Jason_Martin

Bertulis is far more at fault than the film festival -- at least initially. The BMFF cannot be expected to research the orgins of every entry made to their festival. There is a level of trust there for those who submit films. On the other hand, the fact that Bertulis did not do his homework here is somewhat unforgivable. As was stated above, I don't think this was a malicious thing that Bertulis did. Instead, it was an ignorant thing. Not confirming the filmmaker's death and taking the prize money is not excusable. I believe that if the BMFF doesn't make amends with the original filmmaker, then it is up to Bertulis. On that note, though I don't believe that the BMFF is responsible for this oversight. I do believe that they should apologize and possibly even take the award back. Though it may have been an oversight, it's still wrong. Jason

Butterfly knots tend to work better between the climbers than other knots. This is because the butterfly knot is on both sides of the rope, whereas the overhand or the eight knot is only on one side of the rope. The butterfly knot is far more likely to catch on the lip of the crevasse than pretty much any other knot because of its shape. The number one problem with knots in between climbers is extraction. Prusiking past knots or creating a hauling system with knots in the rope are both problematic situations. In either case you must pass a knot. The only way to do this effectively is to have your crevasse rescue techniques down cold. Miller recommended a guide for instruction of this technique. I completely concur. Most people practice their crevasse rescue once or twice a year, if that. Guides practice and teach these techniques all summer. As such you are more likely to learn an efficient way to pull someone out quickly from a guide than from a friend who practices every once in awhile. Jason

A bit of snow in Red Rock today too. Jason

I'm curious who the guide was... The methods he was using seem slightly unusual. So there are a few things to consider here. The reality of a magic x or a self equalizing anchor is that should something fail, there will be a shockload on the remaining anchor. However, I do believe that the magic x is a valid type of anchor system. It may not be as good as an anchor system wherein an overhand eight is employed to make the anchor SRENE or ERNEST or RENE or whatever acronym you like, but it is an acceptable anchor in some circumstances. All of the same concerns listed in the directional anchor discussion exist in ice climbing. It is important to keep people from being jerked up into a roof. Ice screws in good ice are somewhat multi-directional, so that shouldn't be such a concern. The idea of belaying off the anchor is better for a leader belaying a second. This is better than belaying off the harness because of the simplicity of belay escapes and the ease of some of the modern belay devices like the reverso and the Gi-Gi. Belaying a leader off the anchor is NOT an acceptable option. If the guide was doing this, it's likely an indication of a lack of professional guide training. Another thing that is very important to realize while building a belay station on ice is that the screws should not be side by side. They should be offset. We get used to seeing bolts side by side on the rock and don't think much about it on the ice, but this can be dangerous. It is far better to have them offset to make it less likely that they are in the same patch of ice. Lastly, when swaping leads on ice, I often don't really build an equalized anchor. It's difficult to mess around with slings and such when one hand is totally engaged by a tool and a wrist-leash. Instead, I put in two offset screws with locking carabiners on each of them. Then I simply clove hitch the lead rope to each of the screws on locking biners. After I'm hanging I can adjust the clove hitches so that it is somewhat taut between the two screws creating a small amount of equalization. Of course, to do this you must practice your one handed clove hitches. If I'm doing all of the leading, the preceding concept doesn't work very well. Instead, I usually do mess around with a cordellete or slings until I have a SRENE anchor. Jason

Check out Red Rock Canyon. Oak Creek's the last canyon on the loop road. Jason

An anchor set to eliminate upward pull may be important in some cases and not so important in others. If the belayer is beneath a roof or some other obstacle where a leader fall will lift them into the obstacle, a piece set to eliminate this is very important. If the anchor is made primarily of stoppers, which can sometimes pop out with an upward pull, you may want to include a piece that elimates this. If there are two people hanging off the cordellette, the combined weight of the two climbers at the anchor can sometimes eliminate the need for an upward piece. If there is some variety in the anchor -- in other words, the anchor includes a couple cams -- and there is no danger of the belayer being injured by a leader fall, then it's not so important to add a piece that will eliminate an upward pull on the anchor. Jason

