JayB

I like the idea of something like an annual or perhaps bi-annual "Ascent"esque alpine journal for the PNW with a bit more emphasis on route documentation. To answer Lowell's question, I'd certainly be willing to contribute in whatever fashion I could, which could very well be licking envelopes or something just as cerebral...

As far as Dwayner is concerned, I want him to stick around so that he can continue steadfastly discrediting opinions that I disagree with. If he wants to limit his contribution to tiresome diatribes that are only tangentially related to the topic at hand in THE NEW ROCKCLIMBING FORUM I have no problem with PP & Co moderating his ass into oblivion in there. Plenty of room for his comments in another forum, along with all of the disturbingly compulsive insertions of Patch Adams and Taco Bell jpegs he can muster. If he actually has something to add that's germaine to the discussion and does so in a somewhat respectful manner I doubt he'll have any problems in THE NEW ROCKCLIMBING FORUM.

I think the principal reason that you haven't seen anyone spraying on the N. Cascades Trivia thread is that anyone who did so would rightly be regarded as a worthless sack of shit, and would immediately get a thermonuclear flaming for desecrating a thread with great historical value. As for the recent bolting threads, it seems that the (minimal) standard for participation in some of those discussions is constructive intent - and those that are posting with the intent to do nothing more than berate, belittle, or heap scorn on those that they disagree with don't really meet that standard. I really don't have any problem with that at all. If that's their objective they should feel free to express their thoughts in spray. I have no problem with a format in which 95% of the board is a free for all and there's one forum which is moderated in a manner intended to keep things on topic.

Is the FS planning on closing the South Fork Road on the Snoqualmie anytime soon. If so, might be an opportunity to look at the conflict between recreationalists who want the road to remain open to preserve access to the mountains and those who want the road closed to for habitat preservation, enhancement, or whatever the case may be. As an isolated phenomenon it might not have broad enough interest to warrant broadcast coverage, but I am sure that there are quite a few old FS or logging that are used for access around the NW that might be closed soon...

Harry - Reading your posts has truly been a delight. Many thanks for sharing them here.

New One...

Glad you got out of there okay Rod. That's one hell of a pin you've got in your leg - must have been a pretty nasty break. Ouch. It is a fun climb, but if I ever go back I think I'll go when the gulley is still completely full of snow, as the descent that Bronco and I encountered (in mid- August) was unappealing to say the least. Best of luck on your recovery.

Our War With France By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN "It's time we Americans came to terms with something: France is not just our annoying ally. It is not just our jealous rival. France is becoming our enemy. If you add up how France behaved in the run-up to the Iraq war (making it impossible for the Security Council to put a real ultimatum to Saddam Hussein that might have avoided a war), and if you look at how France behaved during the war (when its foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, refused to answer the question of whether he wanted Saddam or America to win in Iraq), and if you watch how France is behaving today (demanding some kind of loopy symbolic transfer of Iraqi sovereignty to some kind of hastily thrown together Iraqi provisional government, with the rest of Iraq's transition to democracy to be overseen more by a divided U.N. than by America), then there is only one conclusion one can draw: France wants America to fail in Iraq." Rest of Editorial.

your pretense that your own posturing and spray, by attempting to disguise it as reasoned debate, is neither, has failed. It worked on me. I appreciate the perspective Matt brings to these conversations, and the fact that he takes the time to express it in a well thought out and considerate manner. There plenty of other threads where you can chime in with the irreverent/irrelevant quip if that's all that you are willing or able to contribute.

Good info. Good mag. Thanks.

Anybody have these? If so, any comments on how well they climb, glide, quality of the adhesive, etc would be appreciated.

