AZMike

Yep, the Guide to Safe Scouting has a packing list for a recommended first aid kit. As a former medic, I would recommend packing all the items of a particular kind together in big sturdy zip-loc freezer bags, so you can find them quickly in an emergency or in the dark. So put all the band aids in one, telfa pad non-stick dressings, medical tape, and gauze rolls in one ziploc, one bag for ointments, antibiotic creams, disinfectants, poison ivy soap, etc., a bag for blister problems (second skin, moleskin, NewSkin spray, some needles, gold bond powder, nail clippers, etc.) I'd also recommend tiny tweezers with a magnifying glass built in for splinters, lots of triangular bandages (you can improvise these from old sheets and pillowcases, make them big enough to use to tie a splint on a leg or arm or for a broken elbow or collarbone), at least one Quik-Clot bandage (expensive, but vital in an emergency where you have extensive blood loss), maybe one of those little kits to preserve a tooth if it gets knocked out, and butterfly bandages to help pull the edges of a large cut together (although you can improvise with tape, a very useful skill - learn how here: http://lifehacker.com/5926071/improvise-butterfly-stitches-using-medical-tape?tag=health ) (This message has been edited by AZMike)

If you use one of those heavyweight survival blankets that have mylar on one side and colored plastic on the other (not the lightweight all-mylar survival blanket that comes in a little bag) , you can use that as a groundcloth under your poncho liner roll and the reflected body warmth keeps you comfortably warm.

(*sound of crickets*)

I also continue to use my poncho liner, mostly just wrapping myself in my quilted camouflage security blanket when it's warm. I'm also thinking about buying a sleeping bag liner from REI and using that (alone) as my warm-weather sleeping bag (very compact), and then using it as an add-on to my bag when it gets cold.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

Good work!

"According to the American Psychological Association, "Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/brochures/sex-abuse.aspx The APA is the largest professional and scientific psychological organization in the US. Is that "good substantive evidence" for you? " There's a great deal of "substantive evidence" that there is institutional bias against conservative researchers, and conservative conclusions to research in the social sciences, as even liberal scientists admit. Read this 2012 journal article from Perspectives on Psychological Science XX(X) 18: http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf ("Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology," by Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers,Tilburg University) From the abstract: "A lack of political diversity in psychology is said to lead to a number of pernicious outcomes, including biased research and active discrimination against conservatives. The authors of this study surveyed a large number (combined N = 800) of social and personality psychologists and discovered several interesting facts. First, although only 6% described themselves as conservative overall, there was more diversity of political opinion on economic issues and foreign policy. Second, respondents significantly underestimated the proportion of conservatives among their colleagues. Third, conservatives fear negative consequences of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues. Finally, they are right to do so: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate." In such a highly politicized academic environment, is it any wonder that research that is critical of a liberal status quo gets suppressed? This is hardly a surprise to anyone employed in academia, as Dr Jonathan Haidt at the University of Virginia has noted: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&

Some of this kind of training could easily also be set up outside the BSA - if you want a little better grounding in local plants or animals to teach scouts who want to satisfy the "Identify 10" requirements for 2nd class and 1st class, you could probably get a group of interested adult leaders from your district and approach the local zoo and/or botanical garden and ask for a half day of instruction in identifying the most common local flora and fauna. If you approach them nicely, and emphasize the educational and youth service elements, they'd probably do it for you for free. Then on your next campout, grab another adult leader and a senior scout and take a group of scouts on a short hike around the area, point out 10 or more distinctive plants or signs of animal activity, tell them some interesting facts that will stick in their heads about each, then lead them back around and show them the same plants (or the same species, elsewhere) and have them write down on a piece of paper (so everyone had a chance to identify it instead of doing it in a group), and ask them to show their answers at once. The other adult leader and the senior scout gets a chance to watch and learn and they will be able to teach it in the future.

Say one of us wanted to teach a day of knife/ax/saw/fire building for adult scouters, or a day of wilderness survival training for scouters and MBCs, or a weekend of land nav, or how to do a rapelling station. If one wanted to provide some more advanced outdoorsy training through the BSA, how would one do it? Come up with a syllabus, approach your local council training chairman, go through your district first, or what? Any advice from someone who has done it? Any potential roadblocks, administrative or liability-wise? If you're teaching someone and he cuts into his foot with an axe, or the student doing an orienteering course falls in a ditch and tears his ACL, would you be covered by BSA insurance of its a sanctioned class?

