JayB

Others who have been around longer than myself would obviously know more about this - but from reading through various publications like the AAJ, FA info in guidebooks, and elsewhere it seems like there have definitely been some group dynamics at work in determining what got climbed and when. Although others - like yourself and Harry Majors and many more would know better than I - there are definitely some periods come to mind when the topic "eras" in cascades climbing comes up. It seems like theres a late 50s/early to mid 60's era involving Cooper/Beckey and others, a late 60's-early-to-mid 70's ear involving Wickwire and others, a mini-era with in the late 70's where people took the clean ethic and transplanted it to the mountains - and then a mid-80's (?) era where you, your brothers, Mark Bebie, Jim Nelson and many more really got after it. This is completely conjecture on my part, but it seems like the internet has catalyzed something similar in the past few years, where highly motivated people all over the region can connect with others who have similar goals, rather than relying upon good fortune to bring them into contact with the right people. Anyhow - this may be a topic for another thread, but I'd be really be interested in hearing more about this idea of groups/eras from people who actually know what they are talking about

Damn. Love Layton's haunted-by-the-looming-gnar-blair-witch-campfire photo...

You are probably joking, but this is a common misconception. There's a bustle of activity to repair the damage, but the net affect on national wealth and long-term GDP growth is the same as destroying your home - which you work out of, then depleting your life savings to cover the loss of income and rebuild the house. Yeah - you've got a new house, and you depleting your savings provided temporary work for some people - but the net improvement in your lodgings/office equipment is zero, you lost a ton of income, your savings have been depleted in a massive way, and your capital that could have been deployed in a million other ways that would have increased your own output, or someone elses - has done nothing but get you back to square one. All disasters result in a real depletion of and less-than-optimal allocation of resources, and I suspect there are very few people out there who will not feel the effects of this one in some way, as this hit core energy and transportation infrastructure in a way that no previous disaster in the country's history has.

You also have to look at total compensation versus wages....

Just a random note - but if anyone has the time and inspiration I think that brief historical biographies of significant PNW climbers would make a great addition to the NWMJ. Folks along the lines of the the elder Mahre, and many others.

In rerospect its easy to see how quite a number of things could have been done differently - but I wonder how well the PNW has prepared for the damage and disorder that would result from a magnitude 7.5+ earthquake, and we also have some of our own land-use patterns that are open to question - such as large-scale development in river valleys that would be at extreme risk from catastrophic mudflows if Mt. Ranier were to warm-up all of a sudden.

As one who was just in New Orleans and Gulfport about a month and a half ago, while another hurricane was bearing down on the coast - my sense is that the magnitude of the storm simply overwhelmed the emergency response capabilities of that region. When I was there there was a clear plan, dedicated evacuation zones, contingency plans for handling the flow of traffic out of the cities, and the like - and the vast majority of people were able to get out safely, but in retrospect it seems clear that there wasn't enough planning or assets dedicated to evacuating the most vulnerable - basically those too old, young, sick, etc - to drive out of town on their own. I think that there comes a level at which no amount of organization is sufficient to deal with a crisis in a timely manner - and for New Orleans and the Gulf Coast I think this was it. The region had plenty of time to prepare, but there's only so much in the way of resources and manpower that people who live on those places are willing to dedicate to preparing for a threat that while omnious, just hasn't materialized over the course of several decades or longer - especially when it's a struggle just to keep things working from one day to the next. The other thing to remember about this situation is - sorry if I offend anyone here - that we are talking about Louisiana and Mississippi. As a visitor I got the sense that the place was barely functional and bordering on chaos under normal circumstances, with a murder rate 10 times the national average etc, etc, etc - so I'm disturbed and saddened by the chaos in New Orleans, but terribly surprised.

I started something along those lines here: http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/threadz/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/495961/an/0/page/0#495961 Feel free to chime in.

Isn't the major deterrent that's discouraging a WW attempt the probability of being pulped by a serac avalanche? It would seem that they would release more frequently during hot weather, but my understanding of the phenomena is that trying to predict when a particular serac band will collapse is kind of like trying to predict the radioactive decay of a single atom - even if you know the probability, there's no telling when it's going to break down.