Stalin is in fact a direct ideological heir of Marx's. The Real Marx - not the fantasy Marx that just wanted everyone in the playground to share. When Eduard Bernstein, Marx and Engel's leading disciple began to take note of the fact that both wages and living conditions had steadily improved over the course of the latter half of the nineteenth century, rather than steadily deteriorating as Marx's thesis had predicted, he suggested that advocating stepwise reform in pursuit of concrete benefits within the existing system would be the most beneficial path for the workers to follow, and was villified by both as a result. They stated many times in their work that if the workers could not be counted on to bring the revolution themselves, they (the intellectual elite)would have to bring it for them. With this objective in mind, they stated their categorical opposition to any measures which would lessen the worker's plight, as their increased comfort might well make them less receptive towards the revolution that they would bring on their behalf. Lenin agreed with the notion that it was the revolutionary vanguard's duty to force a revolution upon the workers from above, using any means necessary. In both his objectives and his methods, Lenin was every bit Stalin's inspriation and mentor. The historical record is quite clear on this, and it is a fact that no fans of state enforced collectivism on the Left will ever be able to erase.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, were not Leftists. Right.

The best part of that article was the assertion that Stalin, Mao, and all of their miscellaneous henchmen weren't actually Leftists after all. Glad they cleared that one up.

Yeah - the author's of the study are behind this one all of the way.... Melbourne (Australia, not Florida) Age "Whatever they are, conservatives are not stupid and one of them, me, has taken the trouble to find the article in Psychological Bulletin and read it. I have also contacted the leading researcher, Professor John Jost of Stanford University, to see what he and his colleagues think about Mr Jones's summary of their work, based on 50 years of research. Well, the Americans did not conclude anything of the sort attributed to them by Mr Jones. And they are particularly irate at this persistent distortion of their work; for it is not the first time a "conservative baiter", as Mr Jones describes himself, has misused their research. "The 'gang of three' was not," Professor Jost has written, "a focus of the research at all; this is clearly a red herring." Moreover, he and his colleagues have already had to deal with the offensive allegation that their study showed that conservatives were in some way sick or suffer from neuroses. They never used the word, or even the concept or notion, and have been seriously misrepresented. But if the American research project was not the crude branding and denunciation of conservatives in which Mr Jones engaged, what was it? It was, in fact, a scientific study to see what, if any, motivational concerns there were that prompted a disposition to conservative political views. Some that were found were the need that conservatives have for structure and order, their avoidance of uncertainty, their reaction to threats, and their need for certainty and closure. The psychologists who conducted the study were at pains to point out that there was nothing wrong in these motives, that without exception they were "normal", and that they were only "capable of contributing" to conservative views and only "partially explain" the core of political conservatism. Moreover, the same research showed that "liberals" (our left-wingers) are "relatively disorganised, indecisive and perhaps overly drawn to ambiguity". So they are not perfect either. In any event, the researchers say, isolating these motivations of left and right "does not constitute a valid argument in a political debate any more than it does in scientific debates. What counts is the cogency of the political arguments and the degree to which they fit with independently verifiable facts and reasonable assumptions."

Cool. Thanks for sharing.

Saved $500 off of retail on the boards and boots alone. Saved at least a grand on the kayaking set-up. It is kind of tiring and evenutally I will just give up and buy the damned things I, but I can use the money I save to pay for my time in the mountains if there's a deal out there, so its worth it to me. Probably wouldn't bother if I was bringing home more coin though...

Thanks for the link. I checked there but the price is above the US retail price (?!!!) after converting from Euros to Dollars. I even checked their French and Spanish sites to see if they were hosing US consumers to appease US distributors, but it looks like the Euros are paying the same prices. They could be using a cookie to detect US consumers by their IP address but it doesn't look to me like their site is that sophisticated.....

Anyone out there been able to find the Fristchi/Diamir Freerides for less than $250? Every link in Google seems to take you to backcountrystore.com (where they are selling for $250)in some fashion or another, but I am thinking that there might be some obscure ski-retailers out there that might be selling the '02 model at a discount. Cascade Crags had them for $185 but they were sold out by the time that I called. Links? Sites? Anything? I've been able to score at least 50% off on the boots and the boards but getting any kind of a discount on these suckers has proven to be pretty tough...

Too close to the mark, eh? My evil homonym's political biography in print. So I take it that you are on the same page with Gore Vidal on this one then.