"All" scientific textbooks said black people do not have souls? Source, please?

"Amazing. The original subject moved to trivial arguments regarding population and social security to Kindles. There didn't seem to be any alarm or concern that we're talking about our Webelos-aged kids experimenting with sex. No talk about morals and values, except for Seattle (who most relegated to the dark ages). Doesn't that bother anybody? Or has our society gone so far as to accept the notion that it's going to happen anyway, so why concern ourselves with it? It's inevitable, so let's be open-minded and progressive, and get out of the way. Nothing we can do about it, so who cares?! Who needs values anyway? They're old fashioned." That's the nature of discussion on long threads, BDPT00, which tend to be inherently ADD in scope. No one ever changed their minds on any political argument on the Internet, ever, about anything. So if we can't agree, we can at least talk about the things with which we do agree. A lot of these threads seem like the conversations we adult leaders have at camp-outs after the kids go to sleep. We have our fair share of both liberals and conservatives, and when the discussions get a little heated, we tend to veer off into sports or pop culture as a way to restore equilibrium and friendship. That's a guy thing, I think. We should be able to disagree and still be friends. For what it's worth, I think it's reprehensible to provide an abortifacient to children while only offering the parents an opt-out option in the small print. If the schools did the same with any other medical treatment - if they had done the same thing with any other medical treatment, such as giving them a vaccination, parents would rightfully be up in arms. But this is what people get when they support a secular nanny state, such as NYC, and elevate abortion to the status of a "progressive" sacrament. Others on this thread obviously disagree with me, a few apparently agree with that position. I don't think anyone changes their mind nowadays, so after everyone expresses their opinion and marshals their supporting arguments and evidence, we should all probably just shut up at some point. Otherwise, we'll sound like that guy in the cartoon who is sitting in front of his computer while his wife is obviously ready for bed, and telling her, "I can't go to bed yet. Somebody on the Internet is wrong."

The statute of limitations would have long ago expired on most of those cases. The statute of limitations that was in place _at the time of the offense_ applies, so even if it was lengthened later the offense could not be prosecuted unless the statute was lengthened before the old term expired. For many states, that statute of limitations used to be somewhere between 4 to 7 years, or until the victim turned 18.

"However, climbing is different in my experience. The Seattle Mountaineers have a "Basic Climbing" course to train members in the skills set needed for climbing. Then they have an "Intermediate Climbing" course for more advanced training. Both involve classroom and field training in a pretty variety of skills needed in climbing, and also require Red Cross Mountaineering First Aid Training. Completing the courses does not entitle someone to lead climbs, which requires considerable practical experience in addition to formal training. Formal training is a way to short cut the time needed to learn skills, but there is NO SUBSTITUTE for extensive experience in being able to lead climbs, in my opinion. It's a lot easier to be a follower on a climb than to be a responsible leader, in my opinion. One of the things I found most attractive about leading climbs is that you pretty much literally have the lives of other people in your hands. The decisions and judgments you make really count. That kind of thing might apply to some of the other skill sets you describe, at least in part." I agree with you - very technical (and risk-inherent) subjects like climbing could be taught in beginning, advanced, and instructor's modules, like the National Association for Search and Rescue (NASAR) teaches its SAR certifications, and you might need to show that you have participated in a certain number of climbs (with certification from the group leader) before advancing to the next module. You could require on-line study of the basics before the in-person school begins. It might also be worthwhile to sweeten the pot by offering college credit for the classes - the BSA could work out an arrangement with a college or university (like Prescott College in Arizona, which offers an Outdoor Leadership degree program). A lot of law enforcement professional training programs offer a similar deal, with credits through Fox Valley Technical College in Virginia for taking classes at various law enforcement seminars. For very isolated skills - like setting up a rapelling station on a campout - a weekend training program could be appropriate.

