packsaddle

A nightmarish, terrible tragedy. I can hardly express my sadness for the family. This is the kind of thing that eats at the back of my mind constantly when I'm out on a trip with the boys. I'm constantly trying to think ahead of them, "what kind of risks can they get themselves into?" while letting the boys be boys, for the most part. It's why, especially with the inexperienced ones, about a week of it is close to my limit. But so far, we've never had a serious incident, just a few cuts and bruises...and lots of great stories to 'expand' on later in life.

Let me know when they're booking passengers through Expedia. That's NEO-Luddite to you! (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

OK, what IS the point to sexuality, if one has no genitals?

So we've wandered off topic quite a ways...as usual. I'm glad you mentioned transmission losses. This is one of the problems with distribution. Another problem with reliance on solar or wind or geothermal is exemplified by the preposterous image of an electric airplane. Or electric tractors plowing miles and miles of prairie fields. Or electricity-based pesticides and fertilizers. The technologies for such fantasies are a long way off and likely very costly. But T Boone Pickens has backed off wind. Solar thrives off of government incentives. Nuclear has received incredible government subsidies since day one and now the politics of nuclear is feeding on itself. Biofuel is quite possibly simply a boondoggle. Hydrogen most certainly is. In a truly free market system, none of them would have a chance. The reason is that there is simply way too much cheap fossil fuel available. And this is going to be the case for quite a while. We, as a nation, could turn our energy situation around on a dime, quite literally, if we priced energy in terms that reflect its value. We don't. Gasoline prices around here increased by $0.20 with the last 7 days and consumers are merely shrugging. If there had been an equivalent increase in the gas tax, there would be a political upheaval. Yet, either way we are enjoying incredibly cheap energy...and often squandering it. We have expectations for lifestyle that depend on more and more energy. Status, for some of us, seems to depend on conspicuous consumption of energy (and here I include the hypocrite, Al Gore). We could turn all of this around if we wanted to. The problem IS that we don't want to...really. Like Dubya said, we're addicted (and addiction is one thing I ascribe to him as a great authority) to oil. And energy in general, I add. We have that needle in our vein and we simply don't want to lose...the...feeling....

Are you now opposing a return in industrial growth? Anyway, I would think that sexuality would be somewhat pointless in that case. Am I wrong?

Take a look at the list of names for the most recent batch of Rhodes Scholars from the USA. As a proportion of the overall population there is a disproportionate representation of students from families who recently immigrated. To me this indicates one of the problems...a growing anti-intellectual culture in this country.

Gern, my mom was left handed due to a childhood injury. It wasn't exactly a choice but she did switch. This doesn't negate your point. I'm just attempting to show the weakness in relying too heavily on analogy. There's no good evidence that handedness and sexuality are the least bit related.

W has a degree but I doubt that he has an Ivy League 'education'. Like he said during his commencement address and acceptance of his honorary Doctorate, he has clearly demonstrated that someone can be a 'C' student and still become President. That said, I long for his presence in the Oval Office. I wish there could have been a way for him and his toadies to continue command and take full responsibility for this mess - and continue to demonstrate their strategic genius. Oh well...that's just wishing.

BS-87, welcome to the forums. Starting in the 'politics' forum is a fun way to take the plunge. Wish you the best.

Calico, regarding the Fair Tax, if you look into the details of the proposal you'll understand better why that tax is applied to rent but not purchase of houses. The tax on the purchase of a house is built into the embedded taxes on the materials and labor going into the structure. The rental is a sort of service that is taxed differently. If you look at the Fair Tax as an embedded tax rather than a sales tax it makes more sense. Because of the way it is applied, using existing business tax mechanisms, a huge part of the IRS would go away. Much of the process could be automated. The reason for this is that it simplifies the process overall. Gern, basically all of the loopholes and exemptions and deductions do go away. It isn't quite that simple but it is a huge improvement over what we have now. But Calico does have a point about the devil (myth that he is) being in the details. The actual implementation of the Fair Tax would be really difficult to do without practically a convulsion for people who are used to the present system. Moreover, there is no way that we could risk implementing it in an incremental manner. If we tried that approach, every increment would be an opportunity for special interests to get their special dispensations put into the law and we all understand by now that our representatives tend to go for the money, not the people. It has to be a complete upheaval, literally overnight. For this reason, I don't see even the Tea Party types fully embracing the idea in anything other than a superficial way.

Skeptic, a horse that's been dead for five years is still a dead horse. So I say to upnorthmn, Flail away! Just try to be nice to the horse. The source who put that website up was venting in a way that will get almost no serious attention. Maybe they felt better after?

I'm with you, Stosh.