This is Ian Buruma just in case anyone is confused.... Don't recognize the other guy. As for the neo-con's transition from left to right, I'd call it the triumph of experience over hope but that's just me.

just paste the link Plus I made a bunch of room in my inbox just so I could post this sucker in its entirety with no net increase in memory required

It is a link from the Financial Times of the UK (really not that conservative actually), but Ian Buruma is hardly a member of the political right, and you'll most often find his work in the Guardian, and the New York Review of Books - neither of which are Right Wing publications by anyone's measure - certainly not by their own. He has also been an outspoken critic of the US in general and the current administration in particular, and perhaps even the war on Iraq if I am not mistaken. Buruma's Latest Piece on the Iraq War in The Guardian Can't exactly blow off this guy's arguments by claiming he's a right winger IMO....

Essay by Ian Buruma in the Financial Times: Books Essay: Wielding the moral club By Ian Buruma Published: September 11 2003 19:24 | Last Updated: September 11 2003 19:24 Here is Gore Vidal, often hailed as the most important literary essayist in America, a liberal maverick, whose languid but always spirited voice of opposition to most US administrations since Kennedy's Camelot never fails to find the keen ears of the European liberal-left. He was asked on Australian radio about what Vidal calls the "Bush-Cheney junta", and how the Iraqis could have been freed from Saddam Hussein's murderous regime without US armed force. His answer: "Don't you think that's their problem? That's not your problem and that's not my problem. There are many bad regimes on earth, we can list several hundred, at the moment I would put the Bush regime as one of them." He was asked on the same show what he thought might happen in North Korea. Answer: "I don't think much of anything is going to happen; they'll go on starving to death as apparently they are or at least so the media tells us." And what about those media, specifically Fox TV? This is when the elegant drawl of the habitual old wit suddenly gathered heat: "Oh, it's disgusting, deeply disgusting, I've never heard people like that on television in my life and I've been on television for 50 years, since the very beginning of television in the United States. And I have never seen it as low, as false, one lie after the other in these squeaky voices that you get from these fast-talking men and women, it was pretty sick." The Bush-Cheney junta as bad as Saddam's dictatorship. Starvation in North Korea, who cares? It's probably American propaganda anyway. But Fox News, now that's truly disgusting. I am no fan of Fox News, but there is an odd lack of proportion here that could be interpreted in various ways: the callous frivolity of a decadent old man; the provincial outlook of a writer whose horizons end at the shores of the US, or perhaps even at the famous Washington DC Beltway. Or is there a little more to it? Two more examples, from different writers this time. Tariq Ali, in the Guardian, about the brutal "recolonisation" of Iraq by the US and "its bloodshot British adjutant". It is to be hoped, he writes, "that the invaders of Iraq will eventually be harried out of the country by a growing national reaction to the occupation regime they install, and that their collaborators may meet the fate of former Iraqi prime minister Nuri Said before them". Nuri Said, lest people forget, was a pro-western leader, under whose rule Iraq was relatively calm and prosperous. He was murdered in a military coup in 1958. His death marked the beginning of a cycle of coups and counter coups that led to the Ba'athist regime five years later. The Ba'athists had modelled themselves on German National Socialism. One does not have to have the fertile mind of a Tariq Ali to imagine what would happen if his wish for an uprising (by Shi'ite extremists or former Ba'athists, most likely) came true: massacres, more massacres, and another dictatorship. And, finally, Arundhati Roy, Indian novelist, and favourite "post-colonial" agitprop voice in the European liberal press. In an article denouncing the US for unleashing a "racist war" on Iraq, bringing "starvation" and "mass murder", she can muster just one paragraph about Saddam Hussein himself. "At the end of it all", she sighs, "it remains to be said that dictators like Saddam Hussein, and all the other despots in the Middle East, in the central Asian republics, in Africa and Latin America, many of them installed, supported and financed by the US government, are a menace to their own people. Other than strengthening the hand of civil society (instead of weakening it as has been done in the case of Iraq), there is no easy, pristine way of dealing with them." Strengthening civil society. Well, that would indeed be a fine thing. Perhaps more could have been done to strengthen civil society in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, or