"As part of this, I would 1) condense the three required citizenship merit badges into one; 2) replace the two extra ones with two outdoorsby badges--maybe a pick two of Wilderness survival, Backpacking, Canoeing, Pioneering, and Climbing." Oh heck yeah. I'm in total agreement. I'd also like to see a weekend training course for adult leaders in Land Navigation - the area where I think I've heard more incorrect teaching from adults than any other. BSA has watered down the level of knowledge required of scouts. (Triangulation is no longer required, but is an essential tool to help find your position if you are unsure), and if an adult leader is not an experienced outdoorsman, hunter, or former military, he often winds up repeating and teaching information he may not have understood correctly in the first place. Many teach a skill in isolation (like orienting a map to the terrain) without being able to explain to the scout WHY they need to be able to do that. The basics of using terrain association to find your position (and even better, continue to know your location on the map, intersection/resection and the BSA triangulation method to find a position, basic orienteering, how to teach a scout his pace count, using UTM, basic GPS, field expedient direction finding, night land nav... Try to teach the class as much in the field instead of the classroom as possible, so the students have a greater sense of confidence in their skills. Include basic instruction techniques and ways to make the training interesting and meaningful to scouts - require the students to teach a 15 minute block on an assigned subject as part of the school. (This message has been edited by AZMike)

I'd like to see more very focused 2-day outdoors-based training for leaders on specific topics to build on the basic OLS course, similar to the Wilderness First Aid Course which seems to be popular and is generally well regarded for imparting a very useful skill-set, with a requirement to pass to graduate. The local council could hire professional contract instructors to teach a set BSA syllabus, with the cost divided among the participants. They should probably award a small distinctive pin or badge or patch for those skill set certifications - I noticed in the military that soldiers were much more likely to want to attend a school or class that gives you a visible badge of recognition for an passing. There's an old quote from Napoleon that a man won't trade his life for any amount of money, but will willingly risk it for a piece of ribbon. We tend to be motivated more to do things for which we're visibly recognized, and guys like badges. It's a motivator. Some of the classes could include Rappelmaster, Rock Climbing, Wilderness Survival, Small Boat Master, Outdoor Leadership, Tracking, SAR, etc. We outsource some of this type of training already to the NRA and NAA for our shooting instructors. Rebrand the BSA as leaders in outdoor leadership training, in the way Outward Bound is.

I was with you on that until last year - I didn't like the idea of paperless books. Then my wife bought me a KIndle Fire for Christmas, and I found I really liked the ability to download (for free) a lot of out-of-print books that are in the public domain, plus order (usually) less expensive e-copies of expensive texts I want. More and more out-of-print books are being licensed and issued each day (I just bought a book that is out-of-print and cost about $80 used that I had been wanting to buy for years for $8.95), and can check out new Kindle books from the my local library. I can also check my emails, surf the web, read magazine subscriptions, watch free streaming videos on Netflix and Amazon Prime, access a ton of apps (I got one that lists every merit badge and advancement requirement for a couple of bucks, very handy), store pdf documents and photos, etc. So I'm a convert now. I'm on the road a lot, and used to bring a bunch of heavy books, laptop, DVD case, etc., now I just carry the Kindle. I've got so many books waiting to be read that I can always pick something out I want to read. I still like "real" books, but the Kindle is good.

You can get a Kindle copy of "Satan's Diary" for $1 from Amazon.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

I read Andreyev's "Satan's Diary" back in college and enjoyed it, I'll have to look up a copy of the print version of "He Who Gets Slapped." I just rewatched Chaney's "Phantom of the Opera" with my daughter last night on Netflix, after she saw the film version of the broadway play with Gerard Butler. It's been years since I saw it, but was surprised at how many elements of the play were taken from the Chaney film (maybe they were in the Leroux novel as well, it's been even longer since I read that.)

Yeaaaahhhh, I'm familiar with the electoral process and the polls on the battleground states. Same problems with polling there. I doubt the debates will have much effect either way, beyond a mental breakdown on camera. Obama could probably get away with even that in the eyes of the media commentators. I'll watch anyway, at least the Biden/Ryan debates should be enjoyable.

packsaddle: "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." I'm a huge Lon Chaney, Sr. fan, Packsaddle, and am familiar with that film, but when I read what BSA24 wrote my first thought was about the scene in "Young Frankenstein" when the auditorium full of scientists threw tomatoes at Gene Wilder and his monster after they finished singing "Puttin' on the Ritz" in "Young Frankenstein."

