packsaddle

Rooster7, why do you insist on telling others what they think when you could just ask and get a better answer from them? You have not been fair in your rendition of what I think. What you wrote is what you choose to believe that I think. And you are wrong. I am saying that I am willing to trust the judgment of the individual who must bear the responsibility of that private reproductive decision. They may not make the decision that I would make but then, I don't have to make it do I? If the pro-life reasoning is strong enough then its persuasive power should cause those individuals with whom the responsibility to make the decision rests to make a decision that is agreeable to you. If that reasoning is not sufficient then perhaps you should improve it.

beavah mentioned life in a seed and I agree. The line that must be drawn is subjective and left to the greatest number of agreeing personal opinions. The unfertilized egg and the sperm are certainly alive although they are haploid. To me the question is less about viability than when do you want to make the decision for another individual, take that responsibility away from them, and dictate their life for them? It amounts to the same thing - more government intrusion into personal lives. The inability to draw a clear line (viability, whatever) underscores the fact that there is no other good way to make this decision. Either ban all abortions and birth control and criminalize anyone who violates that ban, or continue to disagree.....or let people make their own private reproductive decisions. Butt out.

Actually we do condone and legally sanction polygamy. It just happens to be sequential. One ASM is working on his 4th wifey, gotta wonder what she was thinking though. There's no way to estimate the number of 'free trials' that preceeded.... Kind of like my grandma who married my grandfather after having 'killed off' three priors (What a woman!). Didn't he see the trend? And sure enough, he didn't make it past age 45 himself. But no one else was dumb enough to take the plunge after that, I guess.

The moth suddenly dives for the flame... The notion that passing a law is going to end abortions is arrogant or delusional. The procedure will be legal somewhere and those with the resources can choose to go to those places. Those less fortunate will still have the choice of the illegal alternative. But the genie is out of the bottle. As with IVF and other technologies, the ability is there and it isn't going away. Society can make things miserable for women who want the choice. But the choice will be there nevertheless.

Wow, I have to tell you Merlyn, that is mind-boggling. So if one member of a married couple had, say, a vasectomy, the marriage would no longer be valid? I'm wondering about a situation where a man has a sex change operation so he can have a heterosexual relationship with another man. And yes, this does happen...call it 'recreation' as opposed to procreation. Technically I think BSA would have no problem with that, or am I wrong? Does BSA reject transsexuals? "...it's just a jump to the left, and a step to the riiight" Assuming, of course, that they believe in God. And as for those amazing laws, was there anything that would have blocked such a union...other than the procreation wording? The possibilities are just delicious.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

The topic of abortion has been exhaustively discussed in other threads. Any chance of getting back on topic for this one?

Acco40 is correct and I agree. They are not being denied access. Actually they are being given access EQUAL to any other paying members of the public. Just get in line and be prepared with the checkbook. This is not much of an issue. Time to grow up.

Give him the veto. He'll spell it with an 'e' at the end and never use it anyway. On the other hand, after what's already been done to the national debt, who cares about a few hundred billion more of pork anyway?

This is a great opportunity. I wish it was possible to send more boys for experiences like this. From what I read it is the summer period from October through January. Brent mentioned an 8-month stay, I think. Perhaps the AAC boy had an extended experience. Any clarification?

Wow! After three years, the crypt keeper lets this one out to roam the threads again... Fgoodwin, I gave the Mike Walton link in the 6th message of this thread way back when. If the reader merely takes him or herself back to that point and starts the remainder of the thread from where I gave the same link, he or she could do this endless loop for the rest of their life. I agree with HopsScout regarding how close the hunting styles must be. But LongHaul has a point about color perception. The ability of a deer to resolve the human form might also depend on pattern. In that case a solid color would always be more visible than a patterned color, even if the colors and patterns are perceived in grays. However, in the animal kingdom, color perception versus non-color is not as simple as our popular conception makes it. Some animals are able to 'see' certain limited colors while all others seem to be perceived as grays. The problem for researchers is that we don't have the ability to directly know how an animal perceives anything. Only their reactions to various stimuli from which we infer their perceptions. There is still plenty of work to be done in order to answer many of these questions. Back to the endless do loop.....

