Norman_Clyde

Reelected by voters like you. Is this a great country, or what? Tony Blair sailed to victory with a whopping 36 percent of the popular vote for his party. Sounds like a mandate to me. To be serious, Fairweather, are you asserting that a majority of the American voters can't be wrong? Because many of these voters probably also cast ballots in 1996 and 2000.

The information provided so far is grossly insufficient to allow cc.comers to judge Roper's skills. We do know that on the described ascent he did not use supplemental oxygen, but there is no mention at all of axe or crampons. Also, what about his choice of route? Has he gone for the most demanding direct line to the summit, or taken the cowardly easy way? Is a spring ascent of Beacon Hill easier than one in winter, or do the golfers present a higher seasonal objective danger? Discuss.

As one day pushes go, Olympus is one I'd do again. In fact, I did do it again, but I'd even do it again again. If I do do it again again, I hope my feet don't give me terrible pain starting at ten miles still to go, the way they did the first two times. On my one day attempt of N. Face Shuksan with Bug, we failed in our objective because we tried it in one day. Left Seattle at midnight, trailhead at 3:30 AM, spent five and a half hours bushwacking, got to the base at 9 AM, day had become too warm, loose slides, turned around. Above us we could see a party of three, who had no doubt used the previous day for the approach, just topping out. We would have been more likely to have met our objective if we had taken 2 days-- though it was still a fun hike, surrounded by impressive alpine terrain. When I think back on my one day climbs, I realize that most of them were really not so long, maybe 12 or 14 hours. Which raises another question: how many hours does a climb have to take to qualify as a BIG push? Any climb done in a day that usually takes two or more?

Invader Zim

Way cool. Photos, we want photos! When you two call it survival skiing, that's about WI3 for the rest of us, right?

Climb: Colchuck Peak-N. Buttress Couloir/Colchuck Col Date of Climb: 4/25/2005 Trip Report: As Juan posted in another thread, this may have been the first really warm spell in spring when everything melts and slides. Alex_Mineev and I engaged with these conditions on Colchuck yesterday. We left Seattle at 6:30 pm on Sunday, and after a brief dinner stop in Leavenworth arrived at the parking lot (road is essentially snow free now) at 9:30. Temps were positively balmy at 3400 feet, probably in the 50's. After sleeping in the car we headed out at 4:30 AM. I brought skis for the descent. Snow remained soft and isothermal all the way to the lake. Once on the talus the postholing was miserable, though relatively brief; soon we were merely wallowing in warm, wet concrete. We traversed from the moraine, bypassing the lowest portion of the couloir. The E. facing portion of the route was already in full sun, and we (at least I) started to feel some misgivings about climbing in these conditions. I was not worried about setting off a slide, so much as being entrained in a big one from above. Though the runout was clear of obstacles, I was not confident of my ability to ride such a slide through a five-foot hourglass at high speed. A couple of bobsled-style runnels in the fall line testified to recent activity. Nothing was falling yet, but many snowpatches were warming on E. facing ledges. By the time we had traversed under some of these, continuing on did not appear more risky than retreating, as climber's right appeared to be shielded somewhat by two rock steps. I was beneath the first rock step when the first big wet slide came roaring through. With my view blocked by the rock, all I could do was listen to the approaching noise and hope the slide was in the main gully. For a few seconds I hunkered down and waited for the big white wave to break over me. Fortunately, however, this slide was limited to the main bobsled run. Motivated to move faster, I made ungainly business of the rock step in my AT boots, set up an anchor, and belayed Alex up. About 100 feet above us there was a second rock step to the right of the main runnel; Alex was heading toward it, keeping climber's right, when a second slide came down. We had a rock anchor in, and were still safely to the right, but this one came over the step we had hoped to climb, and would no doubt have had ugly consequences if we'd been at the step when it came. We considered ourselves licked at this point. Alex came back down, I lowered him over the rock step and then rapped off. Two more slides came through the main gully during our traverse back to the moraine. It appeared that we timed our ascent to coincide with maximum slide potential, as we saw no more slide activity after that. After a short break, we headed up the standard route to the col. Snow here was still shaded, the first hard layer seen all day. I was more wiped out than usual and decided to take a nap at the col while Alex went on to the summit. In the meantime, the main route came into the sun, which in this case was a good thing as it made for excellent skiing. with the bonus that I didn't have to posthole in the talus. The lake has a couple of big spider cracks in the middle but at the edge looked to be about six inches thick. I kept my skis on for the return crossing. Alex didn't fall through but did get to wallow in ankle deep ice water trapped above the ice. To sum things up: it's currently way too warm for the NBC. If freezing levels stay this high, take the standard route. (NE couloir, situated between vertical walls, would be a far worse choice.) Even in cooler temps, a 4:30 start from the trailhead is probably not early enough. Gear Notes: Ice axe- used one tool each Crampons- not needed Rock pro- #1 and 0.5 tricams, both used 30 m rope Boots: Alex = hikers Me = hikers + AT boots Skis- worth the haul Approach Notes: Road is essentiallly snow free. Watch for slippery packed ice on the trail.