Woapalanne, Do you disagree with Alan Simpson's assessment? Here's a copy of the actual report. http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2010/12/fiscal-comm-final-report.pdf (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Brent, the Fair Tax accomplishes just what you describe. Why are people so opposed to it? Perdido, It's not the same situation as Clinton because Clinton DIDN'T have the Bush tax cuts. But it sounds like you disagree with Brent. If the cuts expire, as you describe it more of the tax burden WILL fall on those with middle incomes on down. So maybe Brent should support letting them expire? With the Fair Tax, none of this is an issue anymore. That's why it's called the 'Fair' Tax.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Getting back with the advising results: There seems to be little or no pattern among the students with regard to their economic status or whether parents are 'helping' them in various ways. I can't discern anything other than a completely 'individual' case-by-case set of unique persons, each with their own strengths and limitations. Some of them come to me with their whole college career all planned out and practically all I have to do is check to make sure they're right and send them on. Others are 'needy' and require extra time for planning and strategy. The ones I knew with the 'helicopter' parents are doing just fine and seem to be anxious to get 'out from under' the helicopters, so-to-speak. And one problem child at age 25 is still under his grandmother's wing, letting her pay the tuition for him to languish in a degree program. I told him he needs to bow to her and kiss her feet. He told her what I said. She laughed. I'm going to get that guy into shape if I can, before he kills her with her own kindness.

We plan as many of our outings as possible in places where there is no signal. To me that almost automatically equates to Eden or something close to it. The older boys know that the cell phone is a waste and set the example for the younger ones. It works most of the time. But on a long trip in cars or buses, the cell phones are just fine. The batteries usually last just short enough to keep us within the distance limits between stops.

In my approach to life, I've always thought that if I wanted more of something, I needed to work hard and EARN more of it. Regarding taxes, I wish that I could earn a lot more in order to get into those higher tax brackets. That would be just great as far as I'm concerned. Edit: As long as this is about taxes (not really a hijack, I hope), I'd support the Fair Tax. Abolish most of the IRS...simplify or eliminate time-wasting paperwork...keep everything we 'make'...clean up the environment...save the world...it all sounds good to me. OK, maybe those last two things are a bit of a stretch... H'mmm...just where ARE flat screen displays made? Aren't they made in Peoria and Indianapolis? Am I wrong? Oops, sorry....that's where millions could be employed making the yachts. Those flat panels are made...where again?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Are you folks blind? Trickle down DID work and it worked well. It created millions of jobs....in China, India, other overseas places where those dollars were invested. For this reason alone, if nothing else, I agree with Beavah. Let them expire.

Woapalanne, this figure might help: http://www.outshine.com/images/national_debt_small.jpg

Ike? Despite that astonishing resemblance to Homer Simpson? http://www.visitingdc.com/president/dwight-eisenhower-picture.htm http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-01-25-Homer_Simpson_prez.jpg

So Sherm, you're saying that if one of them resembles a potato their chances are not good? If your suggestion is correct, we should right now be suffering under President John (girly-man) Edwards (and now I will go wash my hands for even typing those words). I'm fairly certain that, IMHO, Bill Clinton (who to me bears a striking resemblance to WC Fields) was not more 'handsome' than Bob Dole. OK, Clinton didn't stumble off the speaker platform or act like a doddering old coot. Not that there's anything wrong with being a coot, it means you've survived quite well and besides, I liked Bob Dole. But maybe you ARE correct...that perhaps in addition to being tobacco-juice-drooling, stupid Southern jerks over age 35 and bearing birth certificates with the Tea Party seal of approval, candidates all also need to be ugly...so we can focus on the important issues rather than superficial things like 'camera presence'? HEY!!! I think maybe Brent HAS something there with Barbour after all!

The deadbeat drunk who nearly killed my family in a head-on collision a few years back fled to OK to avoid prosecution. It worked too. On the bright side, he managed to get into an airline flight school there. Have a nice day.

There's a pretty interesting movie that spells it with a 'K' in the title too. I missed that ad hominem thing but that's not unusual...I often miss stuff like that. But back to Presidential qualifications: there ARE only two that I know of, one being that the candidate must be at least 35 years old. Outside of those two qualifications, we're free to elect the stupidest jerk we can find. So we can go find some tobacco-juice-drooling moron who didn't complete 5th grade (probably from my region) but who is 35 and can produce a birth certificate which satisfies the Tea Party, and that person too, could become President.

This unit has a trailer with barn doors. Nothing we have is heavy enough to require wheels. For quite a while we operated the entire troop out of the trailer when our 'hut' was demolished. I have never given the ramp a single thought. I HAVE, on several occasions, wished that persons towing the trailer would crank up the tongue jack all the way before they move it...but that's another thread.

Gern, You're....startin' to scare me a little....