packsaddle

Sentinel947, I get your point. This community is heavily influenced by several colleges so it is not typical of the larger area. I only have to drive about 5 miles in nearly any direction to find rather open racism, for example. But the youth I see and interact with are those who are associated with the academic environment and therefore probably, as you note, do not reflect the community at large.

"Yah, nobody is "afraid" of homosexuals, eh?" You probably need to visit these parts sometime. I'll introduce you to a few exceptions. There are 'nobodies' who hate them as well. Fairly open about it I might add. But getting fewer and fewer, thankfully. Virtually none that I can identify among the youth these days. 10-15 years ago, I couldn't write that.

Of course that's "only a theory". Sorry, couldn't resist.

Mucus! The stuff that jokes are made of....I started catching up on this thread this morning and thought it would be something good...but it'snot! tee hee hee hee I remember a great t-shirt I liked a lot that said "Without MUCUS, life itself would not be possible", or something along those lines. Of course that was an invertebrate biology view, lol. While I applaud BSA24's defense of science (at least I think that's what he's trying to do) I'd like to move the focus away from BSA24's 'boogers' and back to those billions of things scientists agree on. Actually, since I am one of them, I'm curious to understand what BSA24 thinks they are. BSA24 could you list some examples? I don't even need the first billion, a few hundred would do nicely. I'm aware of the 44% statistic regarding 'young earth' creationism. My observations are that when most of those scratch the surface of the evidence, they are not REALLY young earth creationists but rather merely ignorant of the evidence. The young earth 'true believers' are impervious to evidence. Likewise, opposition to nuclear power also crosses political boundaries. While I am aware that most of the people IN the nuclear industry (and I guess that sort of includes me in a way) tend to be 'conservative' in their political views, it isn't the monolithic political structure that one might assume. Actually, I'd have to say that there's a lot more sympathy for 'Libertarian' views than in the general public. But the whole nuclear power thing is another thread, another time. "Life begins at conception". Wow. How many times do I have to correct this? Life does not begin at conception. Life, for sexually-reproducing organisms becomes 'diploid' at fertilization, but it doesn't begin there at all. I continue to wonder why we devalue the haploid part of the life cycle? I completely agree with AZMike's statement about these threads being somewhat ADD. I'm a happy contributor to the truth of that statement. I guess I should also comment on the supposed link between vaccines and autism. Around these parts at least, that idea crosses political boundaries. It is one thing on which some of the crazy environmental types agree with the crazy Tea Party types. See, we can all get along after all. AZMike, and BSA24...I suggest that you both are interested in seeking truth. I suggest that both of you are interested in promotion of science and associated knowledge and understanding. And I also suggest that 'non-science' nonsense has no political boundary. Yes, I know it's fun to squabble with each other by making those kinds of political connections. But I try to remember that the squabble is more about the politics than about the science. I suppose I could be wrong. Play on.

When I was CM the pack wasn't huge, only about 32 boys. So we had a PWD 'tuneup' meeting one night each week for a few weeks prior to the derby. The whole pack. We had almost as much fun at these 'tuneups' as we had at the derby itself. The dads brought all their tools (another testosterone-driven competition in itself) and we shared everything. The single moms had all the help they needed and all the boys got to explore new ideas and designs. Those were some great days. I wish you the best of success.

Heh, heh, I'd like to steer clear of other countries...that would make this list WAY too long! But Gulag is a great one to put on the list. I'd include it with a special reference to the tragic life's end of Elizaveta Voronyanskaya. I'm humbled by the drive to speak freely and the willingness give everything for that right. Spiney, yep, love that Scifi. I've never completely understood why some of those books were banned.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I'd like to celebrate Banned Books Week. What's your favorite banned book? I know, it's hard to pick...they're so many of them.

"...ten minutes after they get in bed they will all be asleep!" Don't I know it! Oh wait, you're talking about the cubs, not me...oops.

" Also, are there any scout guidelines that talk about this that I can bring up or refer to?" As far as I can tell, the G2SS doesn't specifically address slingshots. But the principle is the same as in archery. And archery for cub scouts is limited to scout camp activities, not even allowed as a pack activity outside of day camp or similar situation. I think if those involved will merely exercise a few neurons they'll understand that this is something that should be prohibited.

O! M! G! Everyone RUN! AZMike has been assimilated by the Borg! Just kidding. I see the economic and convenience argument. I'm still going to resist mightily.

Heh, heh, I guess I could be labeled a 'neo-Luddite'. I really like the feel and inconvenience of paper. Plus...how is anyone going to have a decent book-burning if it's all electronic?

