packsaddle

OGE, The ACLU already has that covered. But I agree as well...I've been asked to "move to Russia" for nothing more than questioning whether too much funding goes to sports rather than academics. But here's they guy I'd like to see get more airtime: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/14/national/main4603110.shtml Edited part: vol_scouter, If the Bush team hadn't perpetrated a lie during the SC primary in 2000, there's a good chance that McCain would have gotten the nomination. Almost certainly elected. And that was clearly a lie. His daughter was an adoption. She was not the product of an extra-marital liason with a black woman. If you think that sort of thing is good, you have a problem.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Me, I'd take the syrup. Mmmmm. But I tend to agree. If they did go for the 'fairness doctrine' it would be a waste of time that we can't afford. Still, I suppose it's possible. What I don't get is why THIS issue is so important compared to the real problems that we have to address. Can't the talk show guys think of something better to rave and rant about?

I agree with keeping the parents as involved as possible, at least during cub ages. And I agree with Gold Winger that the statement made by the boy with regard to 'stabbing' was not something to take as a serious threat or concern. As GW says, it sounds dismissive. Rude perhaps, and that should be addressed with the parent(s), but little more than that. I have had similar situations before, years ago, and the response depended a lot on the boy, the parent, and the situation. In milder cases when the parent arrived to retrieve their child, I asked the boy to relate to the parent what was said. Sometimes I would offer to refresh his memory. This is a great way to determine honesty. If he answered truthfully and if the parent understood the problem and agreed that it needed to be addressed, I had almost nothing more that I needed to do - it was handled at home. If the incident(s) were more severe I met with the parent alone first to express my concerns. If the parent(s) shared my concern, we worked out what they thought would be the best way to address the concerns. Sometimes the boy was able to adjust and sometimes he just quit...but at least the parent understood what and where the problem was. If the parent was in denial, I engaged additional observers to relate what they saw. This is often a losing approach because denial is a powerful thing to overcome. So some of these boys eventually left to play sports or something. A couple of times the parent would later experience the behavior for themselves and denial shifted quickly to concern. Bears are entering a very difficult age and they are very susceptible to peers and negative role models. This continues right through middle school and into high school sometimes. I wish you luck but it seems to come with the territory. Handling problems like this is why you're getting paid the big bucks.

OGE, if you're thinking about that old idea that broadcasters should give equal time to opposing views or something like that, it was dead and gone years ago. The noise I hear from talk shows these days is related to the fear that it will be returned to application. Seems a fairly low priority considering the real problems we have right now.

LisaBob wrote, "Whether that's an improvement is, of course, a matter open for debate. And it doesn't always mean they understand the reality behind Stewart's or Colbert's comedy either, but more often than you might expect." Yeah, about the improvement, probably not, who knows? But I applaud a critical view as long as it's an attempt at honest criticism. So I'm curious. What IS the reality behind Stewart's or Colbert's comedy? To me the reality is nothing more than comedy itself. Stewart is just poking fun and Colbert is simply lampooning O'Reilly. While I recognize the source of the humor, it certainly can't pass as in-depth thought or analysis - any more than Hannity or O'Reilly or the rest. Do you think the students see something else?

I have had my Vasque Whitneys since 1972 and I still share wonderful experiences with them. I hope to be wearing them for my burial. My advice: don't buy them online. Try them on and make sure they fit well. Be willing to pay the price. In the long run it will be worth it. Edited part: I need to add that I also have a pair of really nice medium-weight boots by Raichle. For light duty I just wear cross-trainers.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

perdidochas, I sort of agree with you...I'm just not sure any of these comparisons are valid. Every election is different. But with regard to Bush, you're correct that there was initial revulsion by many people regarding the way he got the office in 2000. However, the revulsion you are observing late in his term is a different kind, and includes many true conservatives who are recoiling from his monumental blunders and destructive policies. While I suspect that those who reviled him early on never stopped, the late 'surge' is more deserved seeing as how it results from his actions while in office.

The next thing that needs to happen to them is for the unseen hand to select against their offspring to remove those defectives' reproductive capacity from the population before they can proliferate further.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Ed, as long as the parasites are dead I'll be good with that steak. John-in-KC, OK, I'll consider it. By the way, if you can truly get people of any party to line up behind truly conservative ideas, I'll reconsider whatever party that group wants to call itself. Also, if that happens I'm also willing to reconsider the concept of 'miracle'.

Heh heh, I just today read an article on rifles in Field and Stream by Petzl. He described the trigger on one of them as being creepier than Dick Cheney. Wow, he described it perfectly.

Rythos, man I really sympathize and in our region things aren't nearly as bad as what you describe. We are also paying two mortgages, hoping the previous house will sell this coming spring. I'm bracing for a bloodbath. While Beavah is correct about the dive into socialism that this administration has taken us along, the situation is far more profound than simply an experiment in socialism. Because of the obscene debt that we have accumulated (and a huge chunk of that came from Reagan), we are experimenting on behalf of generations yet unborn. To me that is a gigantic lie that we've perpetrated on them - either that or intergenerational theft.

