packsaddle

Gordon, huh? Georgia to Alaska, wow! And they say the Army has no sense of humor. Sorry to disappoint you but I have never instructed on bases (my expertise is in biology), just research on problems they couldn't address on site (I'm good at avoiding UXO). My hat's off to everyone who makes it through our climate under those conditions. But I am familiar with some unmentionable establishments around there back in the early '70s. I think most of them are gone now. Mostly around the Richmond Hotel (that's gone too). I must have been crazy. H'mm come to think of it..... As for working the angles, I get your point. Nice to know there's a safety mechanism.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Aaaahhh, DSL. Trying to get back on topic, I think KoreaScouter's numbers are correct. In further support, I note that some (many?) of our domestic bases that are used for training are already strained by use. My experience only includes Benning, Rucker, Stewart, and Gordon, but long term sustainability of these bases will be made more difficult if we ram so many additional recruits through the same real estate. This is a serious issue because expansion is impossible for some, difficult for others. And there's not much room to build new ones (as if we want that expense anyway). We have designed our forces as professionals, not conscripts, and if we pay them commensurately (as we should), we'll get the quality volunteers that we need. And then I look at my students...and I think of 'Pounder. Some of them are top notch self-starters and they will make good leaders for the future. And then there are some who are working the angles, and could use a little of the "smoke from a DI". But I'm not sure that, for the sake of national defence, we'd want to draft them.

Yep, when the wind heels it over and the waves are lapping at the windows, the looks on their faces are priceless...for everything else there's Mastercard. This discussion is digressing into complaints about how we address each other. Because of that, hijacking it into sailing is a breath of fresh air (pun intended). Backpacker, as much as I applaud your passion for the environment, our current status wasn't created by this administration. Rather it is a result of generations of our 'culture' (for want of a better term). Our dependence on energy is similar in many respects to our dependence on technology. For better or worse, we have that needle in our vein and we are unlikely to suffer the pain of its removal, unless the cost is too great to continue the fix. And if or when we pay $10 per gallon, I suspect the same market forces that brought us here will issue whatever correction that is warranted. The thing that bothers me is: it seems that to rush to exploit our domestic resources only hastens the day that we will be totally dependent on external resources. Seems to me that we should burn someone else's oil first, especially if it is less expensive to extract. OGE, unless one of those youth figure out how to violate the laws of thermodynamics (and I think this is unlikely), we are going to continue to operate within the physical limits that we have today. Not too long ago (OK it was 1989) Pons and Fleischman claimed to have discovered "cold fusion". It was a huge splash in the scientific news. But it was bogus and now derisively termed, 'the Utah effect'. But it has spawned a whole culture of hyperbole and conspiracies: http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html Great fun, but I'd put my money (albeit not much of it) on the lottery.

The satellite's just not going to allow my message, oh well.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

OK, I give up. I can't get a complete message through using the satellite.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I emphatically agree with the comments on safety (the mosquitos perhaps exaggerated?). Here's a link to illustrate the kind of unexpected thing that can happen on flowing water. http://www.cargolaw.com/2002nightmare_towboat.html Bon voyage!

Actually, I was defending science from your misuse (possibly perversion) of it. Science doesn't 'belong' to anyone (as in "my science"). It is free for anyone to employ. I hope you give it a try some day.

Catalina 25. Older model but nicely outfitted. Also with 4 stroke Honda outboard. I refer to it as the dog house. Spend quite a bit of time there. This troop isn't old enough yet to crew it without some instruction. We're working on that with a local club. My dream (one of several) is an Island Packet, ready for the high seas.

Before this gets closed as a 'board of ill repute' here are a couple of resource sites for numbers (although I am not sure anyone really cares). For multistate comparisons (mostly for 2001, I think): http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_multi_states.html Note that the numbers are totals and not per capita, some additional work is needed to normalize for comparisons. For some rather dated comparisons: http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1.html Some of these numbers are nearly a decade old so I'm not sure of their applicability today. Here are some per capita data for 2003: http://drc.cfed.org/measures/energy_cons.html The parent site for that is also useful for other data. World comparisons are not quite as easy but here is a site to begin: http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/oil/oil.asp I included only the one for oil but there are similar summaries for most other energy resources. On a per capita basis, we don't fare that well in comparisons to countries that have similar standards of living. Here is a table to ponder: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tablee1c.xls We're not the worst, but we're grouped with the worst. Assuming that efficiency is the reciprocal of per capita consumption, we're not very efficient and there are substantial savings that could be attained. However, as long at the price (cost) of energy remains low, we are going to tend to waste it. The growth of energy use by populous countries such as China is a huge factor in market pricing (and yes, if "shock and awe" had actually worked, things would be better also). I sympathize with the notion that energy demand is not the same thing as energy need. However, as BW notes, we are in a market economy, one that this country devoted many decades to establish throughout the world...and largely succeeded. Now we are part of the global market and we are there for better or worse. I, for one, would not put that genie back in the bottle even if I could. But this was decades in development and everyone knew the score. TrailPounder, I do commute daily in a small car but having just filled my Ford Expedition (back from a troop outing) I guess I have to admit...yours is bigger (snicker, snicker).

