packsaddle

Case in point: As I've said before, such labels are poor substitutes for ideas. Especially as labels are sometimes applied to disguise the fact that there is nothing of substance beyond the labels. In that case labels can be mere expressions of prejudice - and a self-deception: that the audience shares the prejudice.

A sample with an 'n' of 4500 is adequate if the sampling was completed in a statistically appropriate manner. Actually, for most purposes, a sample of approximately 1000 is adequate. The key is the sampling strategy. And I suspect the study did a fair amount of subsampling from the original 4500 although I am not familiar with it. And I believe that every generation is confronted with the temptation to cheat. The tools are just more sophisticated these days and educators sometimes don't match it with their personal skill level. I can't speak for high school but in my classes I inform them that I don't give them a grade. They earn whatever they earn. At the same time, I inform them that I am not there to punish them with hard work but rather to give them an opportunity to learn. And that involves hard work. I do sometimes (gleefully) let them choose whether I give 'open book' rather than 'closed book' exams. And sometimes whether 'multiple choice' as opposed to written answers and problem solving. Their decision-making process is interesting to watch. But the choice always causes some worried looks. Small pleasures, perhaps, but pleasures nevertheless. So far, I have only detected one case of cheating ('F' in the course and suspension for the remainder of the year). They didn't return to this school. There are excellent resources available to detect cheating, especially plagiarism. However, if I give out a problem set or a written homework assignment, I require all the work and all the prose to be hand written. And that is fairly hard to fake. The subsequent exam will determine how much they actually learned from the exercise.

One answer to that is not enough attention is paid to the dictionary when people use the term. In many respects of Trevorum's dictionary definitions, the liberal qualities are also true conservative qualities. However, some persons have successfully planted pejorative connotations to the term 'liberal' and, recognizing this, people who are quite reasonable, knowledgeable, and who do not take on those pejorative qualities therefore acknowledge the unfortunate reality and do not apply the term 'liberal' to themselves. There is another reason as well. Persons to whom the qualities Trevorum lists apply tend not to apply 'terms' to other persons, thereby believing the term explains something about those persons. As he said, they're not bigoted. I think another partial reason that the so-called 'libertarians' chose that moniker is to escape the pejorative sense heaped on 'liberal'. Most of my 'libertarian' friends (and I have quite a few) have few philosophical differences with me nor, unless I am mistaken, Trevorum. And, fact is, few of us can be categorized easily with any of these labels. Labels are no substitution for an idea. Therefore, as I have tried to explain numerous times in the past, application of a term is an empty gesture. It has no substance except to invest in the prejudices that the listener may attach to the term. Either way, the idea is lost. Sad.

The Great Compromise (or Roger Sherman's Connecticut Compromise) is a great topic here. There were actually two parts to the compromise, both dealing with representation issues. The first had to do with heavily populated versus non-heavily populated states. That led to the bicameral legislature that we have today. The second part had to do with slavery. Specifically, how to count slaves. If they were considered property they couldn't be counted for representation. However, if they were considered citizens, well, the South couldn't abide by that. But the South DID want them to count toward representation...to have it's cake and eat it too, so-to-speak. The compromise allowed the consititution to be ratified by the slave states. For every 5 slaves, the South could claim three for the purpose of representation and taxation. The anti-slavery people had to swallow a lot to get the Constitution. The extremists in the South held the rest of the colonies hostage to their demands and in the end, got part of what they wanted in the compromise. I suppose BrentAllen's sentiment applies here.

She thought George Bush was one of the most brilliant men she had ever met. So much for her judgement ability! As Paul Harvey would say, 'Page Two'.

That was good advice, Mike. I just remembered also, that if you use an external (and I learned this from personal experience), you may be tempted to just hang stuff from the top posts of the frame. If it's lightweight (whistle on laniard) then no problem but do that with a full canteen and the constantly shifting weight is really annoying. Also, around these parts the height of the pack (regardless of design) especially if it extends above one's head is important because of the need to duck low hanging tree limbs and deadfalls. After a few miles, it gets tiresome to continue to have that pack catch on stuff or to have to duck EXTRA low to clear that log. But the best packing I have done (not extended trips like Mike mentioned, though) was out of a large daypack. Packing very lightly and taking the absolute minimum. Have to pick the weather carefully though. Have a great trip!

