packsaddle

Depends on the specific dates but the days I remember were hot, really dry, nights frosty. Had to carry everything, lots and lots of water. It's not exactly the kind of 'garden spot' that makes for a great backpack trip, which is probably why the trails are sparse and not used as much as, say, Yosemite. I can't understand how anyone who can read a compass could get lost, you can see forever and there aren't many trees to obstruct views. OK, maybe head out without a compass, no map, no GPS, no communication device. Don't pay any attention to surroundings or landmarks. 'Lost' might be possible. Darwin awards await your nomination. Some of the trails are not used much and I suppose the person who has 'lost' genes could have trouble. They should stick to the roads...probably get lost there as well. Oh yeah, in reference to an earlier thread on what to take backpacking, don't forget to take plenty of firearms and really heavy ammunition to protect yourselves from a ferocious prairie dog or a lizard or something, maybe a hungry pot belly pig that got loose from someone's RV at the visitor center. Man, that would taste great on the trail. Seriously, the place is practically crawling with thieves and thugs, there are so many tourists in the back country to rob that it's practically a criminal's paradise...make sure to keep one eye over your shoulder and a finger on that trigger. If you see buzzards circling, just quietly accept your fate. Have a nice day.

"It might be interesting to have a poll of those who have never had their home invaded and are pro-gun vs. those who have and are pro-gun people." Huh? Did you leave a word out? I've had my home invaded and I'm all for reasonable controls as discussed nicely, I think, by Beavah and others. Cambridgeskip, my bewildered friend, See what you did? You can only blame yourself. Beavah, WOW! And I thought Merlyn was plucky!

You guys are moving too fast...Beavah, on that example of coal mining, I remind you (in agreement) that the coal industry for many years maintained that there was no definitive evidence that inhalation of coal dust had any detrimental effect on human beings, much less causing disability. Wanna guess what they thought about health-related research? Answer: pretty much the same as the tobacco industry thought. Or the lead paint industry. Or the asbestos industry, Or, or, or. And through all of that, there were plenty of individuals who maintained a 'head-in-sand' attitude, similar to what I'm seeing here.

While it's NOT the thread topic exactly, I think Beavah has expressed something that (world of worlds!) we all agree on. And better yet, it actually has to do with scouting! Nice, really nice. Now, how do we, as volunteers, move the program to where it ought to be? What do we do with the 'percentage parasites' in Irving?

I quickly learned that the goody-goodies who listened to their parents got the s*** beat out of them next day at school. You learned about reality during those fights, not in parents' illusions. OGE, I would say that there are fewer gun controls today than there were back then, with perhaps the exception of purchasing through the mail. Today you can purchase over the internet and all you have to do is arrange it through an FFL dealer and you can purchase ammo with just a credit card number, no controls at all, I do it all the time. More importantly, today I can put an ad in the paper and get a dozen calls with various offers to sell, no questions asked. Back then, the guns simply weren't out THERE to sell. Today I can drive a few minutes several times any week and be at a flea market where I can purchase almost anything I want, no questions asked. There is no gun control as far as I can tell.

After the Houston shooting, I agree with the police chief regarding the idiotic proposed legislation in Texas - from ABC News: "Ralph Meyer, Texas State Universitys police chief, says the issue has been a contentious one since the shootings at Virginia Tech. Every legislature since Virginia Tech has been dealing with the subject and whatever they say, we will make the necessary arrangement, he said. If they pass to it we will deal with it. But, he says, I dont think it is a good idea. Meyer says he is fearful of the heroes who think they are doing a good deed and will wind up shooting the wrong person, and that students will see someone with a concealed weapon and it will result in campus mayhem. And now I have to close down the campus looking for a gun because the student didnt conceal it good enough, he said. They will text their mother and say, Im sitting beside someone and part of a pistol is sticking out of his briefcase and they call police and we have to send everyone home. I am not against concealed weapons, but the thing that scares me is officers injuring the wrong person." ...or for that matter, students or faculty thinking they're going to be a hero.