Hey tjhammer, nice to hear from you again. I hope you are well. What was that? Did I read the 'e-word' in one of these posts? Yep, there it is all mixed in with religion and some other things. FYI, if all life on earth is considered (either total numbers of individuals or numbers of species) most reproduction is done asexually. I nod to the lizards and mention also gazillions (scientific term ) of invertebrate animals, not to mention greater numbers of plants and microbes. Sex, as wonderful as it is, is still being argued among scientists to determine its benefits (also some interesting speculations on origins). Remember, even given all the apparent variation in human populations, the best evidence is that as long as just a few members of some tribe in equatorial Africa remained, everyone else on earth could be wiped out and nearly every genetic component important to our species would remain intact and ready to start it all over again. But this is unimportant to the argument except to note the irrelevance of so-called evolutionary mandates. If anyone wants to promote their particular prejudice, I would appreciate it if they would articulate their arguments in their own honest terms, and not try to use science (or their ignorance thereof) as a crutch.

Sounds great! Thanks, I really enjoyed the image. Weiner dog and all.

I had a thought today while I was at the range: perhaps I'd look distinguished with a ponytail...nah! So Rooster7, you gonna inform ol' TrailPounder about how you got where you are? TrailPounder, that college is located in Greenville, SC - called Bob Jones University. You should look into it. johndaigler, it takes a bit of reading to put tone and inflection on the words in the forum but the image in my mind's eye for TrailPounder is an early middleaged person in great shape, with short hair (probably thinning and getting a little gray around the edges), and with an impish grin (the Ed Harris look). That grain of salt helps a lot. Rooster, on the other hand, is Burt Lancaster gazing down upon his lessers from the mountain, and about to smite a bunch of those sinners.

Pounder, I think that was one of his two best films of all time. For me the other one was "The Shootist". Bruce always had that 'bad guy' character nailed but "The Cowboys" really iced it. Now Laura, that's a different matter, holy moley! I hoped my comment would smoke you out but really, spiders? Just remember, gray is in your future too. Be afraid, very afraid. Phillip, my advice is not to fall into the trap of assigning a label ('conservative' or 'liberal') and thinking that, having done so, you have explained anything. Your instincts are good. Go with them but try to remember the substance of your argument as well. You will soon learn that labels actually just get in the way, and when used, they sometimes indicate absence of substance.

Welcome to the forums, amie. I see you've been 'Pounded' already. Try not to judge him harshly, he's really a cream puff but he isn't ready to admit it yet.

SR540Beaver, If you will PM your mailing address, I'll send you a 'coon carcass from one of our highways. It's the neighborly thing after all.

Down here in the South, nearly every family has a pickup truck. The mileage is so bad that...well, what's a few cents more anyway? And never a problem getting a tow for the infernal trailer. I never ask for gas money, I'm honored to be allowed to have fun with the troop. The scoutmaster, however, tries to reimburse us for the fuel when the troop can. It just isn't that important to me.

We do numerous outings without our trailer. Many of them are termed, 'backpack trips' but there are also ski trips, etc. I have a love/hate relationship with our trailer. I enjoy the comforts that it allows us. I hate the way it seems to hold us hostage when we use it. The boys simply love it...I love my backpack. (OK, maybe 'love' is not the best term, but you get the idea)

John and Ed's little exchange just reminded me of a story that, I think, applies to the general topic of excluding persons with whom we disagree. It is the story of the three visitors who came to Sodom, whom Lot met at the gate. Perhaps we should not be so quick to judge.

Uh oh, I fear that the Beav' saw through me.

Suz, it's not too late to explore this with the boys or their parents. What, if anything, HAS been done? I once invited a sheriff's deputy to explain the legalities of underage drinking. He carried a lot more weight than I do (literally, as well as figuratively.)

I'm envious. I've wanted to do something like this for a long time and now time's getting a little on the short side. Be very careful of the other vessels, especially the barges and towboats. They seem slow and easy to avoid but they're much larger and won't be able to avoid you easily. It is a dangerous river in many ways. My father told stories of travels to Shark River down in the Everglades back during the early 1930's. At the mouth of the river there was a trapper's roost and there they met a man who had taken a sailing canoe down from Minnesota. He was on his way around the peninsula hoping to make it up the coast to NJ or NY. Never heard from him again. I think I still have some of my father's old photos. What a great adventure!

The sign over my desk says, "A Clean Desk is a Sign of a Weak Mind". I guess that makes me a packrat as well. I can think of uses for every bit of it (and all the duplicates, too).

...from the road... I'm still trying to think of a science club I have known that required a belief in something, anything. The only requirement I have ever known was an interest in science, or for that matter interest for inquiry into ideas of any kind. But that, of course, pretty much takes care of itself (uninterested persons are inherently unlikely to apply). I suppose that if a person simply could not accept science without a belief (religious?) in a physical reality, Adrianvs's argument might have a little substance, although it seems a non sequitur. However, the scientists I have known who have expressed their thoughts on the subject have accepted physical reality more as a working assumption, sometimes expressed as fact but more likely an admission that no test has ever been devised to disprove it. Perhaps call it a null hypothesis still waiting for a testable alternative?

Welcome to the forum, OldGoat. I like the name, by the way. I have an old backpacking t-shirt with a graphic by that title. One of my favorites.

Just a quick reminder. Ignorance is an equal opportunity deficiency. It merely exists and isn't necessarily a prerequisite for anything (with the possible exception of prejudice, I'll ponder that a little longer). I think it is possible for a person to make ignorant statements about both science and religion and having made such a statement about one doesn't qualify them in the other. Actually, I would expect a person ignorant of science to be ignorant in other things as well. To state my thesis in different terms, I agree that there exist statements that may seem to indicate a lack of depth of knowledge of science. That by itself, however, does not endow the person making the statement with religious belief or knowledge. Indeed, such a person could be profoundly ignorant of those matters as well. Just my view of ignorance, part of it anyway.