packsaddle

"Two great nations separated by a common language"...Nope, I'm a Southerner with a drawl as thick as Billie Bob Thornton, Jim Varney, or Jeff Foxworthy. But my students think I look like Indiana Jones or so I've been told (I wish). I do like the English and all the quaint ways they manage to express themselves, and the English language, which I manage to employ correctly once in a while. Edited part: typo, sorry(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Oooooooooo, I am sensing a room full of Spiro Agnew impersonators...."a vast wasteland"....Folks, it's not close enough to Halloween to be that scary! Calico, we went cold turkey back when the kids were in elementary school for about 4 years. Then in middle school and in the presence of peer pressure we turned it back on for weekends only, and then it crept on little cloven hooves back into our lives. When my family purchase the first 12 inch B&W tv, there was also one channel (cheerio eamonn!) but another soon after. The later development of channels beyond 13 forced us to replace that 'infernal machine' so we could get the third channel which was devoted to old movies and reruns. Today, I often think of old Spiro when I survey the offerings. I watch 'House' and a couple of other things. My daughter says with regard to 'House', "Dad, House is you." I'd like to think so. Except without the limp.

Hey, you didn't find that in Texas, did you? I've had my eye on manzanita for a long time but never found a stem straight enough. Where did you come across it?

I've been looking for a good maple stick to try. You're right, it's hard and strong. But the grain is good for carving if you have really sharp tools. Gonzo1, if you ever take a liking to wood carving (and I really enjoy it) you should check out a store in our area. It is called Highland Hardware, here's a link: http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/index.asp As a matter of fact you need to see this place even if you don't take up carving. It is just wonderful, in many ways better than a Bass Pro Shop or Cabela's. Back to carving, though, if anyone allows the boys to try out your carving tools, there are two things you need to keep in mind. First, you will need to completely resharpen them afterwards, and second, you will need a really good first aid kit close by.

Going in the night, ahhhhh such fine memories. I guess I lucked out with a bladder the size of a bucket so this isn't much of a problem. But on those rare occasions when I really overdid the hot chocolate - I absolutely savor the amazement at how quickly a pair of leather hiking boots can become petrified in the cold. The SnowSeal just turns to stone and no matter what the thickness of socks, the cold cuts right to the bone. What a great feeling! As for cold ground. I've slept with tent pitched on deep snow before and a regular blue closed-cell pad seemed to do just fine. I'm not sure what the problem is here. Nice thing, though, about a waterproof floor is that when the body heat melts its way to a perfect fit in the snow under the floor, the melt doesn't soak your bag.

Oak is heavy, as is hickory, but they are strong. I left the bark on my hickory one but not the oak. If weight is a consideration, sweet gum is light and strong and easy to find. I'd take the bark off while it's still green. My favorites of all time are of lodgepole pine, exquisitely carved, and my #1, a misshapen length of Pacific madrone. It will be hard to find that one around these parts though. The madrone is the strongest wood I have ever seen for its weight and the grain is very fine. And the extremely smooth, red bark is beautiful left on, or else it peels fairly easily. One more consideration is the ease of carving in which oak and hickory are not good, actually terrible. They are hard and the grain is very difficult to work. For that I favor the lodgepole pine, especially a long straight shaft for insetting the hiking medallions purchased at various national parks, etc. Again, for this I remove the bark...any time it's convenient. I like to carve a grip that custom fits my hand. Or if I get time I add a dragon or forest spirit or eagle or something. A while back I collected a nice new stick in the Georgia mountains, straight and strong cherry, I think it might be pin cherry but not the black cherry you probably have growing near you. The bark peeled off easily in large strips revealing a very smooth inner surface. Leaving the sap to dry naturally, it turned black and is absolutely lovely. I only use urethane if I need to preserve surface features for show. Otherwise, they're really just a bunch of sticks. The best one I ever had, and by now you understand I do value these things, was another madrone stick (back during a time you could still bring these things on airplanes). One of the boys didn't know about it so he used it in a fire. I didn't say a word...just gave me an excuse for another trip out west.

OK, someone take the remote control away from that guy. Now hand it to Hops Scout.