I just checked. You can get a copy for less than $10, including shipping, on bookfinder.com. That site is like the eBay of old books. I have used it a lot. But I missed Satan's Diary and now I'm intrigued. Back to bookfinder..... "Good words to you."

Young Frankenstein...now that you mention it, you're right, I see it too. That film was a heck of a lot of fun. The first time I saw "He" was during late night movie classics series, back in the 70s. I have thought about that plot often over the years...seen elements of it all around me in real life. Well, not the revenge part, thankfully, lol. I picked up a copy of the written play a few years later. I read it every once in a while. Helps maintain a healthy perspective.

Sentinel947, I suppose I'll receive Social Security in a few years. I too will likely receive far more than I contributed. But I long ago 'made peace' with the understanding that my contributions were in order to help the previous generation in their later years, NOT as an investment for myself. I have no expectation that anyone owes me anything for those contributions. Anyway, that was a decision that we as a society made long before I was born. But today Social Secutity, along especially with Medicare and Medicaid, are unsustainable. I promote ending all of them as an extreme position from which we are free to 'back away' to the degree we see fit: perhaps a means test, or removing the income cap, or other measures. But 'the math', sooner or later, is going to exact it's reality. I'd rather face that inevitability and those consequences myself, along with my generation, rather than pass that fate to you and other young persons.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Sentinel947, Social Security wasn't and isn't an investment plan. Those contributions were (are) to pay those who we, as a society, decide(d) to support. Most of them (us) receive far more than they (we) contribute(d) individually. At least to some small extent, it is welfare.

BSA24, believe it or not, there is a Russian play (1914), later published in English in 1922, and a film based on it (starring Lon Chaney in 1924). It has a scene in which a room of scientists are laughing at the protagonist scientist almost exactly as you describe. It's a beautiful story, though, with a romantic subplot reminiscent of Les Miserables. The title is, "He Who Gets Slapped" by Leonid Andreyev. One of my favorites of all time. http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/1495/He-Who-Gets-Slapped-Movie-Clip-The-Act.html Sentinel947, in order to restore a balanced budget and eliminate the national debt, I would terminate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid...all of them. What welfare that still existed I would devote to education and welfare for children and families with children. I would terminate ALL tax deductions and replace the system with the Fair Tax. But that's just me. I know I'm in a tiny minority view.

Yeah, I agree with regard to the use and misuse of labels like those. I used the term 'neocon' in the loose context of what I've been reading in these threads...largely because I can't think of a better way to define the term, lol. But that is in the sense that I've read it used by Beavah many times...at least how I 'understood' him to use the term. Yes, that and 'Tea Party' are both poorly-defined and just as likely to increase ambiguity. So I'll avoid them in the future. I am ashamed of the strategy that the Atwaters and Roves (and Nixons and Johnsons) have injected into the process. It is deceitful and destructive. I really liked Barry Goldwater. And Eisenhower before him. Perhaps it's just the way old memories seem to be so much better, but I think that, agree with them or not, the political process was more honest back then.

There is nothing 'natural' about young people sustaining the elderly. The 'natural' way is for old people to sustain themselves until they can't anymore. And then they die. There is no justification, outside of empathy or charity, for saddling the young with handouts to a bunch of old coots who didn't prepare for their own old age. There especially is no reason for young people to provide support to the elderly if the elderly HAVE prepared for their old age and have the means to take care of themselves. In THAT case, it is idiotic to put that burden on young people. Edit: someone suggested that I was 'throwing grandma under the bus' or some such thing. No, I'm not throwing her under the bus. I saying that grandma needs to be prepared to avoid that bus on her own. But if she isn't able to avoid it, THAT outcome is between her and the bus.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Moosetracker, I just read through this thread and I'm scratching my head trying to find what it was I wrote about the 1950s. Could you remind me of where I wrote that? Plus, I think you misunderstand me. I like Gary Johnson. But I still support Romney. I recognize the symbolic power of a Johnson vote. But I also recognize the importance of a vote that means the wrong person IS elected. Now I share some sympathy with you regarding the Republican party. I consider the Republican party to be much of what is wrong with (and for) Romney. The guy has the impossible task of projecting his correct and honorable views and persona with a background of the expected Democratic opposition AS WELL AS a foreground of Republican opposition (the Tea Party drogue). I've thought about this for quite a while and my thoughts keep moving back through history to Lee Atwater in the days of Reagan, and then before that with tricky Dicky (for whom, sadly, I also voted). But this kind of dishonest dialogue in politics, I think, can be laid at the feet of Lyndon Johnson. What he did, dishonestly, during that campaign with Barry Goldwater, had the seeds of the dishonorable and despicable things the Neocon Republicans did to McCain in 2000, and what their bastard child, the Tea Party, has done more recently. I think Barry Goldwater (by the way, I did notice that quote from him Callooh! Callay!, thanks. He was a good and honorable man who deserved better from the American people. We are probably still paying the price) would be ashamed of the Republican party and its current ideology and mode of operation. Moosetracker, I also have to express my concern, that before or maybe shortly after election day, you're going to pop a vein or have a heart attack! I encourage you to try to become less emotionally caught up in all this. I'd hate to see a notice come through the forums that after Romney wins, you croaked while screaming at the TV or something. I worry about you.

