packsaddle

Uuuuuhhhhhhh.....mmmmmmmaaybeee....what the heck did you just say?

"Not to mention one can be a political liberal like many Founding Fathers. Or a social liberal. Or an economic liberal. And then the term has a different meaning in Europe too." Thus making it virtually indistinguishable from a meaningless label - the application of such nebulous terms contributes little to real understanding. On the other hand, the application of such meaningless labels IS useful for alienating participants or ending meaningful discussions. I question whether that really is the intent for discussions where the label is thrown around so...liberally.

OGE, I suspect that if you allow Godwin's law to be broken you nevertheless won't have to worry about jack-booted thugs showing up at your home to enforce things. BTW, it was NJCubscouter who said that, I think, and I agree. Sometimes it is good to give ridiculous and ludicrous statements a forum so that all can recognize them for what they are. All of us are, so far at least, free to ignore them - which, I think, is far more punitive to someone who makes those kinds of statements or associations. It is certainly what I do in the case of the Bald Ego (aka Rush Limbaugh).

OGE, while I agree with the intent of your admonition, I appreciate the dry (sometimes dark) humor that many of us bring with their passionate satire and sarcasm. However, I do recognize that some people don't appreciate it and we should all remember that to reach the largest number of readers we must craft the message accordingly. Anyway, I would never advocate any kind censorship...but, of course, you already knew that, didn't you?

Brent, are you kidding? There would be almost no one left at any college or university! Present company excepted, of course. I saw Slumdog last weekend and very much enjoyed it for its very clever plot and the fact it was filmed entirely by a hand-held camera. I suppose it could be used by some to promote stereotypes or prejudices but since when was ANYTHING really needed to support that kind of thing? I'm not sure the film could have ever been made in any form without quite a bit of feeling of discomfort associated with it and, given that likelihood, I'm ok with the way it turned out.

It is true that without the gunpowder and other help from the French, we probably would not have won our freedom. This is not exactly, however, a monument to the wisdom of the French because the French monarchy, in their desire to bloody the nose of the British monarchy, essentially supported the idea that we should be able to pursue the Revolution and Democracy. DUH! I guess they didn't foresee something similar happening to them after we demonstrated how to do it successfully. BIG DUH! But we appreciated the help. As for Connecticut: Position: Assistant Professor - Field of mass communications and public relations Central Connecticut State University is accepting applications for tenure-track position in the Department of Communications, School of Arts and Sciences. CCSU offers a full range of opportunities as well as generous benefits and a congenial campus . Emphasis for this position is on instruction but research is encouraged, especially at undergraduate level. Teaching experience required. MA is required, Ph.D. preferred, and practical work experience is also preferred. Must support 2nd amendment and weapons on campus. At CCSU we start with a dream and finish with a future. Direct inquiries to the chair: Department of Communication Robert Vance Academic Center 1615 Stanley Street New Britain, CT

Gern, what better way to overthrow a government than to kill millions of the citizens? Of course, if that's what someone wants to do, some clever genetic engineering could produce a microbe that could do the same thing and leave the hardware standing. Ooops...I guess we've already thought of that too. As usual, I'm late with the idea. Do microbes qualify as 'arms'? Edited to answer the question: heh, heh, only if they have really, really, long flagella.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

scoutldr, I think the point was that a lot of stuff happens in inner city schools and goes un-noticed - NOT that we should somehow be sympathetic to the perp. Were you similarly unsympathetic to the situation I described? No laws had been broken until he did the crime. Enforcement was irrelevant...and always is to the dead persons. Gern, Hal, If I follow the logic correctly, we'd all be far better off if we manufactured small concealable nuclear weapons and scattered thousands of them all over the planet as deterrent to anyone using them. Oops, sorry...already working on it.... Those poor Iranians and N. Koreans deserve nukes too. It is their sovereign right after all - I even bet their Constitutions allow it. But think of how much safer the world will be when everyone has more of them for personal defence.

