packsaddle

Even if one doesn't agree with John McCain's view of torture, it is clear that torture produces little progress, especially if it is information. The scenario in which the terrorist suspect is tortured to provide details of an impending attack is flawed by the possiblity that the suspect might not actually HAVE that information. But under torture he will produce something that is virtually assured to lead us in the wrong direction...and incidentally, because we think we know something falsely, the actual terrorists might actually have an easier task. This whole line of reasoning is bogus. On the other hand, http://www.phrusa.org/campaigns/action_alerts/libya.html This is not a scenario. It is real. The health workers may or may not have infected hundreds of children in Libya. But their torture to extract confessions hardly contributed to the truth. On the contrary, the truth may never be fully known because of all the political repercussions as a result of the torture. But then, that very well could have been the intended outcome of the torture. In the end, those children will still be dead and infected. And we may never know whether the health workers were responsible, or if Libyan health practices were responsible. This is sad. But torture has contributed nothing to the situation but more confusion, and quite possibly, execution of innocent health workers.

Yeah, OGE, but it really was a great album. One of Gern's recent posts reminded me of something. The oath states that we will "DO OUR BEST to do out duty...". If agnosticism or whatever this boy is struggling with is HIS BEST, then he qualifies. Period. I guess I'm just taking it literally. Sorry.

Kahuna, concealed carry is left to individual states for the most part. I observe some variation but most, if not all, require both classroom and range training. And the permit expires, usually after five years or so, so renewal is required. In some states this is fairly expensive as well, paying for the permit and paying the trainer. Prairie_Scouter, your suggestion about the security system is quite rational. The problem is, the gunslinging crowd would be deprived of their fantasies of being able to kill intruders and they would have to resort to other means of compensating for their 'shortcomings', so-to-speak...say, big powerful trucks.

I'd like to report that I was gone to a professional conference for a week but that would be less than honest. Actually, while I was worshiping at the local chapel (Our Lady of the Multiple Rapture), I was taken by a mini-rapture for a few days until the mistake was discovered. For punishment I was sent back to you guys for the rest of my life. Have a nice day.

Hey Kenk, Those tangled placques are really annoying, aren't they? But seriously, as a troop we discourage GPS use by the boys unless they have mastered map and compass skills. However, having one along on a backpack trip is useful to determine position along a route. This is especially true if we're paddling a big lake and trying to decide which island we're supposed to camp on. In each of those cases we download the map segment that's relevant and superimpose the known waypoints or our traveled route. The only problems occur in deep canyons and heavy forest where the satellites can't be received. Then we rely on those maps.

Gern, you are so right about your time question. And if age 18 is the deadline for most every other requirement, why not this one? Especially considering that these are the formative years when young people should be free to ask these questions and seek these answers in order to make good decisions for themselves. We should be there to help them in the decisionmaking process, not to slam the door on them after kicking them out. As for your other suggestion, I understand what you suggest but I still feel it can be much simpler. If I ask the boy if he meets the requirement and he says 'yes', that should be sufficient. I am not here to interrogate him regarding his personal beliefs. No one else, outside his parents, should either.

Yes, I too noted the 'party line' nature of that particular response because I read it often in these forums. The 'my way or the highway' response is sometimes a sign that substance behind the idea is absent or else even if substance is there, they just don't care. I agree with Ed, nice post.

So, does your wife carry? Yes or no? And I noticed that the police have a suspicion of the origin of the gun in the carjacker's possession. Now what was that? I think they said it was possibly from a, "robbery, rape and carjacking in Acworth last Tuesday". If that's so, then it's a good thing she wasn't armed. Otherwise the perp would have had TWO illegal firearms. He might have killed a lot more people. But I suppose it's worth noting - trucks don't kill people, people kill people.

Well, I guess I know a little about firearms and I think it would be fine to outlaw private ownership of semi-automatic (autoloading) weapons, regardless of size. And all the ammo should be taxed to the hilt. I pay less after inflation for ammo today than I did 30 years ago. A lot less. Hunting is supposed to be sport and that can be done nicely with a bolt action or an overunder (shotguns are for people with lousy aim anyway). Serious target shooting is best done with a bolt action (unless you think skeet-shooting is target shooting and then the overunder is still available). And a bolt action or a revolver could never be modified to go full. But don't worry, that would still leave plenty of revolvers with which to kill our relatives when they abscond with a chicken in the middle of the night. However, I agree that it would hinder our ability to stem that tide of jackbooted thugs storming all our homes in the middle of the night to take our guns. Or have I merely added to the paranoia?