Thumbs down from me too. Risky and unnecessary. The best way to achieve that level of comfort is to get a room or stay home. Don't plan on camping with this unit.

Welcome BethM, to the forums. I agree with your post. Just imagine, being good for the sake of being good, not because of some supernatural threat. Imagine doing the right thing with no expectation of some supernatural reward. Wow. Almost makes a person want to write a song or something.

Gonzo1, I'm intrigued by your mention of a hypothetical female who might 'pass' as a boy (the androgynous girl). Let's stick with that. How do you propose to handle that situation? What test will you, as a leader, perform to detect the truth of the matter? Keep in mind I've seen some boys with very similar 'developments' (and very impressive ones, I might add) that reversed with maturity. This is not uncommon. Just trying to keep things 'pure'.

Whatever. Anyway, now that the SCOTUS has passed on the hearing, this isn't going any further until someone finds another twist to this someplace else. I have not failed to notice, however, the irony of a discriminatory organization complaining about being discriminated against. One more for that collection of delicious ironies...

BSA used to, at least, recognize the Zoroastrian religious award. Not sure about the others. Trevorum has the best take on this. BSA evidently wrote the DRP without thinking clearly about the implications outside the so-called Judeo-Christian 'tradition'. Now, it seems, they are too stubborn (arrogant?) to admit they may have been in error. Remind you anyone?

Welcome TAHAWK to the forums and thanks for your contribution. The training materials are often treated as guidelines, not rules, and that fact alone effectively makes them guidelines regardless of their intent. The prominence of religion as a litmus test in this organization has caused it subsequently to occupy a prominence in the minds of many so-inclined scouters, perhaps taking a position of importance that was unintended for the program (as suggested by your reminder of the training materials). This is, for better or worse, a predictable outcome for a private club that has painted itself into a legal corner as a 'religious organization'. This boy and other boys in similar situations of uncertainty are left to a fate determined exclusively by whether Gonzo1 or Trevorum is on the BOR. And this, in turn, is because of BSA's legal/political stance on god(s) and religion. BSA's policy does have a top-down effect. Unfortunately, in this organization the boys sometimes seem to rank at the bottom.

Heh, heh. My uncle liked to tell the story of his duties after WW2. He was one of the chief negotiators (he had stars on his shoulder) with the Russians and it was a very frustrating experience. After one particularly unproductive meeting, he told his Russian counterpart, "We can at least agree that we disagree". The Russian slammed his fist on the table and shouted, "We do NOT disagree!" My uncle would just crack up in laughter every time he told this story. I smile every time I think about it, I can hear his voice telling it. So Ed and Merlyn have a special relationship. Each of them has his own merits and foibles. I think we should just enjoy the interaction, even if only with horrified fascination.

It is a question I have wondered about as well. I see two ways to answer it. The conflict exists, I think, for a large and growing number of denominations with the UUA as the most visible example of the conflict. The two ways: First, as in some UUA churches/fellowships, you no longer charter the units. You're essentially out. Second, the churches that differ with BSA on this policy can simply ignore the policy and adopt a 'local option' sort of approach (which I believe would solve most of the problem for everyone). At present this is risky and it dodges the question, but it is a way to proceed. And let's face it, for whatever reason and with regard to other aspects of the program, local option seems to be rampant throughout the nation already. It is important to remember that BSA is a large organization, topheavy with people whose duties are devoted to fundraising. For many up there, it really is all about money (to quote Rush). This is an opportunity to use their avarice to our advantage. If enough of these denominations adopted a grass-roots local option approach, the potential loss of numbers and funds from ejecting so many units may turn the heads of BSA. Never underestimate the power of greed.

Mmhardy, like I keep telling the gargoyles who keep calling with questionnaires, I don't do them. But I'll get back to the topic, if you insist. Ann Coulter: OK, she has the mouth and heart of a velociraptor and the brains of Mike Tyson. But she has a body that won't quit...I'm in love.