OGE, I won't begin to list all the equally-valid-but-unsupportable explanations in addition to the one you gave for your strictly anecdotal observation. From the perspective of someone who is on campus, and who HAS discussed this with campus security, I offer the scenario: A tragedy is occurring. Shots are fired. One student is perpetrating the tragedy. Security forces from multiple agencies are converging on the scene. Students are running, hiding, shots are heard, the arriving police observe not one but many students with weapons drawn, running different directions. How do the police respond? Who do they shoot? They must respond immediately to the perceived threat, who do they subdue, who do they arrest? Do you think this is a really great situation? I can tell you that the security people on my campus here in the gun-toting South think that the idea that students should be able to carry weapons, concealed or not, is idiotic and they virtually guarantee that more innocent people will be in harms way. Especially during times when some extremely unlikely tragedy is NOT happening. Yes, perhaps another student or faculty member will subdue the perp. I doubt it. Let's just say that there's 10-20 thousand students and several thousand faculty and staff. What percentage of them would be necessary to be armed in order to provide the level of security you think your idea requires? On the assumption that these would be concealed weapons, how do you think the other students and employees would feel about having all those arms present ready to be used? How about the parents? How many of those weapons will be in the hands of students who actually are trained in their proper use and care? How many of them do you think will be prepared to respond to a deadly situation with deadly force? Do you really think your idea is a prescription for greater security? Are you on peyote?

OGE, without going into details, in this case the father did it in a flash of anger. It is just so easy to allow a few seconds of anger combined with the ease of a trigger to create a tragedy, once squeezed there is no return. All of the illusions of love, security, god, human kindness, etc. are brutally stripped away by a piece of metal churning its way through vital organs. In the case of the insane, you're right - short of removing them from society, we have few good mechanisms for protection if they have access to weapons. Is this support for a society that's awash in firearms? I think not. Given the choice, I'd rather face an insane person who's carrying a knife rather than a firearm. I'll have a better chance of outrunning that knife.

I am a former NRA member and I own and use dozens of weapons and I hold a CWP. But although I own and use auto-loading weapons, I maintain that there is no reason that 'sport' cannot be had with a single-shot, or single-action, or bolt-action weapon as opposed to the ammo-wasting spray guns we seem to hold so dear. Anyone interested in true accuracy or precision for target shooting should be able to compete or have fun successfully without the auto-loading mechanism. I guess I'm fairly sensitive about the whole topic since one of my former scouts recently had his father take the life of his mother using a legally-purchased and legally-owned firearm. And I do note that it was accomplished with a single shot - a restriction on auto-loaders would not have prevented it. I wish I had the answer for how tragedies like that can be prevented. I suspect that a solution doesn't, however, rest on the proposition that we need even more firearms in the hands of anyone who can legally purchase them. And I fail to see the logic that auto-loading spray guns make us all safer. Moreover, I suspect that, considering the recent news about the USA being a large supplier of illegal weapons to Mexico, the Mexican people could use a few less as well. Also as an aside, UGa has many fine graduate programs, just not in engineering. Tech does, at least, have them beat there. But it's hard to compare those apples and oranges.

I wasn't sure where to put this but this forum seemed as good as any. A little reminder to the boys about the importance of math (and the fun of trivia). I've lived through 6 of these things so far, hopefully make it to nine before it's over. Posted SQRT09=3 The most memorable was 9/9/81, noted during 800-level course on time-series analysis. Great teacher made a great course.

I agree, Especially when the Beav's name was Beaver Cleaver, used to be a bumper sticker with something about that I think. So while I agree with the spirit of Beavah's post, poor use of language is probably not going to make a strong positive impression at interview time. Best to avoid the habit if possible.

I guess I owe an apology to this forum for my tone. I have to admit that even after a lifetime of living in the South, I still get into a bad mood when people here confirm the stereotypes. And recently I've been saddened by a tragic event that has befallen some friends, one of whom was a scout in this unit. His father (with whom I've similarly argued about tobacco on many occasions) recently murdered his mother. The whole thing is just so terribly sad. All so tragic and so unnecessary, it just makes me want to give it up. I probably should take some of the edge off so I think I'll just go away for a while. Sorry.

As a fellow Facebook user, I try to remember that Facebook does not 'cause' the things described here. To some extend Facebook may facilitate it but I view it more as a way to keep in touch with what they are saying and thinking. Then, I try to be ready to provide a positive response should the opportunity arise. I think the original post is correct that the others would likely 'unfriend' him. To me, and I have learned this from personal experience, the more a parent is removed from the life of their child, the more room there is for that child to fill the void with thoughts and language that might be unhealthy...and undiscovered. One key to a solution is increased parental involvement.

