climbher

Oregon Nordic Club’s Annual Cross-Country Ski and Winter Sports Fair Tuesday, December 6, 6 – 9 p.m. Multnomah Art Center, 7688 SW Capitol Hwy., in the auditorium Cross-country skiing, backcountry skiing, telemark skiing, snowshoeing, skjoring, raffle, ski and winter sports shops, ski lesson sign up, beginning to advanced cross-country, Nordic downhill and telemark and used equipment sale Avalanche Contest with prizes Join in the fun and learn more about avalanche safety! Roland Emetaz, who represents the Northwest Weather and Avalanche Center and the Friends of the Northwest Weather and Avalanche, will be giving out prizes to successful participants! Raffle Raffle proceeds go to support the Oregon Nordic Club’s Trail Tending Program, the club maintains and posts blue diamond trail markers on cross-country ski trails around Mt. Hood, in the Wind River area of Washington and around Mt. St. Helens. See the article from the ONC Portland Chapter November 2005 Newsletter below. Special Presentations Tentative Schedule 6:15-6:35 p.m. Winter Clothing: layering by REI 6:45-7:05 p.m. Touring and Track Cross-country Skis by Glenn Nelson, Mountain Tracks 7:15-7:35 p.m. Backcountry Skis and equipment Tentative by Carl Anderson, Oregon Mountain Community 7:45-8:05 p.m. Telemark Skis and equipmentby Jeremy Rooper, Mountain Shop 8:15-8:35 p.m. Snowshoes by Trails Club member Used Equipment Sale 6:30-9 p.m. Used Equipment Sale in Room 33 Bring your cross-country, backcountry, telemark and snowshoe gear. No downhill skis. Check in will be from 5:30-6 p.m. in the auditorium and from 6-6:30 p.m. in Room 33 where the sale will be held. The public is welcome to bring things to sell. 20% of sales go to ONC to support the fair. www.onc.org/pdx

Here is the link for info about the permits: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/willamette/general/passespermits/recpasses/wilderness.html

Check with the Forest Service about the Obsidian Trail usage.

Check with the Forest Service about permits. I think this is a limited area.

The newer USGS maps have UTM lines on the map, the numbers are along the sides.

There is a low 5th class route on the SE ridge. It starts to the right of the central gully. The first part has some loose rock, but not too bad. Once you are on the top of the ridge is it a great climb. There are two steps on the route that you may want to beley other than that you can simul-climb. It will keep you away from all the loose rock in the central gully. Our group of four climbers did the route the day after you did. We took our time and rapped after everyone else was gone so did not have any rock fall on the way down the gully. Take a bunch of slings, some nuts and perhaps a small cam or two. It sounds like the large group was very considerate. Just to let you know--had you fallen and gotten hurt the large group had the first aid and rescue training and skills to help you.

Horsethief Butte in the Columbia Hills State Park on the Washington side of the Columbia across from The Dalles is a great place to practice placing pro and leading easy rock. Take I-84 to The Dalles, cross over the Bridge into Washington and go right on Highway 14.