Brent, I think the essential line in the article is, "Academics have published a flurry of papers either supporting or debunking the idea...." The IDEA! Now don't get me wrong, personalities and egos are strong in scientists just like other people. And some of them take criticisms personally and react badly. But bad behavior doesn't detract from the basic process of science in which personality, ultimately, is irrelevant. BTW, on the global climate change topic, we're loving the debate. It is a vital issue for the entire world with big stakes on who will eventually get the credit or blame and competition is incredible. However, the basic currency of each exchange remains objective information and analyses of various kinds. And the ultimate goal of rejecting incorrect ideas remains the same. Also, BTW, Al Gore is not a scientist, in case I needed to say that. Most politicians are not scientists. Lawyers HATE to put scientists on the witness stand for a variety of good reasons. My view on these sorts of exclusions is that science at its base, attempts to identify and then correct deceptions, making it not exactly compatible with politics and some aspects of our legal system. Also a clue to the rub with some religious persons.

Brent, I have to agree with Beav. I can grant you every one of those quotes and respond, so what?! They were full of it too. But THEY didn't hit drive us over the edge. Bush did. OK, for the record...I don't see him killing puppies with a baseball bat or whatever. Moreover, I don't know that he actually manipulated the reports but if he did, he should be prosecuted. I do think he ignored the reports because they didn't support his 'thinking'. It makes sense, you know. Addicts are experts at selectively employing facts to rationalize their actions. Bush had 39 years of privilege and stupor to hone those skills. I had hoped, in 2000, that his rebirth was sincere and genuine. I doubt it now. Gonzo1, yeah, I know. It's ok, I know you're really tossing cream puffs. By the way, the Rangel move was, in my view, corrupt, possibly cowardly, because his motive was to force the opposition to go on record the way it did. He never really supported the proposition, only a desire to get the vote on record. Not an entirely honest way to do business, but it was politics as usual. Took him down a notch for that one. Edited part: Brent, you got the reply in while I was writing so here goes... If any of those guys was elected or re-elected in 2004, I agree, they ought to be swept out as well. And as for your assessment of what the Democrats attempt to promote as policy, I also agree. That is why I want the current crop to stay right where they are - so the American people can take the full load. We asked for it, we should take the consequences.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Trevorum, you stole my thunder. Grist magazine is hardly a scientific source, any more than the Wall Street Journal. It might be entertaining to read that drivel but it is not enlightening. David Roberts has no scientific credentials whatsoever. And thankfully so, I might add, because statements like that should never be allowed to masquerade as scientific. Try to find a statement like that in Science or Nature. Or in Environmental Science and Technology, etc., etc. You won't. As Trevorum notes, it isn't science...by definition.

Mmhardy, regarding the draft. Congress voted on that back in 2004 and I think they realize that 2008 would be out of the question for all of them if they went back on their decision. Besides the military has good reason to resist the idea. I'm not worried about this and my children also would be on the line if it happened.

Brent, I just checked it and the link worked for me. I don't know what else could be the problem. I can't speak for others when answering your question. However, I was one of the people who believed Bush back at the beginning of all this. He lied. I answered your question for Rooster7 in another thread (RE: Religious Tolerance (or not)) back in January 2005. I quote from my previous response: In the 48-hour warning to Saddam on March 17, 2003, Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves NO DOUBT that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.... The terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other." 5 February 2003: Colin Powell to the UN Security Council, "There can be NO DOUBT that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling" In August 2002, Vice President Cheney said: "Simply stated, there is NO DOUBT that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." On March 30, a week and a half after the start of the invasion, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld boasted about the weapons of mass destruction, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." 4 December 2002: When questioned about the validity (read doubt) of these claims, the White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said, "The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction IF IT WAS NOT TRUE, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it" Brent, I went on to state that even an illiterate person must have heard these statements. The fact that 'throw down' WMD weren't employed is evidence of nothing whatsoever. I can only speculate that a person who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, partied through college, was given everything by his parents, and was drunk until age 39...that person just might have been too afraid to attempt it, knowing the risk of being discovered. Better to go into deep denial and keep lying, even if after a time mostly to himself - few others are buying anymore. That person's life is mostly a lie anyway, might as well remain consistent. I am a scientist. When someone tells me there is 'no doubt' about something, it is a powerful statement for which the assertion has been established as unassailable fact. However, as we all later learned, the intelligence reports prior to the invasion did NOT state there was no doubt. As a matter fact, the reports all made their assertions couched in various degrees of doubt (read probability). These were reports within the executive branch. There was doubt. I can't say what this must constitute in your mind, but he lied to me and I bought it. And thousands of our people are dead, tens of thousands wounded and maimed, families destroyed, and many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead. The huge amount of moral capital we had after 9/11 was poured out on the sand of Iraq and our treasury has been raided, stealing from future generations. But gosh, at least he didn't cheat on his wife.