There are a couple of reasons not to give a head-injured or multiply injured person solid food: first, if the person does happen to start having seizures, he's more likely to vomit and aspirate a la Jimi Hendrix or John Bonham. If the person is in significant enough shock to have mental status changes, he may not even be able to swallow properly and could put the doughnut directly into his own airway. (Fortunately, most people probably have enough common sense not to shove a donut or pour Red Bull down a semi-conscious person's throat.) Secondly, maybe less important, if the person looks like he's going to need the operating room, it's safer to put a person under general anesthesia if he doesn't have a stomach full of doughnuts. Clear liquids, meaning any liquids without dairy products or particulate material, are still not good to aspirate, but they cause less of a reaction if they do get into your lungs. Withholding liquids from an injured person in a backcountry setting is probably not indicated, if it's a long way to civilization and the person is at risk of dehydration in the meantime. If you're days away from help, you'll probably need to risk feeding the person as well, unless they're mentally not safe as explained above. If you're just a few miles from Leavenworth, better to hold the doughnuts and give Gatorade or Powerade or something like it.

Check PMs

#1 (Not that I've done it, but I've thought about it): easy to answer, but not easy to accomplish. The easiest way off the mountain on a side somewhat close to Carbon River appears to be Tahoma Glacier, with a LONG traverse back to Ipsut Creek. The upside is that it's beautiful country. I suppose a descent of Sunset Ridge would be possible. You could also ski down one of the Mowich Face routes if so inclined-- this has the advantage of great directness. I doubt anyone has descended via Ptarmigan Ridge but MattP has descended Lib Ridge: no doubt riskier, but nice and direct. You could also consider approaching Ptarmigan via the west side road. Certainly longer than an Ipsut Creek approach, but descent via Tahoma glacier would be slightly more direct. All of the above ideas assume that you either have only one car, or wish to avoid using up an entire day dropping a car off on the other side of the mountain. A carryover to Paradise would be the shortest way off, White River being closed, but you would have to invest driving time that would eat up available climbing/approach time. Mike G. no doubt has perspective and may weigh in on this question. #2: Gas prices are beginning to reflect the true economic/environmental/geopolitical cost, to our nation and the world, of our dependence on oil. When prices reach six dollars a gallon, perhaps Americans will be forced to become pragmatic realists about the real price we pay for our lifestyle. Or instead Americans may "respond with violence" to the threat to the American Way, as some on this page have advocated. Moderators, if you want to split this thread and move half to Spray, go ahead. Most readers are probably annoyed to have to skim through the Rainier part.

Bring a bike to the trailhead. Riding 4 miles uphill in hiking boots with a day pack took me an extra 40 minutes. Constance was looking sweet from the ferry today

Well, DUH. Right wingers, please address the issue of our unsustainable consumption of Earth's resources without resorting to the convenient comfort of imminent Armageddon and rapture of the faithful. I'd like to hear a reasoned argument for how the theory of relentless economic growth is not doomed to lead a finite planet into catastrophe.