The TR for the line that Jens and Loren posted for their route on Johanesburg made me think of the lines on Willis Wall, many of which seem to have seen a single ascent and then lain dormant for decades. It seems clear that the objective hazard associated with those lines is such that snagging the FA might induce someone to roll the dice, but once that's been done no one really wants to put their life in that kind of jeopardy to second the line. At least that's what it seems like to me, but I could be basing these conclusions on bad information. If I were to place a bet, I would wager that the line that Loren and Jens put up will fall into the same class as many of the lines on Willis Wall - enticing enough to induce someone into the FA, but otherwise too unappealing to warrant a reapeat. So - if I'm wrong about Willis Wall, I'd be interested in learning which routes have been repeated and when. While we're on the topic, it would be interesting to hear about other major lines have yet to see a second ascent, and some speculation about why. In most cases I suspect it's a combination of unappealing climbing and a high level of objective hazard - but perhaps there are other reasons as well.

Take the probably out and we'd have a geopolitical statement that we both agree on

The prince of propaganda? Lex Luther of the Lexicon. Maharaja of Malapropism Emir of Erudition.... The Potentate of Pedantry, The Sachem of Sophistry Caliph of Composition, Emperor of Eloquence, Lord of Loquacity, Monarch of Melifluousness, Viceroy of Volubility, Windsor of Wit, Duke of Declamation, Ceasar of Circumlocution, Onassis of Oratory, Ramses of Rhetoric, Jehovah of Jeremiads, Alexander of Allegory, Viscount of Verbiage, Patriarch of Profundity, Monarch of Metaphor...

The prince of propaganda? Lex Luther of the Lexicon. Maharaja of Malapropism Emir of Erudition....

Word. Check it: bombast (n.) 1568, "cotton padding," from O.Fr. bombace, from M.L. bambacem, acc. of bambax "cotton," from Gk. pambax, from Persian pambak "cotton." From stuffing and padding for clothes or upholstery, meaning extended to "pompous, empty speech" (1589).

The prince of propaganda? Lex Luther of the Lexicon.

Step away from the Bombast No can do. I am the Ballanchine of Bombast....

"myr·i·ad ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mr-d) adj. Constituting a very large, indefinite number; innumerable: the myriad fish in the ocean. Composed of numerous diverse elements or facets: the myriad life of the metropolis. n. A vast number: the myriads of bees in the hive. Archaic. Ten thousand. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Greek mrias, mriad-, ten thousand, from mrios, countless.] Usage Note: Throughout most of its history in English myriad was used as a noun, as in a myriad of men. In the 19th century it began to be used in poetry as an adjective, as in myriad men. Both usages in English are acceptable, as in Samuel Taylor Coleridge's “Myriad myriads of lives.” This poetic, adjectival use became so well entrenched generally that many people came to consider it as the only correct use. In fact, both uses in English are parallel with those of the original ancient Greek. The Greek word mrias, from which myriad derives, could be used as either a noun or an adjective, but the noun mrias was used in general prose and in mathematics while the adjective mrias was used only in poetry. myriad adj : too numerous to be counted; "incalculable riches"; "countless hours"; "an infinite number of reasons"; "innumerable difficulties"; "the multitudinous seas"; "myriad stars"; "untold thousands" [syn: countless, infinite, innumerable, innumerous, myriad(a), multitudinous, numberless, uncounted, unnumberable, unnumbered, unnumerable] n 1: a large indefinite number; "he faced a myriad of details" 2: the cardinal number that is the product of ten and one thousand [syn: ten thousand, 10000]"

Wow - what an amazing panoply of misinformed* moral narcissism masquerading as compassion we have on display here. Given the response on this thread, I expect that all of you will be consistent in the application of always putting losses and tragedies sustained by those close to you in the appropriate global context before indulging anything as petty as grief or sympathy. One can also hope that on those occaisions this tendency to use a tragedy to grind one's geopolitical axes will also be indulged in as readily as it has here, as I am sure that will go over quite well with all in attendance. "Yes it's terrible about Ron's death in that wreck and all, but it only serves to illustrate the real tragedy of fossil fuel consumption that fostered by our predilection for SUV's, which is symptomatic of the larger ills that consumerism has inflicted on our culture, which in turn has its genesis in the ruthless capitalism foisted on the planet by a coterie of multinational businessmen...." *Total cumulative AID to Africa now stands at over 500 billion dollars, but it's not the myriad of difficulties that come along with insuring that aid intended for the most desperate actually arrives in their hands actually does so, rather than into the coiffers or armories of those responsible for their condition, its....racism. Carry on.

