Norman_Clyde

I spoke to the MRNP phone operator just last week to inquire about the weather at Paradise, and she kindly directed me to the URL. I didn't realize it was so new-- figured I was the last one to find out about it. Very handy to get an actual view from Paradise before getting on the road from Seattle.

No, No, No!! Pink tuxedo, Flesh torpedo.

I second the above about the Eastern descent gully. Also, if you didn't mind a half mile detour, from the gully top you can traverse to the south, side-hill the west slopes of Bryant Peak and come over the pass at the south end of the basin, which is less than 45 degrees the whole way from the summit, unless there's a cornice. No rope required. I suppose this is the wimp option, but it suited me when I soloed the rap gully 2 years back.

I agree that closing the road would not constitute improved access. But if the road is closed just short of the usual washout spot, it would not add much to the hike, as I recall. Before I decided whether to support the proposal, I'd want to know just how far back the trailhead would be set. As it stands, although the trail is a lot more gentle than most of the Paradise options, it's still a ways up there to the Carbon, out of reach of the majority of tourists (considering that the average visitor to Paradise never leaves the parking lot), though well within range for the average fit hiker.

I have only hiked/biked in to the St. Andrews Park region, but from that distance the Tahoma appears somewhat more intimidating than, say, the Emmons. Looks a bit steeper, in some areas below the Sickle enough to carry icefall risk. But I imagine the overall length of the trip, plus the remoteness, would be a bigger intimidation factor to a newbie unfamiliar with Rainier.

Lowell, this site (and the NW outdoor community as a whole) is much the better for your contributions. I begin to feel pretty well versed in Washington climb and ski history just from reading your posts!

Two words: Monica Lewinsky.

Well, if Daiber's ascent was unique, then Mahre's was more unique. Or maybe less unique. Just remember: you are completely unique. Just like everyone else.

Not just time and trauma. With all that snow weighing down on your chest you can't move any air at all. No different from having a blocked airway, or being underwater. More than 6 feet under Cascade snow I would bet gives similar statistics to drowning victims.

Does this mean that the remaining months on my annual pass will be money wasted? Ay Caramba!

I just got some used Dynafits and tried them for the first time last weekend. I'm 5'8" and about 170 these days, so maybe lighter than you are hoping for a testimonial. I had one guy at a downhill ski shop tell me I had made a big mistake in getting these bindings, especially last year's model, that they were sure to blow out on me. So at Mission Ridge for the last few runs, after the family had headed back to the green circle slopes, I tested them on the steepest faces I could get to, jamming hard jump turns and daring them to pop. They never pre-released, but they did pop right out as intended on my one relatively high speed crash. Interestingly, the only time they have popped out inappropriately is in climbing mode, where applying too much torsional force can make them release. I think the newer models are better in this regard. After struggling with tele for a few years, I'm definitely sold on this setup.

JoshK, what's the word? Home from Muir yet? The big mountain was looking absolutely stunning from 101 today as I drove back from the coast.

How high is the trailhead? How long does the snow usually last into the spring?

Yes, I know, I was foaming at the mouth a bit last night. The statement about hubris being akin to evil intentions, as I said it, is quite a reach. I meant to say what Anthony Lewis of the NY Times said in his farewell column. He said that, in his judgment over the portion of history he had followed, the greatest harm had come from people who were absolutely certain they were right. He specifically cited Osama Bin Laden and John Ashcroft. Once someone takes the fundamentalist path of being so sure of oneself that the facts can be ignored, then good intentions no longer count for much. Yes, creating international consensus is difficult. As Mrs. Krabappel said to her students on the Simpsons: "Children! Do you want to portray the United Nations? Or do you just want to squabble and waste time?"