Rooster7, You know, don't you, that the spectacles of the WWF are staged? Around here I call it 'redneck ballet'. If you turn the sound down and play the music for Swan Lake on the stereo, it works so well, it's amazing. If even a few expert advisors express doubt, that doubt nevertheless exists. As you suggested, to selectively ignore those doubts or as you put it, "picking and choosing to fit his needs", constitutes a lie if he proclaims that the doubt does not exist. A lie. But I am completely accessible to real evidence. So produce some. Show everyone here one tangible thing that today indicates the presence of WMD in Iraq. The search has come up empty-handed and so has your baseless opinion. Produce some evidence so other persons can embrace your opinion that WMD are still out there somewhere. I would love to see it. I would love to be able to change my mind and admit I was wrong about Bush. Show me. I'll bet Bush would give you a big smooch if you did. His team sure hasn't. It might be easier, though, to get a prima ballerina into the ring. Now that'd make a believer out of me. About WWF, that is.

For the record: Saddam was a bad guy. Duh! So are quite a few others scattered around the planet. We haven't made a move on N. Korea. We haven't rescued the people of Iran. We haven't liberated Myanmar. And there are plenty more. We didn't take Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy. He was a bad guy back when we were supplying arms to him and he was an ally. That didn't seem to bother us then. The spin that Bush was the victim of bad advice doesn't hold up - it's just a feel-good self-deception for some of us to maintain the faith. The reports containing the faulty intelligence also included statements of uncertainty. But Bush and his cronies told us there was no doubt. When someone in authority - in command of deadly force and about to use it - says there is no doubt, I take that as an absolute. And I bought the lie along with most of the rest of us. I am at least honest enough to admit I was duped by them. Kahuna was correct in saying there is a difference between something that is not true and a lie. The difference is knowing that a statement is false when you make it. And unless Bush didn't read the reports before making the decision (which would have been apocalyptically stupid...do you like that option?), he knew there was doubt. Saddam, having destroyed the WMD, was then required to prove they didn't exist. But there's no way to prove a negative and although his bluster was stupid, he HAD actually destroyed them. Yes, the WMD were there during the Clinton years. Yes, he used them on the Kurds. But they were destroyed. He said so and in that, at least, he was correct. If you think you know more than Bush's own WMD team, show us the evidence. Prove it. Produce a single gram of enriched uranium, or just 100 ml of some biological agent. You can't. All you have is an unshakable conviction based on blind faith in a liar. Another irony: the WMD was destroyed as a result of, get this, DIPLOMACY, the UN, and international pressure. Sadly, as of today the US body count stands at 2285, the US maimed and wounded number 16,653, and the Iraqi civilian body count is somewhere around 30,000. And thanks to the lie, I too am partly responsible. At least I'm honest enough to admit it.

SR540Beaver, Exactly. The reason the Bush team couldn't accept that Saddam might be telling the truth may be that THEY were so invested in their lie and didn't want truth to get in the way of their agenda. (reaching into my bag of delicious ironies) So when the bad guy was pulled out of his hole he was telling the truth and the 'good guy' who caught him was a liar.

Yep, and too late...I had already voted for the guy. I guess I'm too gullible, which explains why I fell for the Bush line. Shame on me.

John-in-KC, I can hear you snickering. But I've been there and done that. So all I have left, if I read you right, is to continue to state my opinion in these pages and to 'be prepared' with "told you so" at every opportunity. Have a nice day. P.S. I received similar comments years ago when I was telling my buddies that Nixon was a crook and later when I was telling them that Reagan had Alzheimer's. Told them so too.

Prairie, I agree with most of what you said. The one departure I have is that I did trust the guy at first. I gave him the benefit of my trust and later the benefit of the doubt. But when it came to light that he KNEW the wmd thing was doubtful, his lie earned my contempt. Under no circumstance will he ever have my trust again. And every decision made by him, past and future, must also be suspect. The other actions you cite just push them farther into the status of 'criminal' as far as I'm concerned. I wish I could offer some hope for the future but I can't.