My hunch is that people in the midst of it were groping for a convenient, readily understandable way to communicate what they were seeing to the rest of the world, rather than suggesting that there was actually a literal equivalence between the two disasters. Also - I am operating on the assumption that (hoping, that is) the ire on display here is directed at the commentators viewing the destruction from a remote locale, rather than the people who live there and are coping with the destruction themselves. Otherwise, heaven forbid that they should offend us with their ill-considered analogies in their hour of need.

Way to persevere despite the multi-gnar.....

I agree with Geek about the broader environmental impact, but my hunch is that the principal environment that JosephH/Gosolo are focused on is the rock itself - which is fine if you believe what you are really concerned with is the preservation of a certain kind of route. As long as we are talking about environmental impact, though, it might be worth revisiting one of the points that's been made over and over, which is in the grand scheme of things, whether we are talking about species preservation, deforestation, etc, etc, - the impact of climbing relative to other forces is virtually nil, and is probably a net positive when one considers the conservation value of people who actually care about preserving cliffs, mountains, etc - as a result participating in the activity. And as long as we are on the subject of JosephH and gosolo here, I have a question for you guys. Is it that you just dislike sport climbing and the tendencies of the climbers who participate in the activity - or do you really believe that the mere existence of sport climbing and sport climbers somehow threaten your ability to climb dangerous lines in particular, and non-bolted lines in general? The only way I could see the latter being true was if there were actually people out there systematically bolting trad lines, especially bold ones, into oblivion - but if one confines one's ruminations on this matter to what has actually happened with respect to the addition of new bolts to existing lines, then it's hard to imagine how anyone could really object to the existence of sport routes or climbers on the grounds that they are going to lead to the elimination of adventure, risk, etc, etc, etc in climbing.

Cross post: http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/threadz/s...2677#Post494499

If I had argued for making every climb as safe as possible there would indeed be a disconnect. I've argued against certain critiques that are commonly directed against sportclimbing, but I have never argued for adding bolts to existing lines, bolting cracks, etc - about the closest I've come to advocating that argument is that I think it's a good idea to replace dangerous bolts/fixed hardware, and that I am not going to lose any sleep over bolts near cracks at places like Shelf Road, where they've been established for years but that's about it. What I have said is that I think it's ridiculous for someone to claim that the mere existence of heavily bolted lines or people who limit their climbing to such routes is going to somehow eliminate, imperil, or imperil anyone's ability to climb dangerous routes if they want to. If we were talking about adding bolts to existing lines, then that would be a different discussion. Maybe I'm misreading the "I hate bolts because they take the adventure out of climbing" argument on some profound level, but to me that assertion seems as ludicrous as the guys in the said video making the argument that paved bike paths and the people who ride them are somehow going to lead to the wholesale elimination of risk from cycling, and make it impossible for them to huck 360's off of two or three story drops if they want to. Even in the profoundly unlikely event that every existing line were bolted every two feet - anyone who wanted to do so could get their gnarl on by strolling up to the base of a new line, sans bolts/pins/hammers/etc and having at it.

Insane MTB video: http://www.freeride-entertainment.com/unchained_teaser.mov

As the title of this thread suggests, it is indeed a pity when partisan considerations triumph over principles. Speaking of which, where was argument that the use of force to stop the slaughter in Bosnia/Yugoslavian was both immoral and illegal on account of it not being authorized by the UN? You will recall that the action there was not sanctioned by that particular body, as vetos on the Security Council rendered that impossible. What about the sanctity of International Law? Etc, etc, etc. Right clickage from the internet below.... "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002 "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002 "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002 "Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002 "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002 "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002 "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002 "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002 "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002