I got sent to the principal's office more than 25 times for just the fights on the bus... and that was just for the elementary school years...and those were just the ones for which I got caught! I never even SAW a pistol, other than on television or on a policeman, until I was a teen and I remember the first time I ever saw an auto-loading 22 rifle. It was incredibly exotic. Pump shotguns were also considered luxuries. I had a bolt-action shotgun. I still have double-barrels - I'm with Beavah, if you can't hit it with two shots.... Someone stole the bolt-action one though. I still have the magazine for it...and the firing pin, heh, heh. By now that thing is probably part of a rebar somewhere. Yes, back then if a fight expanded to use of a knife, that was a really big deal. And everyone had knives at school, everyone. But I can tell you that I firmly believe that certain of my classmates...if they had been able to get their hands on pistols...things would have been very different. Their behaviors as it was, indicated to me that had no regard for life - theirs or anyone else's. But back then, they didn't...have guns so easily available...EVERYWHERE.

Poor Ned, all he wanted to do was keep his job and now he's associated with all sorts of things. I think the better label would be 'neo-Luddite' which is what quite a few think I am, heh, heh, with some justification I suppose. Promoting continued ignorance doesn't warrant a label other than what it is. That's more informative than having someone's obscure 18th century name attached to it. (I do note that he failed miserably in his efforts back then. An omen, perhaps, for his sympathizers today?)

OK Brewmeister, Correct me if I miss something but here's your list of proposals: 1. Universal background checks 2. Greater, more certain, and swifter punishment 3. Some kind of greater armed protection in schools (perhaps guards or perhaps teachers) I think you're right along side nearly everyone on number 1. The second approach hasn't exactly worked for drugs, has it? And someone who's emotionally over the edge isn't going to care much about consequences, will they? Plus, Beavah is going to demand that you show how to pay for prison space and increased executions. As an actual educator (who happens to hold a CCP - but I don't carry on campus) I tend to oppose the third proposal. Perhaps that is where we need to focus our dialogue and perhaps 'flesh out' the proposal with more detail. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if you can give me a reason to agree with you.

Calico, the only time I've ever seen what you described first hand, is when it was done by private industry. In the public domain, once a report is written it's almost impossible to 'kill' it. (ever hear of "The Pentagon Papers"?) Yes it is possible to keep a report from being sent to the news media and yes, it's possible to attempt to discredit it in some way. But a research scientist who writes something can always send draft copies for 'review'. I admit, sometimes it takes some courage to speak truth to power but that is a matter of courage, not a prohibition of communication. In my experience, politicians were the last to know the results. And by that time they merely needed to engage the spin doctors if they had a problem with it (I doubt that they or their aids read anything beyond the executive summaries). But like I wrote before, I was kept at a distance from politicians, mostly to allow my superiors the ability to shield politicians from my blunt remarks, lol. I'm not a diplomat. (they kept me away from the attorneys too, probably just as well) And I was good with that arrangement...I don't particularly like politicians, especially these days. But NEVER did my branch chief, division chief, or lab director, or the brass above them ask me to do anything but to do my best job in complete objective honesty. It was a breath of fresh air compared to industry.

"So I ask you the same question that vol_scouter seems unable to answer: "Vol_scouter, do you see any value in collecting this data into a dataset that could be analyzed by anyone?"" You and Vol_scouter seem to be answering, 'no'.