BSA24: > Encouraging birth control leads to abortion That is one of those beliefs out there that people just keep on saying even though it is laughably wrong. In fact, I nominate this statement for poster child of why liberals think conservatives are uneducated in science. This one and the whole not believing in evolution thing are the things that liberals laugh at so hard that our beer spills and we fall out of our chairs. That's how hard we laugh. Imagine an entire auditorium of scientists pointing at you and laughing so hard it hurts. That is the level this illogical sort of folksy stupid belief rises to." There was a discussion after another thread got deleted because of the level of hostility about the importance of civility on this forum. Can I suggest, BSA24, that saying an audience of scientists would laugh at a belief expressed by a poster goes a little over the edge. Especially when the claim you made is itself unscientific. (And I would note that the idea that you could get an auditorium of scientists to agree on ANYTHING, except maybe the need for increased government funding for research grants, is enough to make most scientists fall out of their chairs laughing at you.) Most researchers have noted that abortion and contraception use rise concurrently in most populations, as abortion is needed as a back-up plan when contraception inevitably fails. Even an article (Relationships Between Contraception and Abortion: A Review of the Evidence by Cicely Marston and John Cleland, published in the (very pro-abortion and very pro-contraception) journal International Family Planning Perspectives (Volume 29, Number 1, March 2003) notes that in many population groups, including the United States, use of abortion and use of contraception rise concurrently. As the authors of the study state, "within particular populations, contraceptive prevalence and the incidence of induced abortion can and, indeed, often do rise in parallel, contrary to what one would expect." Scrambling for a reason to explain this (as they put it) "counterintuitive" trend is that rising fertility levels in a culture can outstrip the ability of contraceptives to terminate pregnancies. (you can read it here, BSA24: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2900603.html). So your argument that "scientists" think that the idea that society encouraging or enabling birth control leads to abortion is specious, is itself pretty specious. I also wonder about your statement that Peregrinator's claim could be a "poster child of why liberals think conservatives are uneducated in science. This one and the whole not believing in evolution thing are the things that liberals laugh at so hard that our beer spills and we fall out of our chairs. That's how hard we laugh." Given the apparent inability of many (not all liberals) to understand the "dismal science" of economics, or simple math, I have to question your statement. As well as the many other instances of liberal reliance on junk science and scientific illiteracy to guide their political actions. I ask you why the California Democratic Party supported Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified food to carry a warning label. The American Medical Association opposed it because there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods. Every major scientific and regulatory agency -- including the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, EPA, FDA, and USDA -- recognizes the importance of genetic modification, and opposed Prop 37 - Yet, the California Democratic Party officially endorsed Proposition 37 -- in direct opposition to the recommendation of Americas finest doctors and in contradiction to the scientific consensus. The Republicans endorsed the pro-science position. I ask you why so many prominent Democrats and liberal activists link vaccination with autism? They are certainly not the only ones, but why did Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., write articles for Salon and Rolling Stone that made such fallacious claims? Why does liberal celebrity Jenny McCarthy continue to argue the autism/vaccination link, despite it being completely debunked? Why did Obama say on the campaign trail in 2008 (long after it had been debunked in 2002) "Weve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that its connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it. Wrong-o. Well, he has problems with the science of geography as well, so perhaps we can excuse him. Except he continued to pander to the anti-science vote, once in office. In 2009, his FDA ordered a change from multi-dose to single-dose influenza vaccines because they contained less thimerosal -- the preservative that anti-vaccine activists wrongly believed causes autism. According to Scott Gottlieb, a former deputy commissioner of the FDA, this last minute switch was partially to blame for the vaccine shortages which occurred later that year. Gosh, it's a good thing liberals are so pro-science. It wasn't like Obama didn't believe in evolution, which could have caused - I don't know, something or other just as bad as a vaccine shortage. Why has John Kerry claimed that vaccination causes autism? Why do non-vaccination rates tend to be higher in politically liberal counties that voted for Barack Obama in 2008? Why are the states with the highest rates of vaccine refusal for kindergarteners Washington, Vermont and Oregon three of the most progressive states in the country? Let's say an American conservative doesn't believe in the conception of evolution as he and as most liberals, mistakenly understand it. So what? Does his belief hurt us in some way? Does it hurt children in the same way that a liberal helicopter mom's unwillingness to vaccinate her child does? I ask you why liberals support medical marijuana laws when the science clearly shows that already legal THC alternatives such as marinol are safer than non-FDA regulated pot? I ask you why so many liberals oppose nuclear power? 70% of scientists favor nuclear power (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-09-science-survey_N.htm), and it would have a positive impact against global warming. I ask you why so many liberals oppose animal research and testing (It would be hard to claim that PETA is anything other than a liberal organization), despite 93% of scientists favoring animal research. I ask you why so many liberals oppose social research findings that oppose their preconceptions - such as the recent study that found children raised by homosexual parents experience a variety of negative effects, which caused a huge liberal response, despite a finding that the study contained no methodological bias. I ask you why liberals insist that life does not begin at conception, when EVERY medical, obstetric, and scientific textbook stated that life began at conception, until Roe v. Wade - a purely political pretense. I ask you why the 1965 research of Daniel Patrick Moynihan on the negative social effects of welfare dependency and out-of-wedlock births on the African-American community was derided by (mostly white) liberals, even as it has become the accepted wisdom now. I ask you why any social research that affects liberal views on differences in gender, ethnicity, class, or sexual preference is automatically derided as unscientific? Why was Larry Summers forced to resign as president of Harvard when he wondered out loud whether the preponderance of male professors in some top math and science departments might be due partly to the larger variance in I.Q. scores among men (meaning there are more men at the very high and very low ends). As this view did not support the liberal piety that women's lack of achievement in some fields could only be seen as due to victimization by a male hierarchy, Summers was ostracized. Was that... scientific? I ask you if the liberal obsession with the "scientific" imperative to improve the human species through forced sterilization during the Eugenics movement of the 1920s and 1930s was really...scientific? How scientific were liberal icons like H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw? I ask you how many of the non-scientific humbugs of the American population can be said to be specifically conservative? If I look at the really crackpot ideas - Holocaust denial, the 9/11 "Truther" movement, the denial that we landed on the moon, alien abductions and secret bases under Roswell and Area 51, as well as the New Age nonsense of mediums, astrology, crystal worship, reincarnation, and what have you...you will find at least an equal mix of right and left wingers in there, and if you are honest, you will admit that there are a lot more liberals than conservatives in most of those fields. If you ask any of your liberal acquaintances, you will probably find that a majority hold at least one non-scientfic, disproven belief, such as that Vitamin C cures a cold, that America is overpopulated, that value derives from labor, etc. Now, you might notice, BSA24, that most of these anti-scientifiic obsessions of liberals have an actual real-world effect on people's lives, certainly much more so than a disbelief in the popular conception of what evolution is. How much does it really affect the body politic if someone believes in a biblically literal view of creation? Not much. A belief that all conservatives are back-slapping rubes who believe the universe was created 6000 years ago is an intellectually lazy way for liberals to convince themselves they are part of an elite. In fact, research reflects that the most conservative of Protestants those who identify with a conservative Protestant denomination, attend church regularly and take the Bible literally, or about 11% of the population,s are equally likely to understand scientific methods, to know scientific facts and to claim knowledge of science as a group that denied any belief in God. They are as likely as the nonreligious to have majored in science or to have a scientific occupation. While other studies have shown that the elite scientists who work at the 20 top research universities are less religious than the public, it appears that the vast majority of people with workaday scientific occupations are like their neighbors, religiously speaking. I said earlier that conservatives, like liberals, misunderstand a popular conception of what evolution is. That's probably because both groups have a poor understanding of the theory, as well as its limitations. For many liberals, "evolution" is used to advance a lazy naturalistic philosophical prejudice, which uses evolution as a tool to deny any metaphysical origin for the universe, life, or consciousness. To make this assertion is to go quite beyond the boundaries of science and into the realm of metaphysics, about which science has nothing to say. I guess you could say that I am a "Creationist," inasmuch as, like about 93% of the population, I believe in God, and thus, believe that He created our universe, life, and the human soul. Like most Catholics, I am not a biblical literalist (as Church father St. Augustine suggested about 400 A.D., a literal reading of the Old Testament is not necessary to appreciate its truthfulness), and believe that evolution could be one of many physical processes that God could have used to direct the nature of species, in the same way that volcanism and erosion shape the physical world. I believe that specific events - the creation of the universe, the creation of life, and the creation of the human soul - were distinct and extraordinary events where God directly intervened in our universe. Neither scripture nor science dispute these views. 32% of Americans hold this view, according to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx), compared to 46% who believe that God created humans in their present form and the 15% who believe that humans evolve and God had no part in the process. These views are not unusual among the religious, nor among scientists who are religious (then and now). People's view of God's involvement in the course of natural history are nuanced, and the idea that because people of faith (i.e., the vast majority of Americans) have views at variance with a strictly materialist view of reality is not a cause for abuse. What is a very unscientific view (i.e., not supported by the research) is that only Republicans don't believe in evolution. In fact, a substantial number of of Democrats (40%) (who I think would count as liberals, BSA24) DON'T believe in evolution, per Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx) Are those 40% of your liberal brethren ignorant rubes and hicks? How many of them voted for Obama? Also, maybe you shouldn't be drinking so much beer that you fall out of your chair when you laugh, BSA24. Just sayin'.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