"Any adult ought to be able to go without tobacco for the duration of a scouting event. BSA should have a total prohibition of it" I stand behind this. I am aware of the neurophysiology of nicotine and its addictiveness. Medical conditions notwithstanding, I agree with GWD-scouter - the boys see through the charades and the lies and they do so without the subtleties with which we practice adult self-deceptions. These are not the lessons that we should be teaching our children. If an adult leader can't make it through a troop meeting without tobacco, he/she needs to find some other way to serve youth. If an adult leader can't make it through the weekend or the week of camp, then other leaders who CAN do it should be engaged for duty. The boys should not have to reconcile the hypocrisy of their leaders. There will be plenty of opportunity learn about those things once they are of voting age. All the rationalizations are just that...rationalizations for behavior that we leaders, BSA, the boys, the parents, and all others know is unhealthy...for both the leaders and the boys. Moreover, hiding behind the lies that these rationalizations represent sets a bad example for the boys. In so doing, the leaders teach the boys that it is acceptable to engage in harmful behaviors, as long as we make lame attempts to hide those behaviors from the children. As far as I am concerned, one of the worst harms is in the lie itself. The speculative threat of loss of leaders amounts to little more than holding a known health concern (not to mention BSA policy) hostage to nicotine addiction and nicotine addicts. The ban on alcohol hasn't produced such a loss of leaders and without some evidence to the contrary, I consider threats by nicotine addicts to be unfounded. If BSA mustered the courage to do so, the remedy for tobacco similarly could be had at the stroke of a pen.

We did it the old-fashioned way with double-elimination brackets printed on a poster board, two lanes on a wooden track, and Boy Scouts to judge the finish. But the pack only had about 30 cubs. We ran by rank (Tigers, Wolves, etc.). We had it well-timed so that each group arrived just as the previous group was finishing. If there was time at the end of one of the groups we let the boys just have at it on the track. The only ones who had to return were those who wanted to compete in the 'overall fastest' race at the end of the day. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, had a blast. I really miss the cub scouts.

I think that was great, I'm really glad that he was able to have that honor. At the same time, the guys I'm writing about are in their 60s and 70s. So maybe I'll call Irving and give it a try. What the heck. I'd gladly dine on crow if they came through for those fellas. Edited to add: I'd have a lot more 'faith' in the system if the Mormons were keeping all the records.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Where are these lists? I have met several old Eagles who can't find themselves in any database at any level in BSA. I think that lots of people might be dropped from a BSA database and it would have nothing whatsoever to do with crimes or homophobia. BSA simply is lousy at database management except perhaps for invention of phantom units and boys.

Both men had a huge influence on the future. Happy birthday indeed. On that sentiment I finally watched the film 'Expelled' with Ben Stein as the kick off for Darwin week. It lived up to every one of my expectations. OGE, I'd say that we have evolved, considering especially that evolution doesn't necessarily lead to anything other than the best fit to habitats of the time. However, I guess that if you were implying 'improved' when you asked about 'evolved', who knows? There are still a lot of knee injuries out there. On the other hand, we've invented some mighty nice prosthetics.

Ed, ..... I'm not mad I won't cry I'm just glad that cows can't fly. Gonzo, good to hear from you. Re: gross...I was just kidding. Say 'hello' to the fam.

I'm OK with opening all the books on ALL of them, back to and including Vietnam. Just hand it all over to the news media, make it all available online, and then stand back...unless you want to get in on the action. Short of that, I'll take whatever shreds we can get from politically-motivated muckrakers. Some time in prison would be just fine if they've comitted crimes, may provide a sobering example for others in the future. Pass the popcorn, Gern.

vol_scouter, I tend to agree.

vol_scouter, I agree with you to some extent with regard to science education. However, I also was impressed with what I observed on a video: http://www.learner.org/resources/series28.html The link is to an online video called, "A Private Universe", you have to register (for free) in order to view it online. From the web site, "This video brings into sharp focus the dilemma facing all educators: Why don't even the brightest students truly grasp basic science concepts? Interviews are held with high school students and Ivy League graduates asking them to explain what causes the seasons and the phases of the moon. Even the brightest students in the class have false ideas based on enduring misconceptions that traditional instructional methods cannot overcome." So while I can always support better science education, there are also other fundamental things that we need to address before the public is prepared for good decisions about things even as basic as vaccines against diseases. We seem so vulnerable to myth.

scoutldr, I'm writing only because I'm a bit confused about your last post. Were you agreeing with BulldogBlitz (BDB) or were you agreeing with the quote he took from one of my much earlier posts? I do agree with you that the technology is simple and it can be communicated very easily (not to mention nearly invisible in the case of RU486). BDB, I think, supports strong central government control and prohibition of personal freedom in this case. My point was that even if the pro-lifers got their laws (a record on which they have failed miserably) the laws cannot and will not eliminate the choice. Which I think is also your point. People can protest all they want but in our society women do have the choice. That's not going to change with a law, especially one that pro-lifers can't seem to get passed.