadows. Up the cleacut in decreasing visibility, snow, 20mph wind, fog. Didn't need skins yet as the 8 inches of new was very sticky, leading to platform on the the ski bottow. Snow got better in the Siver Peak basin. Skined up to the upper basin, up and over the west ridge. Didn't pause because there was nothing to see. Snowy and blowy. Skied the open slope below the summit to Annette Lake. Snow cover is low, little cornices instead of the usual monsters. Got lost looking for the trail out. Found it, skied the best we could. Snow ran out, we walked. Very wet by the time we reached the car. Went and had a beer. Stupid day for this trip.

This group is good. You can take a several week class or do drop-in and pay per class. All levels. I do it regularly and find it great for flexibility and strength. It's a good supplement to other training. http://www.yogaseattle.com/

From a Monty Python member: Sunday January 26, 2003 The Observer I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one. Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want! And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us. That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way. Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves. Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims? It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up. Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come. It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street. Terry Jones

Thanks. Given this season as long as it's not ice I'll probably come on up.

Hey gappertimmy what's the latest. I'll be in the Bend area for work next week, is it worth extending into the weekend to make some turns on the hill?

Huh. Well thanks Rob, this does help.

I've hiked/climbed 20 mi round trip in T2s without a problem. The thing I don't like about tele boots is how you have to jerry-rig the crampons. They stay on well enough but you gotta go Frenchie 'cause that toe tap kinda limits the front points on harder snow/ice.

Do they live there? One older couple I'm going to hook up with is looking to buy property there and retire.

Made it to Santee a couple of times in between work sessions. It's nice to boulder around outside in the sun! Made the locals laugh when I got the wind knocked out of me after falling on my back. Dusted off and got back on. Off to Belize tomorrow! Looking for reptiles and birds.

Freeclimb is right on. I had a serious shoulder tweak about 10 years ago and went to the PT. She said it was classic climbers problem, overdevelopment of one set of muscles without balance from another. Flexibility is another. Try this. Hands behind your back, hands interlaced, palms out. Now try to rotate your palms, moving the thumbs towards your body. Complete the rotation so your palms face out again. Can't do it? Sign of tight shoulders. My advice. If it hurts, don't climb. It will get worse. Find shoulder stretches. Free weights for all shoulder muscle groups Check out bodyresults.com

Thanks, I saw this, just looking for personal suggestions. This is a bit outta the Cascades so thought the spray route was more appropriate.

I'm off to the desert for some field work but will be stuck in San Diego for the weekend. Are there any bouldering places around town? Thanks.

And that's a good point! If that is the primary reason that we're going in then make that a compelling case and don't (not you, but the Feds) try and do the PR thing and try and manipulate people with tales of woe and torture and misinformation about terrorists. Don't throw around the lame-o idea that Iraq is going to take over the world like Germany did if we appease them. If we're going to muck around this stuff it should be openly debated. What is to fear about open information and democratic debate? That's my issue.

Glacier dog - Here's the requested info. This is the CIA report. From summary: Iran, Iraq and Syria are said to continue to provide support to terrorist groups. Iranian hard-liners intensified their support for terrorists that target Israel (during the Intifada) while also aiding terrorists in Turkey (Kurds), Central Asia (Afghanistan etc) and the Persian Gulf (Iraq). Syria and Iraq provided haven and logistical support to several organizations. The report faults President Saddam Hussein for not condemning the Sept. 11 attacks and for providing a base to several militant groups, including Palestinian and Kurdish organizations. It may be noted that none of the countries identified as supporting terrorists have backed al Qaeda. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50801-2002May21.html The document may be viewed online at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001 From the Nation: Furthemore, CIA and FBI officials still believe the Bush Administration is "exaggerating" information to make their political case for war. Regarding the alleged Iraqi link with Al Qaeda, US intelligence officials told the New York Times, "We just don't think it's there." Powell's assessment of Iraq-Al Qaeda links was arguably his most compelling point. He played on the very real and reasonable fears of Americans and others about the capacity of Al Qaeda, focusing specifically on the potential threat posed by the al Zarqawi network. But the disingenuous component was his clever segue from "al Zarqawi as danger" to "Iraq is harboring al Zarqawi," a claim that is fundamentally unproven. There is simply no clear evidence of these links; US intelligence officials (both CIA and FBI), have accused the Bush Administration of politicizing--cooking--the evidence to bolster the political case for war. UNMOVIC chief Blix said that there are other countries with far greater links to Al Qaeda than Iraq.