There are so many political balls up in the air that it's hard to predict an outcome. The polls are pretty good at predicting how people who answer calls from polltakers (only about 9% of the population who are called by polltakers agree to take the poll, per Pew), less effective at predicting who will go to vote. We've seen examples before where presidents have come from behind to win with a similar polling result at this stage. See http://washingtonexaminer.com/barone-when-it-comes-to-polls-readers-beware/article/2509360#.UGjRR47iZMK Many of the groups who are statistically most likely to exercise their franchise - such as seniors, those who are weekly church-goers, and veterans - poll extremely high for Romney. It's unlikely that Democrats as a whole have the same level of enthusiasm as 2008, and the young, who are probably not looking forward to living with their parents for another 4 years under Obama, have greatly diminished enthusiasm. (And Halo 4 will be released on election day, so Obama probably lost half the young adult vote right there...). Romney is doing well among independents in many polls. You also have the whole problem of polling those households who now only use cell phones instead of a land line - those tend to be younger voters, and pollsters try to include a certain number (you can't auto-dial them, they have to be called by hand-dialling in most places), but it's a crap shoot whether you have included enough or too many. I know the mere mention of the Tea Party will make Moosetracker begin to spit on her computer's monitor screen, but like them or not, they quietly are doing the kind of grass-roots neighborhood campaign organization that worked for Obama in 2008 but which he can't seem to pull together now, and are doing it with minimal support from the Romney organization. They weren't around in 2008, but there was a lot of research in the aftermath of that election by the local tea parties in how Obama effectively used social networking and neighborhood organization. One of the books that pooped up on most Tea Party committee's reading lists (along with Saul Alinsky's "Rule for Radicals" and Robert A. Heinlein's "Take Back the Government," a classic on neighborhood-level political organization) was "The Starfish and the Spider," on leaderless revolution. They seemed to have learned those lessons: http://washingtonexaminer.com/sunday-reflection-the-importance-of-showing-up/article/2509323#.UGjJV47iZMK It'll be interesting, one way or another. I plan to take the day off and watch the election day coverage.

