Jake

Yeah the approach isn't too bad - it just takes a while. I've been to the area twice and there is definitely lots of sick climbing. We wanted to climb the Southeast Buttress last summer in August, but nasty weather (snow storms and zero visibility) compelled us to take a easier route instead - the northeast ridge, which was still pretty cool. It was scary when we were standing on the summit covered in metal climbing gear when thunder and lightning starts flying right over our head. Needless to say, we weren't on the summit very long. Check out Ampithearter too, good stuff over there. By the way, has anyone climbed Teapot Dome? Climbed it last summer and was blown away by the flat pebbly, sandy area on top. It was kinda like being on the moon or something (though I can't say for sure, I guess). Pretty cool looking though.

Another reminder for me that skiing can be dangerous. ---TRAGIC ACCIDENT AT MISSION RIDGE A 13 YEAR OLD OLYMPIA GIRL DIED WEDNESDAY AFTER SHE APPARENTLY LOST CONTROL WHILE SKIING AT MISSION RIDGE AND STRUCK A TREE. THE CHELAN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE REPORTS THAT THE TEEN WAS HEADING DOWN THE SKOOKUM RUN WITH HER 15 YEAR OLD BROTHER WHEN THE ACCIDENT TOOK PLACE. THE GIRL, WHOSE NAME IS BEING WITHHELD PENDING NOTIFICATION FROM THE COUNTY CORONER, WAS DEAD ON ARRIVAL AT CENTRAL WASHINGTON HOSPITAL. ---

Yeah its Buck. That glacier looks pretty cool too when it spills over some rocks near the bottom. This picture doesn't really show it, though.

Park at the Eightmile parking lot, cross the creek, and then wander up the road to the trailhead. If they catch you up there, play dumb or take off before they can figure out who you are - they gotta catch you to give you a ticket. Or better yet, have someone drop you off at the eightmile parking lot so there is no car there - that way it would be harder for them to figure out what is going on since there would be no car or hiking permits to trace. Also, I've always wondered about the constitutionality of just closing off a certain segment of the mountains. They can't really seem to come up with a good reason - there isn't some life threatening disaster like an erupting volcano up there or something - it's public land.

Wasn't it originally a system developed by the military? Didn't they "dumb" down the precision of it so unfriendly people or countries couldn't get an exact position on something if they wanted to blow it up or something? However, I thought they relaxed these guidelines a year or so ago so all GPS was very accurate. I'm not sure that GPS systems ever use more than 3 satelites to get positions, either. But, I may be totally wrong on all of this too.

The Bat, and Camels Hump in the Sawtooths near lake chelan

How about Dragontail and Little Jackass Mtn.

Thanks for the info klenke. I was there last summer and we camped in the basin below the peaks. We got a late start though and when we saw the trees below the peaks we didn't feel like trying to bushwack through them. That way of traversing across high below Chiwawa and then taking the east ridge sounds good. By the way, did you notice that tower of apparently better quality rock that sticks up above the crappy red rock on Red Mountain? Kinda interesting.

Speaking of Fortress, what is the best way to approach it? Did you bushwack up through the forest above the basin or traverse accross below Chiwawa or what?

I hate this shit. The Indians don't own the rock - they should have to share just like everyone else.

Hey sexualchocolate, I'm interested in this smallpox in the blanket business. Do you know where can I read up on this?

[ 11-24-2002, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Jake ]

I am impressed with the quality of the posts on this topic. It is nice to see that some people know something about what they are talking about at times (sometimes, but not often, this group even includes me). [ 11-25-2002, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Jake ]