perhaps in Kim Jong-Il's North Korea too. What is astonishing here is not the naivety, but the off-handed way well-heeled commentators in London, California, or New Delhi, talk about the suffering of the very people they pretend to stand up for. Vidal dismisses it as "not my problem". Tariq Ali calls for more violence. And Arundathi Roy prattles about civil society. There are, to be sure, perfectly valid reasons to be critical of US foreign policy, especially the neo-conservative revolutionary mission. I was not persuaded that going to war in Iraq was right, because the official arguments were fuzzy, shifty, and changed from day to day. Once democratic governments cannot trust their people to respond to honest persuasion, but resort instead to half-truths and propaganda, democracy suffers. But this does not answer the question of what to do, as citizens of the richest and most powerful nations on earth, about dictators who commit mass murder or happily starve millions to death. Why are our left-liberal intellectuals so hopeless at answering this vital question? In the case of Gore Vidal, there has always been an old-fashioned isolationist screaming to be let out of the great man's bulky frame. But Tariq Ali, and many of his readers, would surely consider themselves to be internationalists. They profess to care about oppressed peoples in faraway countries. That is why they set themselves morally above the right. So why do they appear to be so much keener to denounce the US than to find ways to liberate Iraqis and others from their murderous Fuhrers? And how can anybody, knowing the brutal costs of political violence, especially in poor countries split by religious and ethnic divisions, be so insouciant as to call for more aggression? Perhaps it is a kind of provincialism after all. In a short essay about becoming anglicised, Arthur Koestler, witness of communist purges and Nazi persecution, described a basic difference between the English and Europeans like him, who saw England as "a kind of Davos for internally bruised veterans of the totalitarian age". To the ordinary Englishman, such things as gas chambers and Siberian slave camps were inconceivable, literally beyond his imagination. These were things that were so far removed from English normality that they "just 'do not happen' to ordinary people unless they are deliberately looking for trouble." Saddam's Iraq, where people were gassed, or fed to shredding machines, or tortured just for fun by the dictator's son, or Serbia under Milosevic, where "ethnic cleansing" was official policy, were indeed a long way from Hampstead or Holland Park. And yet I can't believe that, for example, Harold Pinter's foaming rages about the US, and his denunciation of the Nato war over Kosovo as "a criminal act", while ignoring that without that war, hundreds of thousands of Kosovans were slated to disappear, is just parochial ignorance. Pinter is aware of human suffering far from Holland Park. He has done his bit for Kurdish victims of Turkish brutality, and for central Europeans under the Soviet lash. So even if Tony Benn's cheery waffle about the achievements of real existing socialism can be dismissed as good old English eccentricity, the same cannot be true of the deliberate obtuseness of Tariq Ali, Pinter, Vidal or Noam Chomsky. The main issue, for them, is the power of the US. This clouds all other concerns. Pinter, a great artist, if not a subtle political thinker, is perhaps a special case. His subject is power, or rather the abuse of power. When applied to human relationships, Pinter's artistic intelligence produces brilliant insights. But when it comes to international politics, he loses all proportion. US power - always abusive in his view - fills him with such fury that he cannot be rational on the subject. It also, incidentally, affects his artistry. Just read his crude poems on the Iraq war. Anti-Americanism, by which I don't mean criticism of US policies, but a visceral loathing, has a rich history, more often associated with the right than with the left. To prewar cultural conservatives (Evelyn Waugh, say), America was vulgar, money-grubbing, rootless, brash, tasteless, in short, a threat to high European civilisation. Martin Heidegger had much to say about "Americanism", as a soulless, greedy, inauthentic force that was fatally undermining the European spirit. To political conservatives, especially of the more radical right-wing kind, the combination of capitalism, democracy and a lack of ethnic homogeneity was anathema to everything they stood for: racial purity, military discipline and obedience to authority. It is sometimes forgotten in Britain how closely anti-Americanism resembles old-fashioned European Anglophobia. Modern capitalism, after all, was a British invention. In the 18th and 19th centuries, reactionaries as well as radical romantics in continental Europe denounced England as a society driven by nothing but the lust for profits. London