Kudu, you raised the bar to a standard that BSA rejects. Possibly because they think their authority is higher than the one you cite. Too bad for the boys.

LongHaul, SOA is a ways south of Brent, down at Benning. Last time I was there it was still in operation. I think it still is.

If one the boys in this unit tells me he doesn't want to say a prayer, that is sufficient for me. I don't see the need to mount an inquisition. Most of it would be second-guessing probably - I doubt he'll give anyone an in-depth analysis of his beliefs, as if they are anyone else's business anyway.

I haven't encountered this as a problem yet but I suspect the worst they'd do is send it back so the information can be completed. I wouldn't sweat it, though. Given their incompetence at keeping records, a few months after getting his award that information will probably morph into someone's grocery list.

Well...no, Bush didn't assassinate JFK. Bush was only 17 and attending Phillips Academy in Andover, MA. And probably drunk already. Nevertheless, ALL persons who knew the information was doubtful and anyway told the American people that there was 'no doubt' were guilty of a lie. Bush was the one who sent thousands of good men and women to their deaths for that lie.

If you had actually used the entire speech instead of the fragments you listed, the answer would be easy. Here it is for anyone who is interested: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/clinton_12-16.html The short answer is that Saddam broke the terms of the agreement and Clinton responded in the manner he said he would. But I think you would get a more personal answer if you posed that question to the thousands of American families who have been destroyed as a result of Bush's lie. Clinton's action didn't send thousands of our good men and women to their early graves. Bush did. The Clinton administration was mistaken about WMD but not about the agreement. As a result of Clinton's military response and other stimuli, later in the Bush administration Saddam allowed the inspectors back into Iraq. The process was working again. But Bush couldn't wait. For some reason that is still clouded in deception he wanted to invade and he used our fear of WMD as a means of hoodwinking us into supporting that action. And I fell for it just like many other honest people in this country. And I now recognize the lie and I think he should be held accountable for it. A little late, but at least he's doing it...Colin Powell is finally coming clean about all this. http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050908231709990004

Decades ago when I was a boy in the troop, the minister was 'let go' because he supported the civil rights movement. The new minister was welcomed by this Presbyterian church because he was a segregationist. However, he stopped the troop from entering the church in uniform. And he would not allow the American flag to enter the church under any circumstance. Caused quite a stir but I suppose it was destiny.

I'm not sure about everyone else but Bush sure lied to me. And I bought into it. And unlike Clinton, many thousands of people are dead as a result, more than two thousand of those were ours, and the end is not in sight. Unlike Reagan who eventually admitted the Iran/Contra thing, Bush is diving more deeply into denial. And anyone around him who seems disloyal to his deception - well check it out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9865068/site/newsweek Truth is completely foreign to this White House. I should have expected as much from someone who was a drunk and a cocaine cowboy until he was 40. And it looks like the public is beginning to come around to this truth as well: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm In the most recent ABC/Post poll not only do 60% disapprove of his performance, an astonishing 55% agree that he intentionally misled the public and 60% agree that the war is not worth fighting. The insurgents for whom a while back we were told had been dealt a fatal blow are as strong as ever and employing more sophisticated devices to kill. Iraq has become, ironically, precisely the terrorist training ground that Bush falsely claimed it was prior to the invasion. And...all the while the actual mastermind for 9/11 continues to thumb his nose at us. Remember Bin Laden? It was Bin Laden, NOT Sadam, who was responsible for 9/11. The UN inspectors were unable to detect WMDs in Iraq because....there WEREN'T any. But Bush successfully played on our trust to use their failure to detect any as evidence for the need to invade. And we bought the lie. This, combined with other deceptions that led to the outing of a CIA operative. That criminal act remains unaddressed because of Bush's subsequent and deceptive resistance to assist Fitzgerald with his investigation. The lies, the deaths, the betrayal, the deficit, the economy, Katrina, the cronies, the incompetence, the squandering of our good will with other countries...Trevorum is correct. This guy is a criminal. I don't know much about this site or the poll it covers, but the photo is worth a look. http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001977.htm Oh yeah!