"Packsaddle, you've got $1.5 million for a climate change study. Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Tim Ball have submitted grant applications. Who gets the money?" Really. Is that the way you think it works? OK, I'll pretend I'm the NSF. The program directors have a new program and a solicitation is made available to all research organizations (you DO know that private businesses can apply for NSF grants, right?). There will be a set of guidelines for submission. These detail the components of the proposals such as introductory explanation of the proposed research, experience in the field, credentials, budget justification, extended benefits, etc. You can go to their website and get a copy of the proposal guidelines. The NSF will have made a decision prior to the solicitation as to how to limit the amounts in the proposals. I'm going to guess that since about 10-20% of accepted proposals (those which don't meet the guidelines are rejected out of hand) will be funded. The ones that are accepted are likely to number somewhere between 50-100 (just a guess, you never know how many will be submitted or how much funding they request). This program will probably cap the funding for any individual project at 200-300K (at least those seem to be typical numbers that I see). So I'll be able to fund around 5 projects if all of them ask for the max (this is actually not realistic. if you look at the past projects you'll see that a significant number of them ask for far less than the max). Let's just say that eight are likely to be funded. But that estimate is irrelevant because ALL of them will go through a review process. The reviewers are people who have been involved with NSF in the past and have some knowledge of the process and some interest in the field. They all have been reviewed themselves and they have all published peer-reviewed papers in the field. This process is honest and ruthless. If a proposal is funded the second time it's submitted (one cycle per year), that is considered a huge success. To be sure, there are examples of projects which failed but for the most part, the success of this process is evidenced by the comparatively good life you live today. Almost every convenience of society (food, transportation, energy production, etc.) is the result of a similar process applied to past research. So the answer to your question as to 'who' gets the funding? If only two PI's send proposals to a program like that, I'll happily eat the guidelines printed on your choice of paper. The funding will go to whoever the peer review committee decides and short of being on the review committee, I couldn't begin to predict who would be funded. But I will tell you that if Tim Ball submitted a proposal written like what I see in his web site, I'd predict poor success, regardless of who else submits proposals. I have undergraduates who can do better. If he has EVER submitted a proposal to NSF, I'd like to know about it. The two of you seem to have your butts frosted (attempt at clever figure of speech ) by the idea of climate change so I'll repeat my question that I asked someone, maybe Vol_scouter, a few days ago: Are you familiar with Richard Muller? Are you familiar with his stature as a climate skeptic (and, incidentally, his excellent credentials as an actual scientist)? Are you familiar with the examination he did, funded by Koch? Here's a summary, published, as I mentioned before, in that pinko rag, the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html Or you can go to his website and gain free access to all of his work, the datasets, everything. Or, if your answer to my first question about the value of gathering the sorts of data this thread is supposed to be about...is 'no', then no further thought is necessary.

So, the answer to the first question for both of you seems to be 'no'. Am I correct?

Thank you, ACCO40, for answering the first question. Yes, there is a question of cost but someone WILL eventually pay the cost, no matter what, if that work is done. So assuming someone will pay (I'm not so concerned about the source of the funding - see above), the second question asks who you think would be the best to DO the research? BTW, I sympathize with your criticism regarding cause and effect. That is common in my field as well. You do have to admit, I hope, that something as complex as a living system is not as easy to identify cause and effect relationships as it is for machines? Vol_scouter, JMHawkins, still waiting.......hello, hello, calling Rangoon! OK, here's a suggestion: NRA pays for CDC to do the research. NOW where's the bias?

See what you started, Joebob? Can anyone remember what the thread is actually ABOUT?

I personally have produced studies in which I recommended essentially to "do nothing" as the most efficient response only to have a Congressman stick some earmark into the budget to do the work anyway. I'd really like for pork like that just to be handed to the states freely instead of masquerading as useful work. JMHawkins, To respond to your question, I do know a few people in CDC. Yes, they are limited by the policy decisions as to what kinds of topics to study. Usually this is expressed by the 'center' or lower organizational unit they decide to work in (often focused on individual diseases). But the scientists themselves, the ones I know, are very careful to exclude bias in their studies. OTOH, the ones I know study things like malaria and dengue. I have no direct knowledge of studies of obesity and dietary 'rules'. If you know the statistics, why not just state them? DO you know the statistics on this? Can YOU name those studies you imply are out there? I may just need to 'get out' more. The NIH research that I know of is mostly focused on basic science...in which the practical application is fairly obscure or a possibility in the distant future (cellular recognition proteins and enzymes associated with infection by certain virus groups, for instance). I guess it's possible that someone could submit a proposal which contains some kind of political bias with regard to obesity...and actually get it through peer review. Is this really a topic that has you 'on fire' right now? The research I know of is not some exercise in data mining and arcane statistics. Again, if you know, out of all the research done through NIH, that there are some which are flawed by a bias of some sort, why not just list the study and give the statistic? And you know, it would have been great if you would have tried to answer MY questions before responding with yours.