STOP THE PRESSES by Eric Alterman Bush Lies, Media Swallows Print this article E-mail this article Write to the editors he more things change... Roughly ten years ago, I celebrated the criminal indictment of Elliott Abrams for lying to Congress by writing an Op-Ed in the New York Times on the increasing acceptance of official deception. (I was just starting my dissertation on the topic back then.) The piece got bogged down, however, when an editor refused to allow me even to imply that then-President Bush was also lying to the country. I noted that such reticence made the entire exercise feel a bit absurd. He did not dispute this point but explained that Times policy simply would not allow it. I asked for a compromise. I was offered the following: "Either take it out and a million people will read you tomorrow, or leave it in and send it around to your friends." (It was a better line before e-mail.) Anyway, I took it out, but I think it was the last time I've appeared on that page. President Bush is a liar. There, I said it, but most of the mainstream media won't. Liberal pundits Michael Kinsley, Paul Krugman and Richard Cohen have addressed the issue on the Op-Ed pages, but almost all news pages and network broadcasts pretend not to notice. In the one significant effort by a national daily to deal with Bush's consistent pattern of mendacity, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank could not bring himself (or was not allowed) to utter the crucial words. Instead, readers were treated to such complicated linguistic circumlocutions as: Bush's statements represented "embroidering key assertions" and were clearly "dubious, if not wrong." The President's "rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy," he has "taken some liberties," "omitted qualifiers" and "simply outpace[d] the facts." But "Bush lied"? Never. Ben Bradlee explains, "Even the very best newspapers have never learned how to handle public figures who lie with a straight face. No editor would dare print this version of Nixon's first comments on Watergate for instance. 'The Watergate break-in involved matters of national security, President Nixon told a national TV audience last night, and for that reason he would be unable to comment on the bizarre burglary. That is a lie.'" Part of the reason is deference to the office and the belief that the American public will not accept a mere reporter calling the President a liar. Part of the reason is the culture of Washington--where it is somehow worse to call a person a liar in public than to be one. A final reason is political. Some reporters are just political activists with columns who prefer useful lies to the truth. For instance, Robert Novak once told me that he "admired" Elliott Abrams for lying to him in a television interview about illegal US acts of war against Nicaragua because he agreed with the cause. Let us note, moreover, that Bradlee's observation, offered in 1997, did not apply to President Clinton. Reporters were positively eager to call Clinton a liar, although his lies were about private matters about which many of us, including many reporters, lie all the time. "I'd like to be able to tell my children, 'You should tell the truth,'" Stuart Taylor Jr. of the National Journal said on Meet the Press. "I'd like to be able to tell them, 'You should respect the President.' And I'd like to be able to tell them both things at the same time." David Gergen, who had worked for both Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon as well as Clinton and therefore could not claim to be a stranger to official dishonesty, decried what he termed "the deep and searing violation [that] took place when he not only lied to the country, but co-opted his friends and lied to them." Chris Matthews kvetched, "Clinton lies knowing that you know he's lying. It's brutal and it subjugates the person who's being lied to. I resent deeply being constantly lied to." George Will, a frequent apologist for the lies of Reagan and now Bush, went so far as to insist that Clinton's "calculated, sustained lying has involved an extraordinarily corrupting assault on language, which is the uniquely human capacity that makes persuasion, and hence popular government, possible." George W. Bush does not lie about sex, I suppose--merely about war and peace. Most particularly he has consistently lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities as well as its missile-delivery capabilities. Take a look at Milbank's gingerly worded page-one October 22 Post story if you doubt me. To cite just two particularly egregious examples, Bush tried to frighten Americans by claiming that Iraq possesses a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States." Previously he insisted that a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed the Iraqis to be "six months away from developing a weapon." Both of these statements are false, but they are working. Nearly three-quarters of Americans surveyed think that Saddam is currently helping Al Qaeda; 71 percent think it is likely he was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. What I want to know is why this kind of lying is apparently OK. Isn't it worse to refer "repeatedly to intelligence...that remains largely unverified"--as the Wall Street Journal puts it--in order to trick the nation into war, as Bush and other top US officials have done, than to lie about a blowjob? Isn't it worse to put "pressure...on the intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates," as USA Today worded its report? Isn't it more damaging to offer "cooked information," in the words of the CIA's former chief of counterterrorism, when you are asking young men and women to die for your lies? Don't we revile Lyndon Johnson for having done just that with his dishonest Gulf of Tonkin resolution? Here's Bradlee again: "Just think for a minute how history might have changed if Americans had known then that their leaders felt the war was going to hell in a handbasket. In the next seven years, thousands of American lives and more thousands of Asian lives would have been saved. The country might never have lost faith in its leaders." Reporters and editors who "protect" their readers and viewers from the truth about Bush's lies are doing the nation--and ultimately George W. Bush--no favors. Take a look at the names at that long black wall on the Mall. Consider the tragic legacy of LBJ's failed presidency. Ask yourself just who is being served when the media allow Bush to lie, repeatedly, with impunity, in order to take the nation into war.