I think there are two issues being discussed here, neither related much to the decision about Alito. I think that if he is fair and honest, not much more can be asked from a judge and I would support him. The other two issues have, somehow, gotten onto guns. Why are we so fanatic about this? OGE, that was not one of your more reasoned analogies. I think that the vast majority of the public has no interest in regulation of firearms used for hunting or target sports. The problem arises for firearms that are designed to kill people. I own a bunch of those and I see the problem. I know the problem. The problem is that the firearm makes it so easy to stand away from a person and essentially 'push a button'. You don't have to empathize with the target. You don't have to think about family or repercussions from a distance. It is so easy. Much more difficult if it is required to slip a blade under a sternum or through a kidney, twisting it to ensure the kill. Or to place the hand and arms in a manner that allows a spinal cord to be severed. To do that you have to get close. You have to smell the person, feel their skin and hair. You have to feel their last pulse and hear their last breath. You may have to experience the slick warmth of their blood, and possibly some of your own. And you have to risk injury to yourself, possibly reversing places with the other person. You might even reconsider the whole thing and just sue. But the gun makes it so much easier...

Gone for a few days and wow the topic has sure left illegal immigration. Anyway, to catch up, Brent, I know there are real criminals out there. I've had a couple of them on me for a while (similar to the character, 'Early Grace', in the film 'Kalifornia'). I grew up with people like that (the film, 'Blue Velvet' hits really close to home), one of my old buddies was executed a few years ago for serial killings. What I meant about 'in your head' was the fear that you have. I drive 35-40K miles each year, a good number of them in your area. The only thing I see to fear around there is the traffic (and I guess I'm part of that as well). I did have one unfortunate encounter with a criminal wannabe (over near Underground) but I was able to 'convince' him that his intent was very badly placed and that he should seek easier prey. He left and I went about my business. No shot fired, no one killed. But I thought of you while viewing the new show at the Museum of Modern Art entitled, 'Safe: Design Takes on Risk'. There are a number of displays of actual products sold as a response to various fears over the last couple of hundred years. One item is a coffin in which a signal is rigged so that if a person is accidentally buried alive, they can ring a bell on the surface to clue someone to start digging (comes with optional breathing tube, extra cost;)). Then there is the key-ring tracheotomy kit. Call it 'being prepared' or 'paranoia', people evidently thought the threats were real enough to create a market. And both of these items, I suggest, have equal merit to firearms carried for sake of paranoia. I have noted, however, that some persons tend to carry because they think it helps to overcome their other 'shortcomings', so-to-speak. H'mmm? Anyway, after visiting with elderly relatives who insist on discussing diet and regularity of elimination, if I ever catch myself approaching that status I'll be sure to drop by and pretend to burglarize your home so you can put me out of my misery. And you'll be able to carve your first notch. Regarding the Reagan HIV thing. I merely point the readers to: http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.11.14/oped1.html one of many sites on this subject. The point is that early in the emergence of this 100% fatal pandemic disease, a political decision was made to do as little as possible. AIDS was identified in 1981 and Reagan didn't even mention it publicly until 1987. The lack of education alone as to prevention measures and awareness in the public was unconscionable for an epidemic of this magnitude. There is no way to know objectively the number of people infected needlessly as a result of this lapse but it is a huge number. I note, however, that Jerry Falwell was consistent in making his usual condemnation, "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." That is about as hateful as it comes and the radical base of the Republican party seemed to embrace the sentiment. Just a personal view. Scouter Terry, was it something I said? Why am I no longer getting email notifications?

"I'm pretty sure my wife didn't write that column..." Boy, I can relate to THAT!

Oops! Yep, I blew the Nixon/Ford handoff. Chalk that up to presidential dyslexia on my part. So 28 out of 44...and your point is? Regarding paranoia, when specific persons made (and continue to make) certain specific threats on my life, that is not paranoia and I carry for that reason. My neighborhood isn't nearly as upscale as yours, Brent. Nevertheless, the general public with their nameless faces causes me no fear whatsoever. In my case the threat has names and faces and I distinguish them from the general public. But...wait a minute, come to think of it, I have a neighbor who lets his dog run loose once in a while so I guess we're not really crime-free here (leash laws). Better load up tonight, I guess, you never know. My co-worker, by the way, is a lifer for NRA and a private gun dealer. Also somewhat of a dumbxxx. And as for carrying the first aid kit, well, Brent you know the motto. The difference is that unless there's something specific, the kind of threat that calls for deadly force is imaginary and highly improbable. Its all in your mind, Brent. On the other hand, I (or one of the boys) will likely get a scratch or a cut or something on an outing. Happens all the time. I just slap on some first aid (but keep an eye peeled for the desperados, just in case). Can't disagree with Kahuna too much regarding the Carter presidency. My take on it was that Carter was way too honest and straight-up in his approach. He just wasn't cut from the kind of cloth that gave him the ability to work in an environment of deception. Ford had a similar honesty streak and we pretty much gave him the boot as well. What does that say about us? Prairie Scouter, what I remember about the Reagan years is reminiscent of this administration. They came in critical of Carter's deficit spending and then ran it through the roof themselves. Plot the deficits and the so-called 'conservatives' are, in fact, the big spenders of all time. This administration has made intergenerational theft a fine art. But the big thing I pin on Reagan has to do with the HIV crisis. His administration had all the information they needed to understand the scope of the problem and its potential human impact globally. They dragged their feet largely because they thought it was a 'gay' problem. This lag in funding and study probably has cost millions of lives worldwide. Par for the course for social Darwinists, I suppose.