OK, I know sweeping generalizations often lead to stereotypes or prejudices, BUT, I have made a biological observation that seems to apply to organizational structures more often than not. ...Pretty much all organizational structure. AND it might answer jkhny's final question. Are you ready for it? Scum rises to the top. Have a nice day

Kahuna, I think you misunderstood me. After all, I said "WE" did all those things, just trying to maintain an inclusive spirit. But I wasn't clear about the lie part. That, it is certain, applies to only those who told us there was "no doubt" about WMD, the reason we invaded. And quite a few people did say "no doubt". And if what we did to their government (ability to govern) and to their army (ability to defend) doesn't amount to conquest, I don't know what does. I suppose that the debt thing can be spun to apply to Congress. Remember, I said "we" did it. Our representatives, correct? Where am I wrong here? And it's almost as if that thereby makes the debt OK? I may not have many more years in this life but I care deeply about the well-being of the boys and other young people who will be handed that burden. But, hey, that's ok, Congress did it. I concede your point. The Patriot Act is the best thing to happen to our personal liberties since the Bill of Rights. Actually I've gained a new opportunity: Now when I write to my colleagues overseas, I am now able to add my P.S. "Anyone from my government who is spying on me and reading the above message, please tell George Bush to kiss my butt." It's unprofessional but it accurately reflects my attitude. I do wonder, sometimes, how that translates in Bulgaria. I am afraid we'll just have to disagree on the destruction of thousands of American families. I am never going to see that as a good thing. And the part about not feeling guilty about hypocrisy, well that speaks for itself. But this is about port management and I'm on your side. My point was that because even the most ardent opposition has failed to prevent all of the above things, our failure has already led to far greater harm than the imaginary things that could possibly come from the change in management. And we seem, as do you, to spin all manner of rationalizations to make those failures OK. The port issue will be the same. I am completely fatalistic about this...in support of your view.

Maybe a little perspective is in order. We have conquered an inferior country for a lie. We have run the debt beyond anyone's dreams and plan to continue to do so. We have turned our backs on our own liberties with the Patriot Act. We are supporting an occupation that has destroyed many thousands of American families. And the end is not in sight. It seems incongruous that as a nation we support the administration in all of the above, but not in a decision to have new management for a few ports. Huh? This is kind of like fighting hard to gain legal recognition as a private club...and then objecting to the legal requirements of being a private club. We asked for it. We got it. Time to suck it up.

Brent, I guess I did miss that one. Not too far from my house is a home where the guy flies two flags on the same mast. At the top is the Confederate battle flag and underneath it is our American flag. Would the folks in Duluth react the same way to that, I wonder? Probably not in Forsythe County, I expect.

Calico and Trevorum have made good arguments here and I mostly agree. However, to me intent is irrelevant. Offence is a matter of perception by the receiving end of any 'speech'. I often offend when I have no such intent. And to me, even if the boy intended to offend (the cartoonists had to be pretty naive not to expect some offence), that's tough luck for the recipient or the offended. Even rude 'speech' that is clearly offensive is merely 'speech' and people on the receiving end need to recognize that this is the other edge of the sword that is the first amendment. Develop a thicker skin or go get some therapy somewhere. Brent, I live in an area that's at least as 'red' as yours and if one of the boys burned the flag in protest on Sunday morning in front of the courthouse, the community would say, "h'mmm" and then get on with making money. The boy would become disillusioned about the ineffectiveness of protest and probably turn his attention to girls or something. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

I just typed in god.com and a rather unsophisticated site came up. Then jehova.org came up for sale and jehova.com was still under construction, probably after many more than six days - but spelling it correctly by adding the 'h' came up with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yaweh.com also led me to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Just putting a little modern varnish on the old idea...

Hi Trev, sorry. I was probably too harsh but at least you got a taste of my reviews when papers get sent to me. Oh well, at least I'm nice to the boys.

OK, nope. I don't even like to think about any subgroup of the most mature boys in this unit in the woods on a scout outing with guns in their hands. I'll leave this one for someone else's conscience, mine won't allow it. Trev, I beg to differ about Gore's book. From this scientist's perspective (and I did vote for him), the book was a mass of nearly incomprehensible gobbledygook (technical term there, sorry). Unscientific and unrigorous to a (thankfully forgettable) fault. I'm being kind. But at least he could conceive of and write a book, unlike the other guy who can barely put two words together.

Come on now, it hasn't been THAT long ago for 'Life of Brian'. I remember well the religious faction protesting the movie, trying to keep it away from our area. One scene that struck me was the one where the alien space craft whisked him away for a short flight just before they crashed in the same area as all the crackpot prophets. The people didn't even seem to notice the aliens but instead remained focused on the crackpots. Close to real life in some ways.