STOP THE PRESSES by Eric Alterman Bush Lies, Media Swallows Print this article E-mail this article Write to the editors he more things change... Roughly ten years ago, I celebrated the criminal indictment of Elliott Abrams for lying to Congress by writing an Op-Ed in the New York Times on the increasing acceptance of official deception. (I was just starting my dissertation on the topic back then.) The piece got bogged down, however, when an editor refused to allow me even to imply that then-President Bush was also lying to the country. I noted that such reticence made the entire exercise feel a bit absurd. He did not dispute this point but explained that Times policy simply would not allow it. I asked for a compromise. I was offered the following: "Either take it out and a million people will read you tomorrow, or leave it in and send it around to your friends." (It was a better line before e-mail.) Anyway, I took it out, but I think it was the last time I've appeared on that page. President Bush is a liar. There, I said it, but most of the mainstream media won't. Liberal pundits Michael Kinsley, Paul Krugman and Richard Cohen have addressed the issue on the Op-Ed pages, but almost all news pages and network broadcasts pretend not to notice. In the one significant effort by a national daily to deal with Bush's consistent pattern of mendacity, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank could not bring himself (or was not allowed) to utter the crucial words. Instead, readers were treated to such complicated linguistic circumlocutions as: Bush's statements represented "embroidering key assertions" and were clearly "dubious, if not wrong." The President's "rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy," he has "taken some liberties," "omitted qualifiers" and "simply outpace[d] the facts." But "Bush lied"? Never. Ben Bradlee explains, "Even the very best newspapers have never learned how to handle public figures who lie with a straight face. No editor would dare print this version of Nixon's first comments on Watergate for instance. 'The Watergate break-in involved matters of national security, President Nixon told a national TV audience last night, and for that reason he would be unable to comment on the bizarre burglary. That is a lie.'" Part of the reason is deference to the office and the belief that the American public will not accept a mere reporter calling the President a liar. Part of the reason is the culture of Washington--where it is somehow worse to call a person a liar in public than to be one. A final reason is political. Some reporters are just political activists with columns who prefer useful lies to the truth. For instance, Robert Novak once told me that he "admired" Elliott Abrams for lying to him in a television interview about illegal US acts of war against Nicaragua because he agreed with the cause. Let us note, moreover, that Bradlee's observation, offered in 1997, did not apply to President Clinton. Reporters were positively eager to call Clinton a liar, although his lies were about private matters about which many of us, including many reporters, lie all the time. "I'd like to be able to tell my children, 'You should tell the truth,'" Stuart Taylor Jr. of the National Journal said on Meet the Press. "I'd like to be able to tell them, 'You should respect the President.' And I'd like to be able to tell them both things at the same time." David Gergen, who had worked for both Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon as well as Clinton and therefore could not claim to be a stranger to official dishonesty, decried what he termed "the deep and searing violation [that] took place when he not only lied to the country, but co-opted his friends and lied to them." Chris Matthews kvetched, "Clinton lies knowing that you know he's lying. It's brutal and it subjugates the person who's being lied to. I resent deeply being constantly lied to." George Will, a frequent apologist for the lies of Reagan and now Bush, went so far as to insist that Clinton's "calculated, sustained lying has involved an extraordinarily corrupting assault on language, which is the uniquely human capacity that makes persuasion, and hence popular government, possible." George W. Bush does not lie about sex, I suppose--merely about war and peace. Most particularly he has consistently lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities as well as its missile-delivery capabilities. Take a look at Milbank's gingerly worded page-one October 22 Post story if you doubt me. To cite just two particularly egregious examples, Bush tried to frighten Americans by claiming that Iraq possesses a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States." Previously he insisted that a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed the Iraqis to be "six months away from developing a weapon." Both of these statements are false, but they are working. Nearly three-quarters of Americans surveyed think that Saddam is currently helping Al Qaeda; 71 percent think it is likely he was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. What I want to know is why this kind of lying is apparently OK. Isn't it worse to refer "repeatedly to intelligence...that remains largely unverified"--as the Wall Street Journal puts it--in order to trick the nation into war, as Bush and other top US officials have done, than to lie about a blowjob? Isn't it worse to put "pressure...on the intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates," as USA Today worded its report? Isn't it more damaging to offer "cooked information," in the words of the CIA's former chief of counterterrorism, when you are asking young men and women to die for your lies? Don't we revile Lyndon Johnson for having done just that with his dishonest Gulf of Tonkin resolution? Here's Bradlee again: "Just think for a minute how history might have changed if Americans had known then that their leaders felt the war was going to hell in a handbasket. In the next seven years, thousands of American lives and more thousands of Asian lives would have been saved. The country might never have lost faith in its leaders." Reporters and editors who "protect" their readers and viewers from the truth about Bush's lies are doing the nation--and ultimately George W. Bush--no favors. Take a look at the names at that long black wall on the Mall. Consider the tragic legacy of LBJ's failed presidency. Ask yourself just who is being served when the media allow Bush to lie, repeatedly, with impunity, in order to take the nation into war.

Check this site for info on Bush and his truths. www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

The real reason to go to war was the OIL. Iraq was no threat to the US. It did not take long to whip them. A couple years ago Sadam stopped selling oil (in the oil for food program) in dollars and started to sell in Euros. Probably made some of Bush's friends mad. This is why the troops were careful to protect the oil ministry, while the hospitals, museums, banks were left to the looters. We are so dependent on oil; we need to have control over there. Without control of our foreign oil supply our economy will be in worse shape that it is already. I recently heard an interview with former Governor Vic Atiyeh. He made the same conclusion. Check out the site web page

Check out the system that Mt. Shasta has for "Blue Bags." They supply a large piece of paper that has a target printed on it. You put the paper down then put snow or rocks on the corners and aim. Then folded the paper up and put in a brown paper bag with some light weight Kitty Litter, this is deposited in a zip lock bag. I take a couple of garbage bags along to put the zip locks in. Never put the bag inside your pack. Secure it to the out side. Mt. Shasta as well as Mt. Rainier have deposits (a barrel in near the bathrooms at Rainier) for these bags. You could also may this set up with paper towels and your own paper and zip lock bags. For further info there is a book titled: How to Shit in the Woods. Sorry I can't remember the author's name.

I was participating in a practice crevass rescue session last year when someone using tiblocs to ascend broke the rope with them. The rescue guys from Mt. Hood (Portland Mountain Rescue) only use prussiks for rescues.