was seen as a soulless city of bankers and stockbrokers exploiting the poor in their pursuit of ever more wealth. British imperialism, unlike the French Mission Civilisatrice or the German spread of Kultur, was seen as a commercial enterprise dedicated to the expansion of economic and financial power. And worst of all, in the eyes of some, was Britain's relatively mixed population. As the British-born racist Houston Stewart Chamberlain observed to his patron, Kaiser Wilhelm II, British citizenship could be bought by any "Basuto *" with enough cash. Not wholly accurate, perhaps, but a telling image nonetheless. The left's distaste for Anglo-Saxon capitalism goes back at least as far as Karl Marx. But the leap from right-wing Anglophobia and anti-Americanism to the left-wing variety really came only after the second world war. Soviet propaganda no doubt had much to do with it, and especially the legacy of anti-fascism which the Russians exploited. Anglo-American capitalism was linked to fascism in Soviet propaganda, and seen as the great enemy of all the downtrodden peoples of the world. To be on the left was to be in favour of third world liberation movements. Not every supporter of Mao, Castro or Ho Chi Minh was pro-Soviet, but he or she certainly was anti-US - even though the US actually did much to end the European empires. When liberation finally came to many colonised countries, celebration quickly turned to massive bloodletting. Dictatorships, some supported by Moscow, some by Washington, were established. Millions in China, Africa, and south-east Asia were murdered, starved, or purged by their own "liberators". America's dictators (Suharto, Pinochet) were denounced by the left, while Soviet clients received special pleading. But by the late 1980s, there were not many western Leftists around anymore who still admired the Soviet Union or held much brief for violent third world revolutions. Memories of Pol Pot, Vietnamese boat people, and the Cultural Revolution were a quiet source of embarrassment (one hopes). Even the promises of socialism itself had begun to fade in the aftermath of 1989. What got stuck, however, was anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism may indeed have grown fiercer than it was during the cold war. It is a common phenomenon that when the angels fail to deliver, the demons become more fearsome. The socialist debacle, then, contributed to the resentment of American triumphs. But something else happened at the same time. In a curious way left and right began to change places. The expansion of global capitalism, which is not without negative consequences, to be sure, turned leftists into champions of cultural and political nationalism. When Marxism was still a potent ideology, the left sought universal solutions for the ills of the world. Now globalisation has become another word for what Heidegger meant by Americanism: an assault on native culture and identity. So the old left has turned conservative. This defence of cultural authenticity comes in the guise of anti-imperialism, which is of course the same, these days, as anti-Americanism. Israel plays a significant part in this, as the perceived catspaw of US imperialism in the Middle East and the colonial enemy of Palestinian nationalism. Israel and the US have a way of triggering the reflexes of European colonial guilt that overrides almost anything else. Israeli policies, just as US policies, are often wrong, and sometimes even wicked, but even if they were always right, Israel would still be hated as the Western invader on Arab territory. On this, the contemporary anti-Zionists of the left sound just like the crusty old Arabists of the old Foreign Office school, who never had any truck with socialism. The fact that Jews can now safely be compared to Nazis, as they frequently are, is an added sop to European guilt about another horrible blot on our collective conscience. The moral paralysis of the left, when it comes to non-western tyrants, may also have a more sinister explanation. The Israeli philosopher, Avishai Margalit, calls it moral racism. When Indians kill Muslims, or Africans kill Africans, or Arabs kill Arabs, western pundits pretend not to notice, or find historical explanations, or blame the scars of colonialism. But if white men, whether they are Americans, Europeans, South Africans or Israelis harm people of colour, hell is raised. If one compares western reporting of events in Palestine or Iraq with far more disturbing news in Liberia or Central Africa, there is a disproportion, which suggests that non-western people cannot be held to the same moral standards as us. One could claim this is only right, since we can only take responsibility for our own kind. But this would be a rather racist view of world affairs. Again, there appears to have been a reversal of roles between left and right. The conservative right (I'm not talking of fascists), traditionally, was not internationalist and certainly not revolutionary. Business, stability, national