If you could be a little more specific with your question, it might be easier to answer. At first it seems that your asking about an additional anchor to keep the danger of an upward pull due to a fall at bay. But then you talk about how tight things are. If you clarify, you'll get a better response. Jason

I usually don't rant on this webpage, but the recent election makes my blood boil. So here it is, I'm going to rant for awhile and then I'm not going to write again on this thread. The people this pisses off will just have to attack me behind my back, because I don't even intend on looking at the thread again... I do believe that Bush's reelection was legitimate and perhaps that is why I'm so angry. I'm angry that people ARE too stupid to see through his propaganda and his lies. Equating a differing opinion and intollerance with stupidity...? Maybe I do...but I'm a little bit intollerant myself when it comes to what's happened to this country in the last few days. I think people who think the world is 6000 years old are stupid. There is no rational reason for people to believe this. It flys in the face of all science. Taking evolution out of text books is stupid...and so are the people who want to do it. I think people who are worried about what homosexuals do in their bedrooms and want to legislate who one may or may not legitimately love are stupid. Who cares? Get over it! People who say their not homosexual certainly spend a lot of time thinking about it...self loathing for homoerotic fantasies? Maybe. I don't know. But I do know that their bigotry is stupid and not an opinion. I think people who want to take a woman's right to choose away from her are stupid. Could we possibly get any closer to becoming Nazis? I think people who want to insert prayer into public schools are stupid. This actually UNDERCUTS the freedom of religion in this country. Students who do not partake in the dominate religion at a given school will be faced with it on a daily basis. Ultimately, this is a technique of conversion under the guise of something else instituted by the radical right. I think people who want to take money out of public education -- so that "No Child Left Behind" might be further underfunded -- are simply not paying attention. They might even be kind of stupid. I heard a joke wherein someone asked how you can tell a Republican on a pirate ship? He's the one wearing two eye patches. Open your eyes! GW brought us to war on false pretenses! How could you possibly support someone who does this? This is not a question of conservative, liberal, democrat or republican. We are fighting a war that was justified by calculated mistruths. There is still a percentage of this country that believes that Sadam was somehow behind September 11th... I have a feeling that the people who believe this don't have very high IQs. Indeed, they might even be kind of stupid! Theoretically conservatives like fiscal conservativism. What happened to that? Everyone knows the numbers...they have nothing to do with opinion. Those who have simply dropped their concerns about America's financial future because their party is in control are simply not thinking things through. They could be stupid. They called Kerry a liberal. People don't seem to remember what liberals have been responsible for in the past. Liberals freed the slaves even though back in those days liberals were Republicans. Liberals got women the vote. Liberals fought for civil rights. Liberals have fought for the homeless and those who live in near poverty. Liberals have fought to keep us out of unneeded wars. Liberals are the reason we have modern environmentalism. Liberals fight for teachers and for education. Liberals make the movies you watch and sing the songs you listen to. According to the Bush camp, Liberals are the stupid ones. The reason, because we know we can do better. We know it. And we know who the dumb ones are. So I guess I am an intollerant liberal...seems like an oxymoron, but there it is... People who voted for Bush are STUPID!!!!!

McCain will probably be too old.