Hitler. I can't remember when but he was running for elected office. It continues something like, "...without law and order our country can't survive. We will maintain law and order." I probably mangled that but I think this was the general idea. And he sure did take control and, I suppose, brought law and order to his country.

I have to agree with Purcelce on this. I use both designs but this usually means external for the summer or for dry regions...and internal for winter or wet trips. One complaint I have is that it is tough to find the external pack without the frame. Result: I have a bunch of good frames left over from years of worn-out packs. Such a waste.

As has been discussed in various other threads at times, we already have a national ID card of sorts. It's called the Social Security Card. Just try to do most things of a legal nature without it (and sometimes the birth certificate as well). That brings us back to the original post. Also, "...extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." A great TRUE conservative said this. The 'liberty' aspect is what makes it timeless.

Hunt, saw it. And also: http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3143922 interesting.

I've dealt with this before. The problem with saying 'no' is that in order to remain consistent, one must establish criteria by which 'no' is the answer. That usually involves identification of a standard that must be met. And then applying that standard to everyone. I believe the program already has that standard. It is found in the requirements for membership and then advancement. I would encourage anyone not to change that standard. So my simple answer is: if a boy asks for this opportunity, I would allow him the opportunity. I can't think of a situation in which I wouldn't. He can then succeed and that would be great. Or he can fail, but that will be up to him. At least give him the opportunity to do that.

OR Pioneer, I noticed your PS and had to comment. The application of evolutionary principles suggests that selection must affect the selected individuals prior to reproduction - in this case, the children. On the assumption that the poorly prepared children will suffer diminished reproductive success, then social Darwinism is working very effectively and in time will gradually eliminate that portion of the gene pool. It IS the way the free market works on human populations and effectively at that.

She most definitely is NOT a 'babe'. That said, I would have supported her right after the nomination. Now I'm not sure - the lack of experience is troubling. She clearly does NOT possess the intellect of Roberts. And clearly, there were much more qualified candidates out there that Bush didn't select. But then, qualifications don't seem to count for much when selecting cronies. I was really hoping for a good followup to Roberts. Oh well... At least it's entertaining to watch the Republicans eat each other.

Don't worry about what a church is going to do with it, that's their problem. Just let them handle the disposition. Just curious, what on earth did you say that earned your dismissal?

Just a note: In this area home-schoolers seem to stay away from scouting. Not sure why, maybe they have their own club activity or something. This unit (pack and troop) has never had a home-schooled boy and neither have the other local troops as far as I can tell. Interesting, I never thought about it before now.

Sounds like the mix going to the burner is too fuel-rich, needs more air in the mix. I'd suspect something else if the other burner wasn't working properly. Disassembly and cleaning might help if you can't adjust the air mix. As for the lantern, I can only think it's a problem with a blocked fuel supply system, but I have never worked on a propane lantern -they've always worked perfectly for me.

I was wondering the same thing. (the Scouter magazine thing)

I would also like to thank Eamonn for his good advice. I also remember the stewardship idea. It seems like that came from Bob White, am I wrong? Eagle90, I don't know how many COs are like the one for this unit but this CO has another youth program that has similar outings but is co-ed. We sometimes share the resources and I assure you that if the troop folded, the CO would keep everything. Msnowman, the 'lurking' model is how I got started as an adult leader as well. Almost exactly the way Eamonn described. In my case I took over with about 10 boys left. When I moved up to boy scouts, we had over 30 cubs and the pinewood derby was becoming an all-day event. Don't give up yet.

I agree with CA_scouter. Take it at face value. Always, ALWAYS assume the parents are making decisions in the best interest in their sons - and that's what the appearance is here. They owe you no apology or explanation but they gave you the courtesy of the latter anyway. Respect that. Don't second-guess. Don't take any of these things personally. Just get on with the business of cub scouting and be thankful for the great cubs that are still in the den.