There seems to be something extra satisfying about the schadenfreude when the victims are French. (I'm not speaking for myself, mind you.) Conservatives just don't express the same glee when bashing, say, Brits or Germans. Why is this so? What does it say about our individual cultures? Discuss. I've only taken two trips to Europe, only one to France this past fall. I did notice that most people in Paris are cranky in comparison to Londoners. Also, though I was fully prepared to be dazzled by the overwhelming sexiness of all French women, in general the average unencumbered Parisian female, if reading face and body language counts for anything, appeared less prepared to enjoy herself than the average London mom pushing a stroller.

The CDC site has the most definitive, up to date info on most any country. You can easily download the information yourself. Then you can go to the health dept. and get the vaccines for probably less money than if you went to a regular doctor's office. One other option, if you have a doctor already and know what vaccines you need, is to schedule an appt. for vaccines only, no visit with the doctor. The charges are less for such an appt. but most clinics will not have the more obscure vaccines like yellow fever and meningitis. If you need malaria pills, you will need face time with a doc and will have to pay for the appointment. You will not need a repeat Hep A, meningitis or Hep B vaccine. You might want to consider a repeat typhoid, depending on estimated risk where you are going. Yellow Fever is about all that is left to worry about. But don't just take my advice, because I haven't checked the CDC site in a while.

From Jim Nelson's Selected Climbs in the North Cascades , volume 1, Second Edition: "Triple Couloirs first winter ascent: via First Couloir (Hidden Couloir) to its end (bypassing Second Couloir) and Third Couloir, Cal Folsom and Don Heller, January 1974 (tragically, Don Heller was killed on descent)"

As has been noted, not all orthodox religions have trouble with Evolution. Roman Catholicism has recanted on both Galileo and Darwin. Not all religious people see an unresolvable conflict between science and religion. My impression is that some folks do not have the patience, or maybe the intellectual capacity, to study the details of evolutionary theory. They look at the complexity of life and think, "That just couldn't have happened on its own." There is a book called Climbing Mount Improbable which I picked up once in the U bookstore which addresses the seeming unlikelihood of complex life forms evolving without a Supreme Being's direct intervention. The book uses the metaphor of a mountain very steep on one side but very gradual on another. The creationist says "Nothing could have gotten up that huge cliff on its own" but won't take the trouble to look at, or can't see, the other side of the mountain: the idea that very small changes happened bit by bit over millions of years. I would like to give all human beings credit for the ability to think big, but clearly some people can't, or don't want to. Great religious thinkers can handle evolutionary theory. Creationism is not a product of religious thought. It's a product of thinking small, of willful ignorance. On the original subject: my cousin used to lead raft trips on the Colorado for Outward Bound. His personal favorite question from participants, one which he heard again and again when the boats passed partly submerged boulders, was: "Do those rocks go all the way to the bottom?"

I was up there today. It didn't snow today but the ranger said it's snowed every day for several days recently. There must have also been some sun yesterday, because nothing was fresh and everything was really heavy. There is evidence of big sluffs on mostly NE aspects in the Tattoosh, but no slab releases visible. It was very warm, must have been 60 degrees in the parking lot. I got to the lot just before a group of 5 rangers who skinned up behind me. On the flats I kept busting a thinly buried slab, 6 to 8 inches thick. There were no slab releases at Pan Point, but many sluffs and pinwheels, and no skin or ski tracks. As I was solo I was inclined to be careful. Given the evidence of a poorly supported heavy crust, I was not inclined to be the first to test the bowl, so I went up the winter route. I dug about a 3 foot pit which showed no discernible cleavage planes and would only shear when levered off. (Don't ask me what grade that is.) The snow has a high water content, i.e. it's VERY heavy. I tried booting through the trees on the ridge line but quickly was wallowing deeply, so I just skinned the least steep line on the southern aspect, which was uneventful. The rangers then skinned up various aspects of the bowl, without triggering anything. I think they also dug some pits so they may have a technical report. Above Pan Point, there are a few SE facing short steep precipices which had been wind loaded. The first was small enough that I decided to skin across it, which set off a heavy 6 inch wet slab, very slow moving, only went a few feet onto the flat (this was all of the loaded part for that slope). It wasn't scary but it was embarrassing, since I did it in front of a ranger. I avoided the remaining similar slopes more carefully. Above McClure rock, of course it was windblown slab and crust. The temp dropped significantly through the afternoon, and by the time I got back to the wind loaded slopes I had much less concern about wet slides. I skied down them without setting anything off. The rangers had tested Pan Point by then and it was likewise stable. Maybe more than you needed to know. At any rate, more snow is predicted this week. There is not much surface crust yet, so the new snow will probably add to the deep heavy layer and pose a risk mostly for wet spring slides in warm conditions.