RE: my previous simplistic statement about international law: International law is "supposed" to apply equally to all nations in a moral sense. I suffer no delusion that it carries any real force. The USA seems to have less respect for the Geneva convention than many less powerful nations. Bush and co. are not the first administration to put forth a general "we don't care-- we don't have to" attitude. My point is that this does not elevate our global moral position, or the respect of our global peers for us. Yes, I do believe we have global peers, not just global underlings and servant nations, I may be hopelessly idealistic in this regard, but I believe that human beings of all nations are potentially our peers and allies. We should not act unilaterally in a fashion that sets half the globe against us. I fear that the harvest of hatred this country has sown, we may reap horribly in some foreseeable future. I have not forgotten 9/11. Some people hate us regardless. This deep international conflict calls for moral leadership and intelligence on the order of Abraham Lincoln. But we have no Honest Abe in the White House, to the detriment of not only nation, but of the entire world. Actions speak louder than words. The USA's invasion and occupation of a foreign nation, lacking direct provocation or attack, remains morally reprehensible in its substance. IMO the possible presence of WMD, the history of their use in conflict, and the refusal to admit international inspectors was reason enough for the civilized world to demand intervention of some kind. In this case, in order to possess adequate moral authority to attack, the civilized world needed to show consensus, including among a significant contingent of Islamic leaders. My own feeling that this was necessary comes primarily from what I know of medieval history, the Crusades, and the legacy of hatred and conflict between the Judeo-Christian and Islamic civilizations. While most Americans may be utterly clueless as to the symbolic significance of this country's recent actions when viewed in a historical context, I would bet that most Islamic peoples had an immediate, visceral grasp of it; a visceral reaction that is very difficult to overturn with any intellectual or moral argument. I fear that any relatively weak moral argument this country has made in favor of invasion is pathetically small compared to the scale of visceral hatred we have inflamed in the hearts of millions of people. Of course, if there is only one right action, and it unfortunately involves inflaming visceral hatred of the USA among millions of human beings, a nation must do what is right. But the leaders better be DAMN sure they are right before they act in this way. Yes, the USA has invaded other nations on relatively flimsy pretexts before. But the symbolic and historic significance of this invasion is much greater. Bush and co. showed the kind of appalling hubris that, when all is said and done, is not all that different from having evil intentions. I don't believe they examined their own intentions any more than the morally bankrupt CEOs at places like Enron did. The record now reflects a scheme to invade Iraq predating 9/11. Our leaders did not act out of any moral or ethical principle. First they decided what they wanted to do; then they looked for a moral argument to match the action. This is the cheapest kind of human behavior. IMO this kind of decision making is exactly what NOT to expect from a leader of the free world.

So Bush and Co. want to redefine international law, stating that unilateral action is justified before a threat is imminent. Fine. Only remember that "International" law is supposed to be applied equally to all nations. I'm sure this means the USA will not protest if North Korea then states that the USA's actions represent a soon to be imminent threat to its existence, justifying missile attacks on the USA. After all, the threat was soon to be imminent. Or perhaps China will feel that our coddling of Taiwan represents a soon to be imminent threat against Beijing's sovereignty, justifying their crossing the globe to attack us. This sort of behavior follows logically from the Bush Doctrine, when applied by other nations besides the USA. A morally vacant argument, obviously wrong when made by any other nation, does not become right when the United States makes it.

Hey Sky. Nice TR. Impressive use of a whippet on the ascent. But didn't the poor animal get cold? They're pretty skinny, after all. In such wintry conditions, isn't a Husky the more practical choice?