I agree with Rooster7. I've never been involved with a pack that 'liquidated' but a couple of leader generations after I left as cubmaster, those leaders took their boys to another pack (long story). The original pack still existed but it was much thinner in membership as a result. Worse, in addition to taking their boys, those leaders also took the treasury and the gear. Really bad situation. Quite a while later when I found out about this, I helped some concerned parents intervene. I'm not sure those leaders knew what they were doing...but when they were 'called' on it, things got nasty. The treasury was lost (for lack of available good records) but the equipment was returned. It's been several years now and they won't look me in the eye to this day.

I remember some discussion about this leading to a separatist movement? I note the recent (albeit kooky) development regarding Christian Exodus: http://christianexodus.org/ Poor South Carolina, as if those folks don't have enough to worry about: http://www.leagueofthesouth.net/static/homepage/ls-intro.html?MDPROSID=96b6aeb600f114261693e2700d3022b6 also claiming to have a biblical base. The two groups have now discovered each other and plan to cooperate to seek their common goal of taking over South Carolina politically and then seceeding from the Union. The LOS would then continue its quest to reestablish the Confederacy. Illegal immigrants hardly pose any such threat that I can see. On the contrary, every one of them that goes to South Carolina or similar states may well raise the average intelligence in their new home. I only wish they could arrive legally.

LongHaul, I can answer that, I think, because I have conflicting thoughts, some of which are along the lines of what you have written. The only resolution I can achieve is one that depends on individual judgement. I think you do understand the other side of the argument and that we all agree that this is about the boys, not the adults. As individuals, we must search our own thoughts and determine as honestly as we can, how to balance the selfish aspects of our outward displays against the selfless aspects of those displays in order to promote the scout spirit in the adults and boys around us. It is a thoughtful task, I think you will admit, and some of us simply do not emphasize the adult awards as a result. In this council, I only know of a couple of adult leaders (they migrated in from other states) who populate their uniforms with mass regalia. For years, I was unaware of how these knots were acquired, much less what they stand for (and I still view everything past the eagle knot and the religious knot with doubtful knowledge, just a bunch of knots to me). This unit has never awarded a knot to an adult. It seems that most other units around here are similar. However, because the program is about the boys, we have awards to provide recognition to them for their achievements. And that is proper because it IS about them. Each boy probably views this in their individual way as well. One boy may think of this is vain terms, another simply proud of the reminder of his achievement. Either way, the absence of some unintelligible knot from my uniform is unlikely to detract from them. Trevorum, I want you picture me...scowling in disapproval..Scowl, Scowl!

I am sympathetic to what I think was Drakmund's intent. There is a point at which attention to the regalia shifts from a boy-oriented program (a good thing) to an activity that is all about the adult (not good). It does seem for some adults who are heavily decorated (the Liberace effect ), that they are mostly interested in their own glory. There are indeed leaders who selflessly give and ask little in return, and there are volunteers who seem to want attention drawn to themselves and offer little more. I wear the knot for eagle and the religious award. And I may add the Inclusive Scouting one. But enough already. I think the best example is through action and deeds, not appearance.

My mother used to sing that often. I didn't say anything but I thought she was insane. I was right.

Hunt, heh, heh, I had the same experience. My wife moved down here from up north and after a few weeks, she confided to me that she had had several conversations with neighbors and she had no idea what they had said. I had to admit that even I, a native, sometimes had the same feeling. But she had a sense of humor at least (or else she wouldn't have married me). I had a student who moved here from Pennsylvania (as I remember). He and his wife visited in April and thought it was lovely. They rented a mobile home and arrived in August. After a month or so, he announced that they were leaving. He had come home and she was sitting on the steps in tears. Mangy dogs, dirty kids, gunshots in the woods around them, and August heat...she cried and said that he had brought her to hell. And to her I suppose it was. I felt sad for them both. There was a delightful program on public TV years ago. It was called 'American Tongues' and it was a hoot! Everyone around the country with their accents thought they sounded exactly the way everyone else did. And there were some doozies. If you can find it, it's worth a watch.