interests, and political realism ("our bastards", and so on), were the order of the day. Democracy, to conservative realists, was fine for us but not for strange people with exotic names. It was the left that wanted to change the world, no matter where. Left-wing internationalism did not wish to recognise cultural or national barriers. To them, liberation was a universal project. Yet now that the "Bush-Cheney junta" talks about a democratic revolution, regardless of culture, colour or creed, Gore Vidal claims it is not our business, and others cry "racism". There is, of course, a strong rhetorical element in all this. The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, could well be a genuine believer in democratic revolutions, but his more conservative colleagues in the Bush administration may not have their hearts set on such radical goals. It is nonetheless interesting to see whom the neoconservatives in Washington managed to convert to their cause, at least as far as the war on Saddam Hussein was concerned. One of the noisiest journalistic cheerleaders for Bush's war was Christopher Hitchens. Since he has a Trotskyist past in common with some of the older American neoconservatives, there is a certain consistency in his promotion of revolutionary projects. Then, again, sending in the US army is a strange way to promote democratic revolutions. More significant, by far, is the backing for Bush received from Vaclav Havel, Adam Michnik, and especially Jose Ramos-Horta, the Nobel Peace Prize-winner from East Timor. These are men, who, unlike most commentators in London or New York, know what it is like to live under the cosh. They paid the dues of voicing dissent when it was a matter of life and death. Havel and Michnik were subjects of Soviet imperialism. But the case of Ramos-Horta is more interesting, since he opposed a US-backed government, General Suharto's Indonesian regime. East Timor was a cherished cause for Chomsky and others on the left. In an article published just before the Iraq war started, Ramos-Horta recalled the suffering of his people. He wrote: "There is hardly a family in my country that has not lost a loved one. Many families were wiped out during the decades of occupation by Indonesia and the war of resistance against it. Western nations contributed to this tragedy. Some bear a direct responsibility because they helped Indonesia by providing military aid." Thus far, none of our left-wing critics would disagree. The split comes in the conclusion. Ramos-Horta remembers how the western powers "redeemed themselves" by freeing East Timor from its oppressors with armed force. Why, then, should the Iraqis not be liberated too? Ramos-Horta respects the motives of people who demonstrated against the war, although he wonders why, in all these demonstrations, he never saw "one single banner or hear one speech calling for the end of human rights abuses in Iraq, the removal of the dictator and freedom for the Iraqis and the Kurdish people". He knows that "differences of opinion and public debate over issues like war and peace are vital. We enjoy the right to demonstrate and express opinions today - something we didn't have during a 25-year reign of terror - because East Timor is now an independent democracy. Fortunately for all of us, the age of globalisation has meant that citizens have a greater say in almost every major issue. But if the anti-war movement dissuades the US and its allies from going to war with Iraq, it will have contributed to the peace of the dead". One might disagree with these words. But they have a moral authority mostly lacking in the polemics of those anti US intervention on principle. He has, however, stated a case that must be answered. Unless, of course, one really believes that the problems of faraway peoples are for them to solve alone, and that we have no business intervening on their behalf against tyrants, and that any attempt to do so has to be, by definition, racist, or colonialist, or venal. This belief may indeed be more pragmatic, even realistic. But those who hold it should at least have the honesty to call themselves conservatives, of the Henry Kissinger school, and stop pretending they speak for the liberal-left." Dead on.

I think their effectiveness will vary from place to place depending on the degree of engagement with land managers, climbing organizations, and dedicated locals. I think that engagement with land managers is critical for attaining the authority you speak of, and having representatives from climbing organizations serving on the committee would restrict direct involvement to those persons who are able to articulate their member's viewpoints and concerns in a reasonable manner. Even if all they did was draft a set of voluntary guidelines for new route development in an area, articulate climber's concerns to the land managers, and help them mitigate climber impact on the ground I think that these measures would be a step in the right direction.