I don't watch television, and I have yet to see a still photo of Terri Schiavo post-1990 other than the well known single image gleaned from hours of video by the parents, calculated to make her appear responsive. I read 2 newspapers and sometimes scan Google News. If the media wanted to "change the image" they sure didn't try very hard. IMO the media finally got some good facts out in this case, but the imagery was deceiving (at least, it was in conflict with stated facts about the case) and in this respect they could have done better.

Quote: when you look at actual BTU's per household, there's not much difference. You have electric lights, modern appliances, an automobile - etc - just like they do. Hardly enough of a difference to warrant the self righteous grandstanding and condemnation issuing forth from the Left fringe. Anytime I'm tempted to sneer at some fat SUV driver guzzling a Big Gulp and blathering into a cell phone while weaving down I-5, I think of the vast range of human behavior across geography and history, and try to remember that on the world scale of human consumption, I am pretty similar to the SUV driver whose behavior disgusts me. I agree that the "end is near" rhetoric of the environmentalists weakens their argument. For one thing, if you care more about the earth than about people, well... after human beings destroy themselves, the earth will have a better chance getting back to normal, won't it? If you think in terms of geologic time, anyway. There is a Bible verse I read once which I need to find again, because it makes an even better argument for people leaving the earth alone once in a while. After one of the big Old Testament battles that wiped out an entire population, leaving the land empty, the verse says, "And the land enjoyed its sabbath." The idea of Armageddon does not appeal, but the land getting a rest-- I like that concept.

Nice TR. Mike, I'm extremely pleased to see you back to peakbagging (if I may call it such). Klenke, given the spelling and pronunciation of your name, plus your clever rhyme scheme (Beebe we be), maybe you can enlighten us all about the correct pronunciation of a couple of Cascade classics, namely: Is the "E" at the end of Mts. Goode and Slesse pronounced, or not?

"Policy reflects the uninformed position." A good slogan for the Bush administration. Actually, for both parties much of the time.

In my experience this is exactly what goes on. It is one more of the many areas where modern American culture falls down on the job and fails to equip people for the basic necessities of life. I could blame Christianity for this problem, but I'd say this denial is more a product of mainstream America than Christianity per se. Smaller, more self-sufficient Christian communities like the Amish lack this deep denial, maybe because 1)they still live a rural life which includes slaughtering the animals they eat, and 2)in most of these communities people still die at home, have their bodies prepared for burial by members of the family or community, so it's harder to have any illusions about death, and lastly 3)because they do not believe in health insurance, so the community has to immediately recognize the human and financial burden of keeping someone artificially alive. These communities don't have a big tax base to subsidize such care. They have to deal with more harsh realities than the rest of us. IMO this gives them a more realistic attitude about when a life is still worth living. One more thing I learned on the job that I didn't expect: when a family gets together to discuss whether or not to pull the plug, usually on a parent, the one who objects is most often the adult child who is the most alienated from the parents, lives the furthest away, and has been the least involved in caring for them at the end of their lives. Since they already have an ambivalent relationship with the parent in question, they tend to feel more guilty about voting to pull the plug. Unfinished business is often a big part of the agenda that promotes denial and artificial life-sustaining measures.

