packsaddle

Wow! He had THREE channels? Wow! We only had one. No need for a remote. Before that only radio. In case anyone would like to return now to those exciting days of yesteryear, check this out: http://michelesworld.net/dmm/frog/gremlin/memory.htm or this (you'll need broadband): http://home.usachoice.net/vcei/tbp-words.htm Bon apetite!

Hey Trev, I don't know, maybe it was a mixed metaphor? Just seemed to fit at the time.

Well, until recently I did. I worked for the federal government.

Interesting, I'm not sure how that ownership part translates but I'd guess that anyone who thought they could confiscate those awards should first see how easy it would be to break a real sword. From the first time I saw that stupid show I wondered at how the cavalry ever won a single battle if their swords were that fragile. They hack away at necks and other swords but when they meet the hands of a panty-waisted officer they snap like they're made of, maybe ceramics or something. As for me, they'll take my eagle when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it.

Charles Manson! Holy moley, I'd never even imagined a possibility like that. Is there any way to find out if headline criminals are eagle scouts? Seems like there should at least be a comprehensive database of all eagles ever awarded...but then I think about the records-incompetence at the council....Naaah!

I was about to ask that same question, Trevorum. Unless someone can prove fraud I don't see any other grounds for revocation. Can anyone think of a single case where the rank HAS been revoked? And can it be confirmed independently?

I agree with ronvo and ScoutNut. I took similar action years ago while cubmaster. I wish I could say things turned out well but the boy soon dropped out and I have no idea what happened after that.

I agree with Ed. Jkhny has written nothing so far that is cause for him to be ejected from the forum. If someone doesn't like what he writes, either say so and explain why...or else just sit there and stew. The issue is an interesting one actually. If a person meets every qualification to be an adult member, to paraphrase a forum member who no longer posts...that person should be allowed in. There is nothing in the qualifications that says they have to agree with everything BSA does. The sale of property has nothing to do with policy on social issues. It is merely a business decision and should have no bearing on membership. Jkhny brought this issue to light to make a point that BSA is willing to kick members out because of an honest disagreement. Members whose interest in the boys is great enough to stick their necks out on the issues. I think this IS a free speech issue. BSA may have the right as a private club to dump anyone for any reason, in spite of meeting every membership qualification. Such action may be legal but it is also cowardly.

Wow, Kudu! I was about to respond in a very similar manner. If you read way back in my archives, you'll see that I agree completely. However we are, sadly, in a very small minority view in BSA.

Ed, I have to admit that I never imagined a rationalization that was based on ignorance. Very creative. However, I don't have to make the comparison between the two because the pro-life people are making that comparison already, as I showed from their website. I would enjoy hearing you make your objections to the pro-life movement.

Beavah, I am employing reductio ad absurdum and pro-life voices in the forum are suddenly silent when confronted with hard questions. My point is that, in anonymity, these persons are at least honest enough to admit their opposition to birth control methods that cause early abortions, especially Plan B. I would welcome such candid opinions here by those who profess to be pro-life. You evidently have rationalized your acceptance by using an 'out-of-sight, out-of-mind' approach. That is, you seem to recognize the fact that these methods, especially Plan B, cause early abortions. I am puzzled as to how anyone can reconcile this fact with their opposition to abortion. Hypocrisies (such as the state will never have the evidence) may be pragmatic but they don't count because there IS a way to limit such early abortions...to outlaw those birth control methods. I am hoping to hear honest support for this from all those pro-life voices who oppose abortion, but they seem to be mute on this problem. And as you understand, technology will just make it more difficult.

I posted a link to the pro-life site because, if one reads it in its entirety, the site has an extensive discussion of all the ways birth control produces abortions. I chose the pro-life site because I wanted to find a source that had the most critical view possible of birth control - and coincidentally a site that I thought would be aligned to the anti-abortion view. Was I wrong? You DO have to read beyond the headline. I asked some of my pro-life contacts about this issue a long time ago. They seemed nervous about answering but they told me that because of what you read on that web site, they are hoping to outlaw some of these forms of birth control. Intent by the woman has no bearing on their decision, only the facts as to how these methods work. They recognize the intent argument as the cop-out it is. Funscout, the anecdote was humorous but it contained a little truth as well. Many women do not know these things, especially poor women with few resources available. You made a personal choice. Why is it that you would have the government deny this ability to other persons? As for in-vitro fertilization, if a law is passed giving those embryos legal standing, I predict mass murder (disposal of the extras) just prior to the law going into effect. If IVF is not addressed, it will remain a problem that otherwise can't be reconciled with the pro-life view. At least one of my pro-life contacts has admitted they hope to end in-vitro fertilization on this basis. Technology is going to continue to bring these problems. For example, the developing ability to therapeutically target cancer cells (the so-called 'silver bullet' approach) is also going to spin off the ability to target any tissue that has a recognizable genetic difference. The 'pill' technology, as we know it, will become a potent private, anonymous means of terminating pregnancies and the government will find its regulation more and more difficult. The technology genie is out of the bottle and women who can afford it ARE going to have a choice. They are going to continue to make their choice for any reason they wish, including convenience if that is the case. It is going to be easier, more anonymous, and more convenient in the future because as laws limiting certain procedures are passed, there will be greater profit potential in the alternatives. And there is NOTHING anyone can do to stop this. Except, of course, for poor women for whom the government may be able to force its way into their reproductive decisions and force them to continue to bear unwanted children. Does this sound like success to anyone?