Dang, Beavah, I have to agree again. And with regard to pizza, it's been so long since I ate any of the stuff (and for cryin' out loud I'm on a college campus!) that I've almost developed a yearning for it again. Would someone please put a stake through my heart?

I stopped drinking alcoholic beverages about 6 months ago so I couldn't care less about sources of beer (next spring I might make an exception for a Kubuli or two...or three....or...). But I agree with Rythos on the wallet issue. I've never lost as much from my investments as I have under Republicans. Forget taxes, those pale in comparison to the chunk that has gone away just in the past few weeks. I'd gladly pay the taxes on that if I could just keep the remainder. And that's just the part of my income I invested directly, not the capital gains - I already knew those were fantasies. So vote away. I'll continue to put my money where I think it brings the greatest return on investment - without a care for blue or red nonsense. I'll be taking my vacations in the Caribbean for a big chunk of the summer and then later in Eurasia this year. Really looking forward to it. And when I'm home, I'll content myself with the Southern Appalachians. Unless they're taking children, why anyone would go to a theme park is beyond me.

I know Barnhardt and Schiele. I'd pick Schiele or Shenandoah over Barnhardt. Nicer areas, cooler weather. I might side with Shenandoah but Schiele is really good.

One thing to clear up. Homo sapiens is in no way endangered or under threat to survival. As Paul Ehrlich noted, people are being produced in vast quantities by unskilled labor who enjoy their work. So questions regarding reproductive success or survival are not relevant (besides, you do know we all got left behind in the rapture of 1996, right? So who cares?). The idea that science would be the base for extermination of a minority is idiotic. People who want to commit such crimes might exploit science as a rationalization but their intent exists on the basis of prejudice. About monogamy. It depends on perspective. If, for example, the case where a single invertebrate male has one chance to fertilize the female just before she eats him, I suppose this qualifies as monogamy. Similarly, any copulation in which the male dies after the single copulation would automatically qualify as monogamy (the female would have to forego further copulations for the remainder of her life). Most invertebrates don't do this, however, and evolutionary forces would tend to side with the ability to sustain multiple copulations with many mates. But while single copulations may be common among some groups of animals (like some insects and spiders), unless in jest, I doubt the analogy would apply to many humans. However, if one considers all the animals which are capable of multiple copulations throughout the life cycle, as in humans, I would argue that the majority are not monogamous. They might be monogamous for one reproductive cycle or one season, and in rare cases, they might be monogamous for life (some birds). But more often, they copulate as often and with as many mates as possible. I'd guess this also applies to a large fraction of the world human population as well, although probably not among Protestants. Heh, heh, in my last year just before retirement, I might just ask my classes for a show of hands as to how many of them are virgins. I'll consider adding that to my list of outrageous things to do on the way out.

Ed, as the 'Y' chromosome continues to whittle itself into oblivion and as biotechnology, at the same time, is advancing very quickly, it is plausible that someday soon, women will be able to continue the species with no help from males.

Trev, I agree. Thank you to my great grandfathers, grandfather, father, uncles, great uncles, and cousins, all current or past officers...and to all veterans of military service. We should never forget the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. In fact we should celebrate with wine and cheese in the bright, warm sunshine of freedom.

"Bring back federalism bring abortion and health care to the state level." You better sit down. I agree. But let them decide for themselves on any basis whatsoever - including hate, ignorance, and greed. Smart people, with the resources to leave, will respond accordingly. You do know, don't you, that some types of birth control terminate fertilized eggs? If you are going apply the punishment for murder to murders, then you need to prosecute ALL of the occurrences of the crime. Police that! While you're at it, tell me your decision for the case of the ectopic pregnancy. I believe I haven't read it yet.

Calico, I'd say you've got it about right. Especially that part about compensation. The gun fanatics are currently making a run on 'assault' rifles, large mags, etc. At least one part of the economy is doing well. Lisabob, it's not always all about you. That 'turgid' quip was aimed elsewhere. GW, I'm guessing we're close to the same age bracket and I can tell you that at my college, women sometimes DID share the men's showers...with us in them too. It was gooooooood. I never heard a single complaint.

The Scout, if you support central government action with respect to the abortion issue, then to remain consistent you should support central government action elsewhere as well.

Anyone who is opposed to choice with regard to the abortion issue should also support universal health care.

OK, case in point. I'm still curious as to why Gold Winger's reply just now has a different thread title from this thread. It seems to happen consistently. And I haven't noticed it for other posters.

If they're insulting to her then they're insulting. Turgid expositions notwithstanding, she's entitled to feel whatever she feels as well. I'm sure GW's skin is thick enough to take it. Assuming he hasn't shed it recently, tee hee.

I have fond memories of OA fellowships at Camp Barnhardt. It's a great place. I think the other posts have already covered the gear question pretty well. Have fun, stay warm, stay dry, stay fed, stay in good health.

It's news to me too. I'm about to question our own local arcane (unwritten) approval process at roundtable. I'll just hold onto this one in case it comes up in the discussion.