That probably works for the Taliban, lol! Sharia Law, here we come...

Brewmeister, this gaggle of threads about guns, threads that just seem to proliferate without end, should be evidence to you that with every such tragic, well-publicized event involving guns, more people say to themselves, "enough is enough". You as fairly could be characterized as 'chest thumping' as Basementdweller. Because until YOU offer a reasonable solution, reasonable enough for those people whose opinion just shifted because of another well-publicized tragedy involving guns, YOU are swimming against the current. It's just a matter of time - and the ONLY way for you to avoid losing much more than is probably warranted (witness the NY kneejerk reaction) is for YOU to bring a better, more-reasonable solution for people to consider. You haven't. Moreover, some nebulous platitude about needing to address mental health, or something along those lines is not going to cut it. You need to state something with some specifics. It must pass the same level of skepticism that YOU are applying to the proposals that others propose. If you don't start suggesting better solutions, you can expect nothing that you would like to happen...because YOU are not giving anyone a better option.

JMHawkins, in my experience there ARE forces which ATTEMPT to influence BOTH government and private research. However, if you can show me the job description for any government research scientist in which it states that they are compelled to submit to such influence, I'll eat that description. I can tell you from direct experience that in private research, the influence is more direct and much stronger if that's what it takes to achieve some business goal. I can also tell you from direct experience that if such influence is attempted in government research, a scientist has far greater means to resist or refuse such influence. In fact a publicly-funded scientist has every reason to make everything PUBLIC, thus making such influence, if it exists, apparent to skeptics like you or vol_scouter. For most public research, the FOIA is available to you if there is any reluctance to make that data public. I can tell you from direct experience that if private industry funds research, they consider the data and the results to be proprietary, and rightly so. They will use 'their' data any way they see fit and tell you that if you want to question their conclusions, do your own study and collect YOUR own data. Because public funding for research on guns, gun violence, and gun safety is banned, NRA doesn't even have to do its own research. As a lobbying organization they can make any claim they want and let their superior 'spin' cast greater weight on whatever biases are out there already. Substance is unnecessary (impossible, really) in the face of ignorance on that scale. So I ask you the same question that vol_scouter seems unable to answer: "Vol_scouter, do you see any value in collecting this data into a dataset that could be analyzed by anyone?" If not, there is no need for further thought. But if so, I'll follow up with another question: Who do you think would be the BEST organization to do that research and why? (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"Da only folks we put real travel restrictions on are convicted criminals, eh?" Did I miss something? Can I freely travel to Cuba now? Without some kind of special permission from the State Dept.? Edit: Oops, I guess that would be "Treasury Dept." Here's what I just found in a CNN blub from last month: ""Each traveler must have a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities that will result in meaningful interaction between the travelers and individuals in Cuba," U.S. Treasury Department guidelines for people-to-people travel read." These rules apply to "people-to-people" tours. I guess while travel restrictions have been eased a bit, it's still a hassle and permission isn't automatic.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