[quote Are the people you are referring to given any medications at all? Will Schiavo be given any meds to offset any possible discomfort? In caring humanely for any dying person, it is appropriate to give medication to reduce pain. Since Terri Schiavo has severe brain damage, but (presumably) no underlying painful condition, she is not likely to experience pain associated with dehydration. People who are dehydrated feel very dry in the mouth, but can receive mouth care and other comfort measures to relieve this sort of localized discomfort. On the other hand, people dying of cancer often hurt all over, and may be short of breath as well. Most of the dying people I have cared for had cancer. Most of them had adequate pain relief, though not all, in spite of best efforts. Morphine goes a long way to relieve both pain and shortness of breath, though in late stages a person may only appear comfortable when medicated into unconsciousness. Although you might think that a non-ill person who is dehydrated might feel worse than a terminal cancer patient who is dehydrated, usually the cancer patient has a lot of pain unrelated to dehydration, which makes it harder to keep them comfortable at the end. I agree that life and death issues are within the public realm. However, these issues are usually decided in the courts. As Michael Schiavo has pointed out, this conflict has made its way very slowly and painstakingly to a final resolution over seven years. Now at the last moment Congress, which I believe has no constitutional authority over state courts, steps in merely because some members don't agree with the court's ruling. I dislike this precedent. Congress has no business intervening in state court decisions, regardless of the issue at hand. Advocacy groups, Christian or not, should be careful what they ask for. They are not keen on government interference in other "private" realms like religion. If congress were to routinely intervene to reverse state court decisions, society would reasonably object that congress was exceeding its authority, that this was a matter for state court and that congress does not have the right, privilege or authority to invalidate whatever state court decisions it pleases. I believe the law is also generally on the side of the spouse. You can bet that if the tables were turned, if the parents wanted the tube pulled and the right to lifers were backing the husband, they'd be screaming that the courts have spoken, the spouse overrules the parents, how dare congress overrule the courts, etc. etc.

When a person is deprived of food AND LIQUIDS, they don't starve to death but die of dehydration. Although this sounds awful, believe it or not it is considered one of the most peaceful ways to go. An alert person gradually gets sleepy, then comatose. The sensation of thirst is less troublesome than you would guess-- I don't know why, it just is. We know this from experience, caring for people too sick to eat and drink who have foregone artificial hydration and nourishment. The public has a dire need to be educated in this area. I suspect a lot of the people writing to their congresspersons, urging them to meddle in this poor family's private business, think that removing the tube dooms Terri Schiavo to a painful death. They're wrong. They are like the family members of cancer patients who get anxious when the sick person won't eat, so the sick person eats to please his family, then feels sicker than he did before. (This phenomenon has been documented as well.) It disgusts me when Congress presumes it has the right to meddle in private affairs like this. It shows how little they really care about the public good. I have yet to hear Bill Frist say, "As an extremely intelligent, smart, clever, wise, know-better-than-you DOCTOR, I can tell you that withholding food and liquids leads to a peaceful, painless death. In addition, I'd like to take this moment to urge all my constituents to GET A LIVING WILL. Don't just write it down, either. Tell EVERYONE your wishes. Make sure your spouse, your parents and your siblings know just how to handle your case if you end up like Terri Schiavo!" Maybe someone from congress is saying something like the above, and the media is just failing to report it. I doubt it. Regarding organ transplants: when someone dies of dehydration, the kidneys and liver fail prior to death. The only way to preserve someone's organs is to remove them while the person is alive and the organs are functioning. "Brain Death" is a cultural construct designed to make society feel better about removing the organs of living people. But that's another thread.

You don't have to see the commerical at all. Lexuses and their gas guzzling siblings are going to help fuck up the environment so there's no more ice left to climb. Simple. Can it really be true what you say? My brain is having trouble accepting this idea. My head hurts when I think of unpleasant things like deforestation and global warming and pollution. But I feel so good when I see those pretty, luxurious vehicles driving over clean, unpolluted countryside! And I love those slogans like "If Mother Nature drove an SUV, this would be the one." How can cars be bad for the environment? I never see any pollution in the background on the commercials. I think the commercials are right and you are wrong. I'm going to stop listening to you Chicken Little types. Instead I'm going to buy a big SUV so I can spend all day driving across one of those perfect landscapes where Mount Everest is digitally inserted into the background.

I ran that in 2003. Once was enough. Remember to keep it slow on the first six miles of Interurban. You won't have to concentrate to keep it slow on the last six miles back to the park. Have fun!