quote: Originally posted by Jake: quote:Originally posted by sexual chocolate: Hey Jake, let's not continue to perpetuate myths, ok? "Myth #1."he kicked out weapons inspectors in '98". Maybe you really didn't know, but Iraq DIDN'T kick out the weapons inspectors. The US forced a pull-out. Granted, Iraq was less than an amicable host, but it's pretty well accepted as fact that the US had planted spies in the weapons inspection team (both US inspector Ritter has spoken of this, along with Hans Blix, head weapons inspector, among others)." ------------------------------------------------- OK, BUT that is not really the point I was trying to make. What I mean is that Saddam did not follow through on his part of the agreement. He harassed and denied entry to sites the inspectors wished to visit. Essentially, he made their task impossible to carry out. As for the spying, most other countries would take advantage of a chance like this to spy on its enemies (whether or not this is right to do is debatable. Hell, foreign embassies are full of spies and everyone knows it - though they don't have the same kind of access weapons inspectors do. At any rate, the new inspection team is supposed to have a more "international" make up to address these spying concerns. ------------------------------------------------- "Myth #2: "...Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers during the Iraq-Iran War and also on his own Iraqi Kurds." Ok, not really a myth, but its manipulation has elevated it to near-myth status. Iraq used gas on Iranians with full US knowledge. As a matter of fact, I believe it was Rumsfeld who was in Iraq, shaking hands with Saddam during some of the gassings. But in our zeal to contain Iran, US looked the other way, as not to offend Saddam. During this time, we were also supplying him with arms and various other needs. Only once he invaded Kuwait did our song change. And as far as the Kurds go, I'd liken his treatment of them to our treatment of Native Americans, who we attacked with biological weapons." ------------------------------------------------- THE IRAQ-Iran War was a case of chosing the lesser of the two evils. Iran had taken the embassy, so it was natural for the US to support Iraq. I don't know about the Rumsfeld bit and the gassings, but the fact remains that Saddam did use the gas. In one sense, I suppose some of the responsibility lies on the US for not doing something to prevent this - however, it seems clear that no country is going to slap someone on the wrist when he attacks their enemy for them. Finally, the UN did condemn the use of gas in Iran, but I am not sure how much the US was a part of this - that will require some research. The claim concerning Indians, though, seems to be a stretch. By biological, I suppose you mean diseases like smallpox etc? The use of chemical weapons on the Kurds was clearly intention and meant to wipe them out. Any biological diseases that killed Indians were: 1. not man made expressly for killing, but natural diseases that Europeans were accustomed to dealing with. The fact that Native American immune systems could not deal with them well is no ones fault. 2. No one ran around trying to kill Indians by passing on diseases - there was no systematic campaign to destroy tribes by infecting them with some European born disease. ------------------------------------------------- "Myth #3: "What needs to be realized is that as the premier economic and military power in the world, it is the US's job to lead. Otherwise, another country, possibly one that is not particulary friedly to the US, may try to take charge in world affairs." Simply because we are the premier economic and military power in the world does not automatically elevate us into a leadership position; leadership positions need to be earned with the qualities of honesty, integrity, just action, openness, and a willingness to acknowledge past sins, none of which the US possesses at this time, at least regarding foreign policy. Remember, bullies were rarely regarded as leaders, at least where I grew up. Maybe the bully had the idea he was a leader, but whoever he intimidated had no respect for him, and would turn on him as soon as was safe. " ------------------------------------------------- OK, I SEE your point, but I believe that the US does meet many of the qualifications you have laid down. Granted, the US is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but who does a better job? Russia, China, some European state? Maybe you can make the case that say, France, for example, is more honest in foreign affairs (which I doubt), but since it does not have a very large influence on world affairs, it is a nonplayer. Who would you rather have leading, or maybe, should there not be a leader at all? But, if that was the case, would anything get done? Not likely. In Kosovo, for instance, the only reason things ever got done was because the US stepped in after letting the UN and the European nations attempt to stop the violence - which they completely failed to do. Sorry for this post being a little messed up - I'm not sure what happened. My paragraphs start with the capitalized words between the dashes.

[ 11-24-2002, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Jake ]

Wow, JGowans, that is one helluva a view. I think it misses and smooths over many things though. On Iraq, for example, all the US did was to ask the UN to enforce its already existing resolution that prohibited Iraq from possessing WMD. In effect, this is diplomacy. There is nothing that could have stopped the US from invading and removing Saddam from power if it wished, but instead, the US decided to seek multilateral action. Also,it seems clear that diplomacy has not worked with Iraq on this issue in the past (he kicked out weapons inspectors in '98), but the US seems to be giving Saddam one last chance. At any rate, diplomacy only works if there is at least the threat of some negative consequences or force being used. The "parallel" between the US having nukes and China invading to destroy them fails to take into account that the US does not even remotely resemble Iraq. Granted, the US used nuclear weapons in WWII, but that use was drastically different from the way Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers during the Iraq-Iran War and also on his own Iraqi Kurds. As for US "imperialism," it is interesting to note that one of the main reasons that the UN resolution on Iraq did not go through sooner was due to the stalling of France and Russia. France and Russia were not opposed to acting on Iraq due to any sort of concerns for peace, but because they each have significant oil interests in the region and were afraid that war would throw a monkey wrench into their operations. What needs to be realized is that as the premier economic and military power in the world, it is the US's job to lead. Otherwise, another country, possibly one that is not particulary friedly to the US, may try to take charge in world affairs.