In one view there is no such thing as 'overpopulation', merely more than can be supported in one manner or another. In an other view 'overpopulation' is defined against some estimate of 'carrying capacity'. It's too bad, but I suppose inevitable, that these concepts get wound into political arguments. There are plenty of articles written in support of the contention that under the concept of 'sustainability', the world and the USA in particular are both 'overpopulated'. These usually base those claims on what the world and the USA could sustain if fed solely from solar energy. This argument makes the accurate point that the current populations are supplemented by (and therefore are in excess of what they would have been) fossil fuels of various kinds, mostly oil and natural gas. The alternative argument claims that because we DO have such energy supplements available, we are NOT overpopulated. This whole argument harkens back to the terribly WRONG predictions made by many persons. But in my lifetime the one I remember most notably was by Paul Ehrlich in his book 'The Population Bomb'. His logic is not all that bad. OTOH, his prediction of widespread famine, disease, and worldwide turmoil by 1984...was obviously not at all accurate. He completely failed to foresee the 'green revolution' technologies (which are mostly driven by fossil fuels as noted earlier). I have an extensive list of these sorts of 'doomsday' predictions that I ridicule in my classes. Their history is not only fun but it's also instructive to understand that nearly all of the predictions of what is going to happen in the future, in retrospect, are laughably wrong. Good thing too, or else we'd be pretty miserable right now, or else dead, if those predictions had been correct. This includes predictions, for example, ranging from the stupid prediction by Ehrilch to the stupid prediction of 'the rapture' from Revelation. Of course on 21 December 2012 all of this will be moot as the world comes to its final end. LOL. I can hardly wait...the suspense is terrible...I hope it will last. It's one more reason, I suppose, neither to worry much about the outcome of the election...nor to beat each other up in threads like this one.

You know, I think both the major political parties could use a good 'spanking' by the election of significant number of Libertarian candidates. I don't know how else to 1) send a message to them to pay attention to the real problems, and 2) also get some good people into governing who offer an alternative to what we have now. On the other hand, if we only elected one guy, say, Gary Johnson...can you imagine the lack of cooperation he would get from BOTH political camps? If we elected him, we'd have to follow up with sufficient support that the Republicans and Democrats both would have no choice but to start cooperating, or else get replaced themselves. That would be just fine. Edit: Sentinel947, after an hour has passed, the ability to edit closes. It doesn't really matter now anyway, assuming someone will read through all the posts. They'll understand.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

None needed, I understand. My reason for making that post was to show that as a people we are capable of making the decision to go to war on the basis of something as banal as 'oil' as well as the high-minded things that were being listed. I just wanted the realities of our history to temper the mood a bit. We really DO espouse high principles. We just sometimes fail to live up to them. And I wanted everyone to keep that in mind.

Sentinel947, I can't remember calling you or anyone else a Republican. If I did, I apologize. I usually try to refer to political parties in the third person. I did notice this sentence, however, "That we should avoid killing things only when necessary." I'm hoping you meant that 'we should kill things only when necessary'. OGE, "...does evolve and "flip-flop" mean the same thing...?" Heh, heh, evolutionarily the term 'flip-flop' rarely occurs in the literature. In fact I've never seen it. But if it did I'd have to interpret it to mean that something evolved in one way then evolved exactly back to what it had been before. I know of no such instances - but I could be mistaken.

My contention was that we are willing to go to war for oil. Now prior to Desert Storm, we might have argued over whether we were willing to go to war for something like that. It would have been hypothetical or theoretical. But Desert Storm laid that to rest. We DID it. THAT was an empirical demonstration that we ARE willing to go to war for oil. It doesn't matter if we have a hundred other reasons for going to war as well. We did it and that demonstrated the correctness of the principle. Moreover it doesn't matter if that is the ONLY time we went to war for oil. It still means we are willing to go to war for oil. Why are you so hung up on this? 'Empirical' merely means that something is observed, as opposed to theorized or hypothesized or implied or inferred. And in this case it certainly was demonstrated empirically that we are willing to go to war for oil.

I could live with that. I confess I'm starting to warm up to Gary Johnson now as well. I know it's probably a wasted vote but I think I'm more in line with his ideas.