Dan, I agree. A little more about the IUD and pill... The jury is still out on the IUD. At one time we were certain that in many cases the IUD prevented implantation. Now there is evidence that it prevents fertilization. Except for that small fraction of women who get pregnant anyway. So there is still some doubt about it. As for the pill, I refer Ed to this link: http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html Not much equivocation there. Straight from the pro-life horse's mouth, the pill causes abortions. I'm still waiting regarding in-vitro fertilization. Waiting.

Ed, don't you think there is an element of convenience in the decision to use birth control? Where do you draw the line if not at conception? And why isn't it the same if the life is ended?

Ed, that's a nice story. But remember your mother CHOSE. That's my point. If the pro-life arguments are sufficiently persuasive, the choice will be agreeable to them, as was your mother's choice. The government did not 'force' her to have the baby (you). Other people did not remove her choice and her responsibility. She made the decision that she thought was best for her and that, in my view, is exactly what should happen. As for birth control, what I have described is accurate. Unless I misinterpret what you have written, you believe that life begins at some time AFTER conception, I'm just not sure when that is for you. I suggest that many in the pro-life side do not agree, nor does the Catholic church. Your belief is YOURS as is the arbitrary line that you have 'chosen'. If it works for you, that is fine. But that, again, is my point. You do have the ability to think about this and make your personal choice. Government didn't do this for you nor did it limit your ability. I merely think women should have the same freedom...to choose.

Ed, I am stretching nothing. If life begins at conception then those diploid cells are human life. Nothing less. If you have decided that it doesn't count until implantation, then you have set YOUR line at that point. I have detected that others in the pro-life camp feel differently. But even with your arbitrary line the IUD and the 'pill' are still an unanswered problem. LongHaul has offered some painful personal perspective on this and I thank him for that. Ed, I do praise your willingness to enter the dialogue where others won't. Again, I respect that even if I disagree. I am still waiting for the other voices that frequent these topics...for their solutions. Waiting.

I think the ectopic problem has been made clear enough and I am glad to see the struggle to resolve it. It SHOULD be a struggle because there is no resolution. OGE, yes I've heard that before. Now share with us your clear thinking on how to resolve these problems. As for the question of birth control, I want to inform Ed that with the IUD and the 'pill', eggs are released and can be fertilized. There is a probability that some are, given the frequency of ovulation and depending on the frequency of intercourse. This new human is then either prevented from implantation by the birth control measure or else it implants and is later rejected because of the same birth control measure. This effectively kills a new human life and as has been observed, the Catholic church is consistent in their approach. If a woman has been fully informed as to the way the birth control measure works, she will know this happens. I know that there are some people who would rather keep women ignorant but this is beside the point. The difference is that if the birth control measure works, no one will ever know if the egg is fertilized nor if it has been aborted. It is a private matter for the woman and I wonder how many would, as suggested, insert the government into her life for this decision. I do know that some people would. Now to add the problem of in-vivo fertilization: All those frozen humans (and I'm not talking about Presbyterians here ) that are not used during the procedure. Every frozen embryo theoretically could become an adult human. We have already decided that they can't be used to do research that might save human life. Instead, they are eventually discarded (murdered, to use the pro-life terminology). This is also premeditated. So, do we ban in-vitro fertilization and do we execute the murderers? I'm still waiting. Finally, if a woman with the means takes a trip to another state or country to have an abortion, is she guilty of murder? What do you do about that? Or do we just execute the poor women? Waiting.

Thanks Ed, your honesty is refreshing even as I disagree. I am curious as to the rationale you make for an exception to the ectopic pregnancy. Also, you have not addressed the women who use the IUD, the 'pill', and other birth control measures. Do they suffer execution as well? If not, why not?