Sorry for another long post, but here's another one from the London Times; And yes military intervention may be necessary. My point is that for such an undertaking it should not be rushed and the balanced information should be put out there for honest debate. It's not. Further, CIA and FBI officials still believe the Bush administration is "exaggerating" information to make their political case for war. Regarding the alleged Iraqi link with al Qaeda, U.S. intelligence officials told the New York Times, "we just don't think it's there." The most compelling part of Powell's presentation was his brief ending section on the purported al Qaeda link with Iraq and on the dangers posed by the al Zarqawi network. However, he segued disingenuously from the accurate and frightening information about what the al Zarqawi network could actually do with biochemical materials to the not-so-accurate claim about its link with Iraq--which is tenuous and unproven at best. A key component of the alleged Iraq-al Qaeda link is based on what Powell said "detainees tell us…". That claim must be rejected. On December 27 the Washington Post reported that U.S. officials had acknowledged detainees being beaten, roughed up, threatened with torture by being turned over to officials of countries known to practice even more severe torture. In such circumstances, nothing "a detainee" says can be taken as evidence of truth given that people being beaten or tortured will say anything to stop the pain. Similarly, the stories of defectors cannot be relied on alone, as they have a self-interest in exaggerating their stories and their own involvement to guarantee access to protection and asylum.

From the London Guardian 2/5 The weakest part of the whole presentation, and the most important, was the claims trying to link Iraq with al-Qaeda operations. In the past, the link depended on the claims about one man, Mohammed Atta, meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague (we've since found out that he was almost certainly in the United States at the time of the alleged meeting); now it depends on one man, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Al-Zarqawi is apparently a high-level operative of an Islamist group called Ansar al-Islam, which is operating in northern Iraq (currently an autonomous region with a provisional Kurdish government that is aligned with the United States). Although there is no evident link between this organization and the Government of Iraq (GOI), Powell claims that the GOI has a high-level agent in Ansar, who "offered al-Qaida safe haven" - although apparently few if any accepted the offer, since the supposed presence is in the part of Iraq not controlled by the GOI. The full extent of the connection between al-Zarqawi himself and the GOI is apparently that he got medical care in a hospital in Baghdad, hardly an indication of high-level Iraqi complicity in terrorist attacks against American targets. There is no attempt to link Ansar itself to the 9/11 attacks. In fact, while apparently the mere presence of al-Zarqawi, a subordinate in Ansar, in Iraq is sufficient reason for war, the head of Ansar, known as Mullah Krekar, is living unmolested in Norway, and the United States has not even made an extradition request. Krekar denies any connection of Ansar with al-Qaeda. Powell also claims that one al-Qaeda detainee has told them that Iraq provided information about biological and chemical weapons to al-Qaeda members. Given the condition al-Qaeda detainees are being held in and the obvious incentives for them to tell a story the U.S. government wants to hear, this is very far from being actual evidence. The claim also flies in the face of common sense. Saddam Hussein has always been seen by al-Qaeda as an enemy and has himself seen Islamists as the biggest internal threat to his rule. To give them the ability to make chemical or biological weapons, weapons he sees as essential to the survival of his regime (many analysts think the primary reason the United States didn't implement "regime change" in 1991 was the threat that the GOI would use its stocks of chemical weapons in self-defense), potentially destabilizes his own rule.

Ok. Let's get specific. In a joint report by the FBI and CIA, each independently concluded that there was no evidence of an Iraq- Al Queda connection. Powell tried to make the case yesterday based on one person and he said "there has been a strong connection between Iraq and Al Queda for over a decade". Well you can choose semantics I suppose and say he wasn't quite telling all the truth, bending the truth, or lying. Why would he dispell the information provided by our best intelligence analysts. Maybe to get where his boss wants to go.