There are so many political balls up in the air that it's hard to predict an outcome. The polls are pretty good at predicting how people who answer calls from polltakers (only about 9% of the population who are called by polltakers agree to take the poll, per Pew), less effective at predicting who will go to vote. We've seen examples before where presidents have come from behind to win with a similar polling result at this stage. Many of the groups who are statistically most likely to exercise their franchise - such as seniors, those who are weekly church-goers, and veterans - poll extremely high for Romney. It's unlikely that Democrats as a whole have the same level of enthusiasm as 2008, and the young, who are probably not looking forward to living with their parents for another 4 years under Obama, have greatly diminished enthusiasm. (And Halo 4 will be released on election day, so Obama probably lost half the young adult vote right there...) You also have the whole problem of polling those households who now only use cell phones instead of a land line - those tend to be younger voters, and pollsters try to include a certain number (you can't auto-dial them, they have to be called by hand-dialling in most places), but it's a crap shoot whether you have included enough or too many. I know the mere mention of the Tea Party will make Moosetracker begin to spit on her computer's monitor screen, but like them or not, they quietly are doing the kind of grass-roots neighborhood campaign organization that worked for Obama in 2008 but which he can't seem to pull together now, and are doing it with minimal support from the Romney organization. They weren't around in 2008, but there was a lot of research in the aftermath of that election by the local tea parties in how Obama effectively used social networking and neighborhood organization. One of the books that pooped up on most Tea Party committee's reading lists (along with Saul Alinsky's "Rule for Radicals" and Robert A. Heinlein's "Take Back the Government," a classic on neighborhood-level political organization) was "The Starfish and the Spider," on leaderless revolution. They seemed to have learned those lessons: http://washingtonexaminer.com/sunday-reflection-the-importance-of-showing-up/article/2509323#.UGjJV47iZMK It'll be interesting, one way or another. I plan to take the day off and watch the election day coverage.