I second the grocery store source, I find it in the section that has mason jars and lids, or in the section with charcoal lighter. It varies. I like the tuna can approach but if you have some used Sterno cans they have a tight lid that works a little better. Be careful.

I'm still waiting for the answer from those who label abortion 'murder'. If you merely want to leave me waiting that is fine. However, to do so implies that you are merely stating a personal choice and that you accept mine. That is an endorsement of the pro-choice view and I thank you. However, if your intent is to change law, you must address the consequences. If you just haven't thought about punishment for premeditated murder, just say so. If you are afraid to state your thoughts on punishment openly then I suggest your feelings are not as solid as you seem to think. To control the decisions of other persons regarding their reproductive life is a very serious matter. If you intend to limit their choices by law, it is incumbent on you to explain that intent fully, including what you intend for lawbreakers. Less than that is incomplete and irresponsible, possibly dishonest. I am still waiting.

I think that OGE and funscout are consistent in their belief. It IS an all-or-nothing problem. If the fertilized egg has the same status as an adult human being, then the woman should have no choice and should be forced by the government to carry ANY pregnancy to term. There are two problems with that. First, as an example, the tragic ectopic pregnancy. Either the fetus or both fetus and mother will die. Since the government is now making the choice, which alternative gets the nod? I think we know how the mother would choose. But to terminate any pregnancy is now murder...right? I asked this question many times and absolutely no one has wanted both to die. Murderers all. Second, the truth is that she WILL have a choice, just not a legal one (unless, of course she has money and can travel). So the poor mother makes the choice and takes the RU486 route and she gets caught. Or the woman is on 'the pill' and gets caught. Guilty of murder. What is the penalty? I am still waiting on answers for that one as well. It is so easy to condemn but those who want to make these decisions for other people should take on that responsibility. To call it murder is one thing. Fair enough. What do you do about it? Still waiting.

Ed, The victim of Rooster7's rapist probably didn't make a choice. And as a matter of fact, for her to be criminalized because of her choice to terminate the resultant pregnancy is repugnant to me. I object to the equation of the perpetrator of a rape to his rape victim who chose to terminate. In Ed/Rooster world, she would be guilty of murder and the rapist to a lesser felony. Not exactly a monument to justice in my mind. Gern, however, is correct in my mind. The problem with this is where to draw the line. At one end of the spectrum is Rooster7's late-term scenario, at the other end is the woman who uses an IUD. A simple black-and-white analysis is that either all of them amount to murder if abortion eventually becomes so defined by law, or else someone must draw a line. At this time viability is the only 'line' that is drawn as far as I know and that line changes with technology. If the line is left up to the conscience of every individual then the consequences and the responsibility are born by the person making the decision. That's justice.

I'm promoting the idea that the person who bears the personal reproductive responsibility, whether it is birth control or abortion, ought to be able to make that personal decision. The government should not make it for them. That doesn't necessarily mean an abortion, either, especially if the images to which you keep referring (yes, I've seen them) are that compelling. Your comparison to the rapist is not valid. Show me the person who enjoys an abortion. Show me the person who has some psychological compulsion to have abortions. You can't. Whether or not anyone wants to be able to choose, no one LIKES abortion. It is a pragmatic matter. The choice is there and will always be there. As a matter of fact, the technology will make it even easier in the future. The question is whether or not the choice, whether for birth control or abortion, will be accompanied by punishment...after the choice is made. So what punishment do you propose for a woman who has an abortion in a state where it is illegal? Eight weeks pregnant, she gets the RU486 through the internet and does it at home. How do you propose to punish her? What about the woman using an IUD? Birth control pills? Your punishment?

Good example! Government promises to punish child abusers when they are caught. And even with such 'prohibition' in place, the decision to abuse is left to the judgment of individuals. And then, lacking our compelling personal persuasion, they decide to abuse. Not exactly my concept of success, I hope it isn't yours either. Criminalization of birth control and abortion will still leave the decision to the individual. All government can do is punish those who make the choices for whatever reason. I always think it is better for individuals to make the best choices for the best reasons. Not to have their choices limited thoughtlessly by an intrusive government. Rooster7, You were the one who wrote of those compelling images. You must have been confident that they would be persuasive to others or you wouldn't have told us about them. So why not confidently use them in exactly that manner to provide that broad persuasive power? Convince individuals BEFORE they decide. You have the opportunity to do this without further legislation, why not do it?

Rooster7, if we are so confident that those images will compel anyone's decision, then there is no further need of legislation is there? We are agreed. Provide our images and let individuals make their own private decisions. No problem. However, for those who might consider the single cell or another early stage , we may want to think about where to draw the line...or find additional compelling evidence. But we don't have to as long as we remain confident in the individual private decisions.