Gern, if your tongue is still firmly planted in your cheek, I want you to chomp down, hard. I would ask him if he believes in nature and then sign on the line. Otherwise, which one of you will decide to kick him out? Who will tell him? Who will tell his parents? Will you feel like you did the right thing? How will kicking him out benefit him or the troop? How will it benefit BSA? I sincerely would like to know the answers to these questions.

Fuzzy, forgive me if I repeat myself all over again, again, but I am in the Department of Redundancy Department. I was raised in the South, during the years in which I saw first hand the growth and struggle of the civil rights movement. I was taught racial prejudice in every corner of my world. But it was taught more systematically and authoritatively to me in my church than any other place. Somehow, I was able to see the deceptions and eventually reject them. Same for other issues in which prejudice is a large component. Prejudice is easy. Prejudice gives us a false sense of worth, pride, arrogance, and accomplishment. One reason I embrace science so strongly is that science is open to absolutely anyone regardless of faith or ethnicity. People are not attacked in science. Rather, ideas are attacked and those that survive are tentatively accepted. Science is an activity that brings people together to develop better ideas. This seems to be anathema to religion and I think this may be one reason that some people of faith have such a difficult time with science...their faith allows them to be so comfortable with their prejudices.

Gonzo1, Hey guy, you can beat on me any ol' time. As you have learned some of us have very thin skins but me, I love to play tag. I'm just not as fast on my feet as I was a few decades ago. Besides, there is absolutely nothing that you or anyone else in these forums could say or do that would come close to matching the wrath of my wife. Men must practice their evil tendencies in order to perfect them. Women merely summon them. However, you must understand that you are the only person I know who clings to an idea that even the administration has admitted is false and abandoned, that WMD exist or existed when we invaded. You may take issue with some of the statements on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction but you are free to submit your corrections if you have the evidence to back them up. But I have seen the actual report by the CIA and you can too: https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html You evidently know something they don't...not outside the realm of possibility, I add.

Wow, I'm surprised the moderators let that one stay. Oh well, anyway Brent, if you plot the national debt for roughly the period you mention, your rose-colored glasses are removed. You can get the data from: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm It ends in 2005 but this year's debt number is $8,506,973,899,215.23. This includes approximately 1.5 trillion owed to the American people in the form of 'borrowed' Social Security and Medicare funds. Another way the deficit has been 'spun' by the administration and many others is that it is a small fraction of the the total national income. To be fair, and to put the entire debt into that same perspective, the national debt can also be plotted against each respective year's GDP (aka GNP in past years). Here is one such plot, again starting in 1950: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html The base numbers are, however, those from the first web site, divided by the GDP (GNP) for each respective year. The point is that, claims to the contrary notwithstanding, the numbers show that, compared with the Reps, the Dems are the party of fiscal responsibility. In maybe three months, more of our good men and women will have died in Iraq than were killed on 9/11. The body count is about 200 shy as I write this. For a war of choice. We can debate the lie if you want but the estimate that troop levels will be maintained until 2010 is just astounding. And we now have no choice but to do just that possibly for years longer, and to know that during that time, thousands more of our good men and women may die there in the future. And probably many thousands more of innocents. And the guy who really was the enemy, assuming he's still alive, is still out there thumbing his nose. His organization is still there. The Taliban is coming back. We could have focused on the real enemy. We didn't. We created the conditions that will spawn many more. Don't get me wrong. I'm with you. I want the Republicans to keep the whole thing. I want it to be abundantly clear who has been responsible for this wreck. I want the people to take it as deeply as the Republicans can push it - so they'll never forget. Ever. Edited part: oops, typo. Here are the data in pdf.: http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/OMB-Historical-Table-7-1.pdf(This message has been edited by packsaddle)