I recieved the following in an email from a friend: State Avg. IQ 2004 1 Connecticut 113 Kerry 2 Massachusetts 111 Kerry 3 New Jersey 111 Kerry 4 New York 109 Kerry 5 Rhode Island 107 Kerry 6 Hawaii 106 Kerry 7 Maryland 105 Kerry 8 New Hampshire 105 Kerry 9 Illinois 104 Kerry 10 Delaware 103 Kerry 11 Minnesota 102 Kerry 12 Vermont 102 Kerry 13 Washington 102 Kerry 14 California 101 Kerry 15 Pennsylvania 101 Kerry 16 Maine 100 Kerry 17 Virginia 100 Bush 18 Wisconsin 100 Kerry 19 Colorado 99 Bush 20 Iowa 99 Bush 21 Michigan 99 Kerry 22 Nevada 99 Bush 23 Ohio 99 Bush 24 Oregon 99 Kerry 25 Alaska 98 Bush 26 Florida 98 Bush 27 Missouri 98 Bush 28 Kansas 96 Bush 29 Nebraska 95 Bush 30 Arizona 94 Bush 31 Indiana 94 Bush 32 Tennessee 94 Bush 33 North Carolina 93 Bush 34 West Virginia 93 Bush 35 Arkansas 92 Bush 36 Georgia 92 Bush 37 Kentucky 92 Bush 38 New Mexico 92 Bush 39 North Dakota 92 Bush 40 Texas 92 Bush 41 Alabama 90 Bush 42 Louisiana 90 Bush 43 Montana 90 Bush 44 Oklahoma 90 Bush 45 South Dakota 90 Bush 46 South Carolina 89 Bush 47 Wyoming 89 Bush 48 Idaho 87 Bush 49 Utah 87 Bush 50 Mississippi 85 Bush The IQ numbers were originally attributed to the book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations", though they do not appear in the current edition. The tests and data were administered via the Raven's APT, and the The Test Agency, one of the UK's leading publishers and distributors of psychometric tests. This data has been published in the Economist and the St. Petersburg Times, though this does not mean it should be taken as fact. Though the data does correlate somewhat to IQ of students per state based on SAT/ACT data, though this would be biased for those that had completed a high school education. Someone has also taken 2000 census data on percentage of state residents that have earned a college degree and used that to compare the voting in the 2000 election, it's funny, but that seems to correlate as well.

The Guy who directed "Billy Elliot" and "The Hours" is doing it. Those are both pretty good movies. He's not an action movie director, which I think is a really good thing. I have a feeling that it might not be too bad. Jason

If someone came to the Northwest and said that he had to climb five routes and only five routes, these are the one's I'd recommend: 1) Outerspace 2) Dreamer 3) N. Ridge of Stuart 4) Northwest Face to North Ridge of Forbidden Peak 5) North Face of Shuksan I think these routes are some of the best because of the sound rock, views, and quality climbing. They aren't necessarily the biggest or the hardest routes in the range, but I do think that they are all qualify as "must dos." Jason

Check this out: Mount Charleston Ice (Hi Guys!) Jason

Don't Rap the route on Johnny Vegas. People get their ropes stuck on that route almost every day. Rap Solar Slab Gully. You can buy the Uriosite Guidebook at Desert Rock Sports in Las Vegas. The title of the book is, "The Red Rocks of Southern Nevada." Jason

Send me a pm. Jason

The following is in a dorky nasal voice: "Yep, there's a buttload of street gangs at this school. They all want me to join. I'm pretty good with a bowstaff." Jason

Last year Alex, Gene, Mark, and I all went out to Strobach mountain with these guys from Oregon Public Broadcasting and did a segment for their show on ice climbing. This particular segment is going to be shown on Thursday October 21st at 8:30 p.m. and then repeats on Sunday at 6:30 in the evening. It will be shown on Oregon Public Broadcasting. Eventually it will be shown on KCTS in Seattle, but the guy at OPB didn't know when. Jason

Not even close! Like I said, I thought the movie was great up until the puppets get busy. But after that there are only a few parts which even came close to making me laugh hard. "I'm so Ronery" and the puking are great, but other than that, I only laughed a bit during the second half of the movie. If you want to really laugh hard, see "Napolean Dynamite" and "Sean of the Dead." Both of those movies are far far far funnier than "Team America." Jason

One thing that has helped me out a bit is working with a well known climbing coach... I'm by no means a competition climber, but that doesn't negate the things that a coach has to offer. The advantage a coach has is that he or she is often able to see things that you are doing, that you don't realize you are doing. They help you with your technique as well and they know how to help you train without injury. A slightly cheaper alternative to a coach is one of the many training books out there. "How to Climb 5.12" or "Climbing for Peak Performance" or whatever else you might find can be helpful is you follow their training suggestions very closely. Good luck! Jason