No, it is not all right to lie to the public in order to muster support for a war. If lies are required in order to rally sufficient support, it follows that there is not sufficient public support for the war. The president must then either forgo the invasion due to lack of support, or commit American troops abroad, against the will of the public. However, most politicians don't seem to operate this way. For sure Bush and Co. behave as if they can convince the public of ANYTHING. So far, they have been mostly correct. IMO a significant portion of the American public is responsible for this debacle as well as the Presidential administration. I still don't understand why more citizens do not grasp the huge implications of the United states invading and occupying a foreign nation, going it alone in defiance of international opinion, because the president says that leader X is bad and might pose a threat someday. I do not feel that Bush is evil on the order of Hitler. But if you reduce this country's actions in Iraq to their essence-- how they will be read 50, 100 years from now-- they appear on the surface not too different from certain activities of...Nazi Germany. Or, to use a different analogy, the USA in Iraq has behaved like the Southern sheriffs in the 1960s, arresting and beating up civil rights activists who had committed no crimes, justifying this brutal behavior because "You could tell they was goin' to commit a crime". (Check out RFK interviewing these hayseeds in Federal court. It's part of history.) This is thread drift, I know. But my big question to the public, come November, is: Is it all right for the USA to behave like Nazi Germany, because Bush and Cheney are good and Hitler and Goebbels were bad?

I finally got out on my new AT setup today. I'm definitely sold on Randonee`, which is making me a lot more curious about places like Gib Chute. It would no doubt make a nice ski descent in the right conditions. I would have to be a little concerned about avy danger, however, since the slope angle definitely includes the 38 degree maximum risk inclination, and if you skied it after climbing Gib Ledges, by definition you would not have had a chance to check out the snow on it first. I would not want to go for it in winter except after a few sunny days I may be a lot more cowardly than the average freshiez fanatic on this page, however.) Don't forget icefall risk from Nisqually Ice Cliff. I sent MG a few emails about snowboards and Rainier last year. He urged me to take up boarding, saying there are places on Rainier he can enjoy boarding (like Gib Chute) that he would not want to ski. I'm still on skis because I already know how to ski, but I still have to learn how to board.

The most precise definition of the equinox is the moment when the sun crosses a fixed point in the celestial sphere (i.e. the imaginary sphere surrounding the earth) corresponding to zero degrees celestial latitude. On most of the earth, this will not happen at noon, and on half of the earth, it will happen at night. Ancient peoples could fix these celestial events to within a day, which ought to be precise enough for most of us-- but in the chronically sunlight-deprived state I've lived in ever since settling in the Northwest, I find consolation in knowing the exact moment of these events, especially the solstices. (June 20th at 5:57 pm this year, if I remember right.)

There have been many occasions this season that I have wished I could take my gear for a walk. At least you were out in the open air! As for the issues about slamming one's partner... IMO Wazzu shows civility and restraint in his TR. He does not go out of his way to dis his companions, he just explains the root of his disappointment. Never on SKIS before? Come on! Who among you wouldn't be pissed?

In a civil case you only need a majority of jurors, not a unanimous verdict, and the standard is " a preponderance of the evidence", not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

Milk Creek to Royal Creek basin I haven't done, but I have gone from the head of Heather Creek into upper Deception Basin, which was class 3 snow and messy talus, not technically difficult. On the topo, it looks like Milk Creek and the other side of Fricaba are less steep than Heather Creek or Deception Basin, so you'll probably have no trouble.

Low blood pressure, sweating-- could just be the flu. Hard to say. Regarding heart attacks in the mountains: it happens, just as it does at sea level. I doubt it's worth carrying meds unless you yourself are the person with elevated risk. When my dad climbed Kilimanjaro in 1993, before Tanzania would even let him into the country, he had to buy an insurance policy to cover the cost of shipping his body back to the states. (Fortunately, he was able to ship himself back, still breathing.) I suspect big prominent peaks like Kilimanjaro, or Rainier, get more than their share of this. The day my dad summitted, a German in his 60's dropped of an MI on ascent.

The 3-in-one-day objective of Fernow, Maude and 7FJ has been on my list for a couple of years. I looked it over on Topo, where it appeared to involve about 8000 vertical for the day. Adding Copper would up the ante considerably, probably over 10,000. Not out of reach, but moving well into the self-abuse range. Anyone salivating over this? (Once again I need a drooling graemlin. Should have saved it last time.)