You didn't answer my question. But you did post something that begs another: "Fair research is not possible in this debate in the current climate in our research community in which I work and love." Do you think perhaps the problems you write about really infest EVERY study and EVERY research community? They seem, by your words, to be confined to the "research community in which (you) work". As for your comments about radiation, thanks for reassuring the survivors of Fukushima and Chernobyl, they probably need some reason for optimism. Side note: In the heyday of nuclear power, I routinely listened as health physicists proclaimed that not only was low-level radiation harmless, it was GOOD for you. Kind of like daily exercise, it was supposed to be good for our nucleic acids to be blasted by high energy particles....in order to give our repair mechanisms continual good practice, or something along those lines. I like to remind my geneticist and cell biologist friends of this once in a while - I get a laugh out of their facial contortions. Of course, most of those health physicists were also chain smokers (and today, dead). The tobacco industry was proclaiming something similar about their business and products at about that same time. Would you be willing to illuminate the thread about the U.S. Radium Corporation and the clock dial painters? Can you see any similarity between claims made by these industries and claims being made by NRA? Was the research done with regard to radium and occupational health completely biased and wrong? Were we hoodwinked into erroneously thinking those girls were harmed by radiation when in fact, there was no such effect of radiation? And on that basis we should NOT gather information and do the research on guns, gun violence, and factors associated with gun deaths and injuries? Is that what you're saying?

Blair Mountain is one of my favorite examples that I mention in one of my courses. I use a documentary on a similar but much smaller and more-peaceful conflict for that course in order to make the students think about the connections between energy and society. The Blair Mountain story is especially useful because it helps set up how coal mining was done in the early part of the last century and then the documentary shows that things hadn't changed much by the late part of that century. Side note: it is interesting that figures like John L. Lewis seem to be largely forgotten now. I take heart, however, that already some students can't quite remember the name of a famous singer who died last year (last name rhymes with 'Houston') . I comfort them, assuring them that nearly all of us will be completely anonymous in 100 years or so. Asked why this is a good thing, I respond that as a result the most bone-headed mistake most of us will ever make in our lives...will eventually be inconsequential and probably forgotten - a liberating thought, at least for some of us. The NRA lately seems to be counting on this being true.

Vol_scouter, do you see any value in collecting this data into a dataset that could be analyzed by anyone? (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

You left out the worst offender of all: rap music.

I was always told that the American people were the customers. The agency with the funding was their agent. Why do you view things in a 'me vs them' way? In many cases, I received the funds from an agency or department of the federal government. Then as PI, I either assigned federal employees various duties to complete the work or, more often, contracted the work out through competitive bids to a variety of contractors. Some of the contractors were companies with their own employees and some of the contractors were individuals. In some projects there were federal employees, state employees from as many as three states, as many as 4 different contractors or contracting companies, and up to 5 different universities involved. If the funding had come from a private business (and it did in a couple of cases) we operated the same way as we did when the funding came down from Congress. I fail to see the element of 'monopoly' in this. In the case of this thread, if the NRA wanted my old agency to do some kind of research, we would have gladly accepted their funding and used our unique access to facilities or data to achieve an agreed-upon role. We occasionally DID something like this for chemical companies and engineering firms. Other teams I associated with got MOST of their funding from private industry. The only limitations had to do with security and related factors. We were ALWAYS instructed - in fact it was a top priority - to avoid conflict of interest. I think you need to find something better than a claim of some kind of 'monopoly' in order to explain your opposition to research. Edit: "Control over the money means you control the results." Your squabble was really with the way a regulation is interpreted and applied, and, I suppose, the definition of migratory waterfowl. Around these parts, we have resident geese year round which NEVER migrate anywhere and are nothing but a da** nuisance, IMHO. But they are, nevertheless classified as 'migratory' for regulatory purposes. Once in a while, I see individuals like you clashing with the state natural resource people in a way with which you can probably sympathize. Me too. But this is not research. This is merely a regulatory action. When I was given funding for a project, when that funding arrived in my operating account, I had control over the funding. I had control over the research. And what we did was to do the work just as required by the project description. It was up to all parties to go through as many drafts as necessary to come to agreement on the final project description. But once we agreed, the funding source (ultimately Congress in many cases) had no further interaction until the work was done. In fact, only our top administrators were even ALLOWED to talk to Congressmen. If any of us had even a casual contact we had to write a memo and get the content of that contact into the record. I think you're confusing 'research' like that funded by the tobacco industry with the subject of this topic. I promise you...if the NRA was willing to fund CDC or DOJ or whoever, to do this research, those agencies would embrace that opportunity. The NRA would get exactly what the scope of work required in return for the funding.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)