I think there is a chance that neckerchiefs shrank in size sometime over the years. I remember being able to do all that great first aid stuff with my old scout neckerchief but not with the new ones. I agree about the size. Our troop had bigger ones custom made, partly because of that and partly because we wanted our custom design on it. Slap the 'cuffs on me if you want to...

Wow! Brent, was that you on that cross? My co-worker was also paranoid about having a 'thug' visit his home so he kept firearms for self-protection. Until he found one of his sons playing with one of them one Sunday afternoon, pointing it at the television pretending to kill something. He realized that the loaded firearm was far more dangerous to his family than some remote possiblity that a 'thug' would visit. So he locked it away from his children and thereby virtually eliminated its utility for self-defence. So far, in the last ten years after that incident he's been robbed maybe zero times. Sometimes a person has to realize that they live in a community of mostly well-meaning persons and that other people are not the threat they must seem to be. Regarding access, I lament that it is easy for me to go to a gun show and purchase most anything I want with no background check and essentially no record of the transaction. It would be fine with me to ban all auto-loading weapons, regardless of what you call them (and I own quite a few). If someone wants to hunt for sport or engage in serious target competition, they can do so nicely one shot at a time. Bolt actions were my primary interest anyway. Don't forget, Brady was in the Reagan White House. Come to think of it, Brent, by the end of W's term, your guys will have been in charge for 32 of the last 44 years. How could your guys let things go so wrong? Must be those mean old environmentalist thugs bullying those wimpy Republicans. Keep your powder dry.

Heh, heh, Rooster7, I don't know if they'd go that far. For sure, in spite of coming from Maryland, you'd probably be dismissed as a 'yankee' but perhaps at least not a 'xxxxed' one. Incidentally, I drove past a local church this afternoon (some flavor of Baptist) and they were performing their weekly mock crucifixion on the church lawn. Three crosses and three live persons hanging there (absent nails, I hope). It's like the Civil War re-enactments, starring persons who have developed the ability to 'bloat' as if they've been dead for a couple of days. I'll have to ask some of my buddies if they do double-duty sometime. But the spectacle causes me to pause at the wonder of it. It's like a real live version of that Christian 'snuff film' that Mel Gibson gave us a few years ago. A person thinks they've seen a few things then they remember they live in the South. Wow! Edited part: typo, sorry.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Fuzzy, your post reminded me of the version I wrote for my last post before I edited it. Regarding the gun issue. This is a non-issue. It is a hot button for politicians to use to rally support based on all sorts of fear. That said, I own firearms. If for any reason my house was raided, the headline would probably 'label' my collection a small arsenal. I hold a CWP and I carry (except for scouting events and other illegal venues). I have no reluctance about shooting animals but I waste very little of the carcass when I do. If necessary, I will have no hesitation to kill a human. But as I said in another thread, I will feel great remorse afterwards and I'll live with it. At the same time, I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty. The relevance of this is how it relates to being 'conservative' or 'liberal'. The label game is one of misdirection and deception. It not only connotes little real information but it also tends to shut off any further discussion of actual ideas. And that, I believe, is why the label 'liberal' is so often flung as an accusation. My neighbors who consider themselves deeply conservative, have informed me on occasion that 'conservative' means supporting racial segregation (or worse), support of the David Duke Republicans, working for eventual secession and a new rise of the old South, and rejection of almost everything regarding public education especially if it involves college or other study beyond high school. This list is extensive and although I disagree with them on nearly all points, the disagreement is pointless if my neighbors and I shut it down by calling each other names. But we do enjoy a good target shoot, and afterwards we slap each other on the back and have a beer (Bud for them, Corona for me...they just roll their eyes).