I think that's the point. It's based on facts not moral judgements. If you think your government does not lie to you (or at least severly bends the truth) then you are living in a very comfortable, sheltered world. It's not just a simple-mined morality play of good-guy bad-guy. It's more complex. You don't think that the oil company guys have been in for some discreet discussions of what happens in the aftermath, that there has been horse trading among the US, Russia, and France in the background regarding current and future Iraq oil contracts. Here comes the clue train buddy, time to hop aboard.

GD, Good point, but even I will admit that the Iraqi website is likely off on another orbit. But do check out other contries press, even our northern cheeseheads and the London papers offer a more balanced view. Even Israel has a press that covers a greater balance for crying out loud.

Duh! He would lie to keep his career. Do you think he's going to go to the UN and say that the Iraqis are at about 30% strength that they were before the Gulf War, that there is no evidence that they have near the nuclear capability they did before the Gulf War, that the CIA and FBI both concluded there has not been and there is now no clear link between Al Queda and Iraq. Please. A balanced view is not his objective.

GD, I don't think they keep as close track of the defense contractors as they do the PFCs. Keep your head down out there.

I agree Muffy. But what happens is that the drip on the low end is always the focus of attention, not the flood of money at the other end of the pipe. This program will save no money but it makes for righteous press. It's an easy problem to jump on and get press while being chickenshit about confronting larger wastestreams. Hope cold turkey is going well.

Robbob, I understand your point, but I think you are only partially correct. In the case of the shuttle the press is jumping on any shred. But in the Iraq case, there is a lot at stake. The feds have always manipulated the press, and in very clever ways. To suggest otherwise is, with no disrespect to you, naivie. I think Powell and other may think they are acting justly, and I think they would lie through their teeth to gain their objective, manipulate data, anything to gain public opinion. They've done it in the past and will again. The Kuwati incident I mentioned earlier is but one example. It wasn't the press that made that one up. They just took it hook, line, and sinker and ran with it. This is common.

I think there's a couple of different things going on here. Those involved in the program keep an eye on things. My wife is a teacher and they generally know the income level of the kids. The see the parents, sometimes drop the kids off at home. If something smells fishy they can deal with it. So this is a top down mandate. Based on a faulty Dept of Agriculture comparison of apples and oranges (program income level in one year, general census data from 6 years previous) they want to make a change. So now the overworked teachers are going to have to deal with more forms, they'll have to be collected in an organized manner at the district level, and then some new program in the Agriculture Dept will need to verify compliance. It sounds simple but it's not. So some kid who may be slightly over the guideline level gets a reduced fare lunch. Big deal. This proposal will save no money, take needed time from teachers, cost more on the federal level, and waste time. But, we gave the military a 14% increase last year and a 6% this year (not counting homeland security). Billions! Bud damm it, lets screw the lid on tigher on the school lunch program. It would be funny if it were not so ironically sad.

I’m going to have to back up a page or two here. When I first proposed that the Kuwaiti baby story was totally made up, several folks implied our government would never do that. Everyone heard the original testimony because the people who wanted it heard (the defense dept) made sure it got out in the media. And of course, later, much later, we find out it was a lie. That story got was buried on page B12. It’s called manufacturing consent. The mainstream media is little more than a dupe, parroting what the White House press office sends them. You don’t want too much dissent out there, true democracy is messy. So you have to dig to get the real story. It’s not on the nightly news, the Wall Street Journal, nor the NY Times. So if they were able to create that previous theater, what is true now? Seems like the US populace is like a bunch of bobble headed dolls. Yep, ok, yep, sounds good to me. I’m not saying military means is to always be avoided; it should be the last resort. And we probably could have avoided this in the first place. Sadam was our buddy, we gave him piles of arms and never agent technology to fight the Iranians, turned a blind eye to his using gas on the Kurds, and let US based corporations sell him early stage nuclear technology. When he went native, we had our usual knee-jerk reaction. What a surprise.