Well, Islam isn't necessarily a violent religion. It is the twisted versions of it that prevail in some Mid-East countries that make it appear to be. Much of the terrorism - bin Laden for example, that comes from the mid-east is a result of the governments of those countries. These terrorists are mad at the US and those mid -east governments that are "allies" with the US and allow US soldiers on their soil. The US, however, is an easy target for them to strike. This all probably relates to the fact that in Islam, there is not really much of a hierarchical, institutional structure of church like there is in Christianity. Muhammad was governor in Medina - it was expected for the government to be Islamic. So, Islamic government subsititues for the church institution. Thus, when radical Muslims see the US backing a Muslim government, it creates a problem. I don't much many of the details of this new development about the Saudis financing 9/11 hijackers (as if anyone really does), but it is a fact that the Saudi government has paid bin Laden to leave the country and keep Al Quaida away - the Saudis basically bribed him to go away because he disrupts their regime. As for the idea that Islam is violent, well yes, it can be. But, Christianity is also violent in areas of the world where there is little rule of law. War in the name of Christ has also resulted in many deaths during the Crusades against Muslims. Other Eastern religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and Shintoism have also been deadly over the course of history. It just so happens that at this time, Islam is being used as an excuse for violence. As for the way the US picks its allies, the best way to explain this is to say that you pick the best or most useful from a bad lot. Yes, many of these countries, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have serious problems, but they are useful if you want to solve another more serious problem, like the Taliban/Al Qaida or Iraq (both today and during the Gulf War) A similiar situation existed during the cold war - the US became "allies" with crappy countries because they were useful in combatting the Soviets. Iran, under the Shah, for exaple, fits this illustration as the US used Iran to help stop the USSR from expanding farther into the oil rich Persain Gulf. Unfortunately, the US missed numerous signs about the deteriorating situation in that country in the late '80s and as a result, the hostage crisis ensued. Hope this makes some sense.

Mother Nature's a bitch, ain't she?

Hey thanks for the info. Sounds like something worth checking out.

Was looking at maps and Beckey book and spotted Tower Mt. Looks kinda cool and worth a trip. Anybody ever been there and climbed?

mattp, Basically, I agree with your assesment of cars and their uses. I have a high clearance 4x4 that is nice for driving around on rough roads and through deep snow, but normally, high clearance isn't needed. It depends on how much cash you wanna blow, but I would look into the always popular subaru. They have the four wheel drive to get you around in the winter, and the wagons can fit a little more stuff in the back and you could sleep in 'em. Also, the subaru WRX is really fun with the turbo. 0-60 in 5.5 sec or so plus AWD = lots of fun Good luck.

[ 11-12-2002, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Jake ]

Trask had a good idea with the Porsche. Try the GT2 - that will haul your ass to the crag in no time. If you can't afford that, I think freeclimb9 had the right idea about the WRX. I have driven that, and when the turbo kicks in... whoooooo!! It is cheap considering its high performance/usefulness quotient too. Also, the Grand Cherokees with the V8 or with the V8 High Output are pretty fun and fast for SUVs. Don't buy it with the six though - not nearly enough power. Otherwise, you could always cruise around in a '76 cherokee like myself.

Definitely two thumbs up for Toketie drainage, its loads of fun, especially in the rain. Glad everyone likes snow lakes approach, it cuts the down on the crowds on the best way- up to colchuck and over aasgard. This way isn't that hard, the views are better, and you end up high in elevation. If you go out snow creek, the rest of the trip is downhill and you can enjoy the enchantments without having to work uphill.

Well, it depends how far you can go in 24 hrs. 20+mile round trip plus a quality climb, or more? There may be some stuff in the pasayten that could be pretty tough to pull off in 24hrs.