Those of you who are baby boomers, or even younger, should hope that the U.S. fertility rate increases. Let me lay some demographic science on you. The U.S. fertility rate is currently at its lowest point in 25 years - the fertility rate (the average # of births per woman) is 1.87. That's below replacement level, which is 2.1 (i.e., each parent has one birth to replace their inevitable death, plus a little left over to account for infant mortality), which mean's the country's population won't decrease over time. Once you fall below the replacement level, it takes generations to get back to where you want to be. Once you get below the replacement point, the average age of your population begins to increase. There are some extreme burdens associated with this, aside from having more cranky old people who tie up the shopping line while arguing about how they should be able to use an expired coupon and their AARP membership card to get a discount on a piece of fruit, more old people who spend all their spare time tying up bandwidth by arguing about things on Internet forums, and more slow, very cautious drivers who will make BSA24 sit in traffic longer* There are some short-term benefits - the government doesn't have to pay as much for schools, there are more women in the workforce so possibly greater productivity, there is more consumer spending as families have more disposable income. But an older, smaller population increases the dependency ratio of the population, as the aging population becomes increasingly dependent and takes a greater share of government resources, or on their children (of whom there are less...). Currently, almost 75% of Americans who are nearing retirement age have less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts. There are fewer people paying taxes to support the aging population. Old people are on fixed incomes, so you have an increasingly large portion of the demographic that spends less money, which hurts the economy. All those young childless couples wind up spending less money as well, and large sectors of our economy are supported by families, as larger families spend more on groceries, health care, home maintenance, household products, insurance and child care. Older people are also less likely to take economic risks (understandably), so the rate of entrepreneurship declines with fewer young people, and there is less economic development and investment, fewer new jobs, fewer new developments, fewer new technologies. There are fewer Boy Scouts, too. I tend to think children are a blessing, rather than a curse. We've skated for awhile due to immigration, legal and otherwise, but that has some risks as well new immigrants often adopt the demographic birth patterns of their new country. Personally, my family is well above the replacement rate. As a modest proposal, those who have provided children to support the aging generation should probably get more votes, as they have more invested in the future than others. Perhaps we should get to cast votes in our kids names until they turn 18 and can exercise their own franchise. Just sayin'. I think a lot of the "there are too many people!" advocates are still stuck in a 1970s worldview, when Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" bestseller, and popular culture like "Soylent Green" and "Z.P.G." coincided nicely with society's increasingly "Me" centered focus which promoted the individual's lifestyle over their kids. Parents were (as a generality) increasingly less inclined to sacrifice for their kids, and more likely to divorce each other, creating what's been called "Generation D" - the children of the baby boomers who were increasingly also the children of divorce. This also began "Generation A", as the rate of abortion began to skyrocket, and many of that generation ended their life in plastic bags in a Planned Parenthood clinic's bio-waste bag. *Due Disclosure: Yes, I am old.

"I concur with Basement dweller and eagerly look forward to back to back camping trips my troop will do in October." Aye.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

Basementdweller - no one is giving you a salary? Next you'll be telling me that no one told you about the pension program for Scouters!