The first third is pretty damn funny, but after the notorious sex scene...it kind of fizzles out. Jason

AAI Red Rock Program

Hello All, I have recently been asked to write an article about Exit 38 and North Bend for a local newspaper. They are on a deadline and as such I'm interested in intervewing someone who goes there a lot (as in more than ten or fifteen times a year) today. If you fit these qualifications, please send me a PM or an email with your phone number and I'll give you a call. Thanks, Jason

Most cultures define their god in such a way that their god always believes as they do. If they feel killing people and taking their land is appropriate, a given culture will redefine what their god believes in order for this to take place in a "moral" fashion. The perfect example is right before us. George W. says that god's on his side, but so does Osama. Millions of people on each side of this given conflict say the other side is wrong and that they're right. As such I believe that it is better to base one's moral code on humanism and not a belief that a given diety wants you to kill the other guy. Jason

I thought this article written by Eric Alterman addressed this quite well: A taxonomy of positions on Vietnam: Category A: Exhibiting the strength of one’s moral convictions. Supported the war and served in Vietnam (John Kerry, John McCain) Opposed the war and served in Vietnam because it would have been unfair to force someone less fortunate to take one’s place (Al Gore) Opposed the war and dedicated oneself to anti-war movement at some personal risk, including conscientious objection. (This position is not as dangerous as serving in a war, but it is nevertheless just as moral. The war was evil. Putting oneself at legal and physical risk as many did to try to end this evil strikes me as an unimpeachable moral position, though given America’s political culture, it would also be untenable for any contemporary presidential candidate to hold.) Category B: Exhibiting the strength of one’s moral convictions after protecting one’s posterior. Opposed the war, protected self, and then worked for anti-war movement (Bill Clinton) This position seems to me to be the minimum necessary to consider oneself a moral being. Risking one’s person for one’s principles is a lot to ask for most of us, but the least one could ask is that if we identify an evil that is literally killing people, our peers included, one lifts a proverbial finger to stop it, say, by working for the presidential candidacies of Robert Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern. Category C: Having no convictions to protect save self-protection Opposed the war, protected self, let others worry about it (Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman) This is the position of those who merely opted out of the question, accepted their college deferments and went on with their lives and did not feel any sense of responsibility for their peers and countrymen. Category D: Contradicting one’s alleged convictions in the service of protecting one’s posterior Supported the war, preferred to let others fight and die for it (George W. Bush, Dick Cheney) This seems to me to be the least defensible position imaginable. Bush and Cheney both used their privileged positions to protect themselves; Cheney says he did it because he had “other priorities.” Bush says he did it because he wanted to “better himself” by learning to fly planes. Whether he deserted his post or not—and I think he did-- it is incontrovertible that he wasted the government’s million dollar investment in his training by allowing his qualifications to lapse while he was still supposed to be on active duty. (And what if during this period, the Guard was actually needed, if say, Oklahoma had invaded Texas?) One day, historians will attempt to explain just how two men who fall in category D somehow made the election about the moral rectitude of a man who fell into category A not once but twice. We have to admit this. This Rove feller really is a genius. Just when you thought the media couldn’t be any more irresponsible, he proved it had even more to give. (Most journalists today of the proper age, I imagine, fall into category B or C, with a significant number in D and a tiny, tiny minority in A.)

This is the perfect time of year for ice climbing on the lower Coleman. You don't have to worry about crevasses or roped glacier travel because the glacier is dry. You don't even have to rappel down to the base of your routes most of the time. You can build a top-rope anchor and then walk around. You probably won't be able to use pickets because there is no snow for them. Instead screws will work well. The word of warning for this time of year is to watch your screws, they can melt out in the sun. To keep your screws in place longer you can put snow or ice chips on top of them. Another alternative is to top-rope off of V-threads which don't melt out in the late summer sun so easily. Be aware that the seracs on the right hand side of the glacier tend to be more stable than those in the middle or on the left. If the cliffs on the right side seem short to you, there are many crevasses which you could lower into and climb out of as well. Jason