packsaddle

I'm doing this way too often...agreeing with Beavah...I'll try to make up for it some other time. I'm reminded of Mark Twain's list of great lies: Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics. The statistics used by insurance companies don't (and don't need to) account for the mechanisms producing an effect. All they need to do is accurately account for the effect in a statistically reliable manner. So their prediction of an age-dependent shift in risk is accurate enough to charge different insurance rates and make a profit. That prediction says virtually nothing about the underlying reasons for the difference in risks, as Beavah noted.

That article ends with the potential outcome, "the rest of the world is about to eat American kids' lunch." And well it should if Americans can't compete in the marketplace. At one time the market was geographically smaller, perhaps a city or county or state. As time went by and transportation and communication became more available and convenient the market grew to a national level with some international components. Now the 'market' is global. Every model for competition is now available. The entire planet has finally embraced the Darwinian approach to society...through market economics. WE were the ones most influential in establishing this worldwide system. WE chose this for us and the rest of the world. But WE are also subject to the outcomes. And if some of us can't compete effectively, then as an outcome that system will remove those of us who can't measure up. Or, as the article suggests, competitors will "...eat American kids' lunch." If the competitor happens to be Chinese or Indian or German, fair enough. If their approach is more successful, then they should prevail economically. If Americans can't compete effectively or are unwilling to adopt more effective ways (from the Chinese, etc.) then Americans and America should fail. It is the way WE chose to live and WE should be willing to live with the consequences even if those consequences go against us.

I tend to agree with Lisa. "...sure, some of them ARE lazy ingrates who can't tell up from down." ...and in my experience, not very many of them either. I have NEVER had a call from a parent. One email. I politely informed that parent of the concept (and legal requirement) of privacy. That student was just fine. I concede that the students I come into contact with may be different from students in other institutions...and probably not representative of the population overall. But with that inescapable bias to my sample: I consider the students that come through my courses to be, on average, far better prepared and far more highly-motivated...and far more focused than what I experienced among my peers at a similar school back in the '60/70 time frame. Yes, we protested, we were active in all sorts of things having to do with racial and social justice. And while I don't see these students as being similarly active, I don't fault them for it. How can I fault them for being focused on their own specific goals for their lives? How could I judge that somehow my generation got it right and these students are getting it wrong? It makes me proud to walk into these classrooms and see those bright minds ready to take their place in life. It is one of the few reasons I have to be optimistic about the future.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with this question but I'd like to understand what the difference is between sniping and this kind of long range hunting? The only difference I can detect is the prey. Am I wrong?

We switched to doing the drive in front of participating grocery stores. Store patrons were given small handouts which explained what we were asking for: that patrons would purchase a little extra food (the list had suggestions that were specifically needed by the pantries) and as the patrons left the store they deposited their NEWLY PURCHASED donations in baskets which were collected for the drive. It completely eliminated the expired, opened, etc. problems with the previous drives.

Basementdweller, if you can break the cycle for even one or a few, that will be a wonderful contribution. I wish you the best. As for the general tone of the original post...all of this is a rational and predictable outcome of our embrace of the free market as a force to structure society. It became our national religion during the Reagan era and there is no way to escape the consequences short of some of the things I've advocated in the past. As long as the strong and the wealthy continue to subordinate to their own advantage the weak or poor using market mechanisms, we will continue to 'eat' our own young. Insects do this when conditions are right. Same thing..we just have internal skeletons.

"At any rate, the concept that our sexual maturity would happen 10 years before we became nuerologically capable of responsibility is nonsense on stilts." I'm not sure why stilts need to be invoked, lol, but there actually ARE some reasonable explanations for this from the evolutionary side...IF you buy the argument that they DO occur at different times in the life history (and I'm not quite ready to buy this yet). From a humorous perspective, however, which I enjoy in these matters, I can see the evolutionary advantage of spreading the genome as quickly and far as possible BEFORE we can think about it too carefully. I mean...has anyone watched their children in a temper tantrum and thought to themselves..."What the 'heck' was I thinking?" What I CAN tell you with great certainty is that having children does not necessarily have ANYTHING to do with wisdom. It DOES have a lot to do with having the energy and stamina to be able to invest in those children so that they grow to maturity and go off and spread more of your genome for you. And for THAT, the younger parents have a great advantage over the older parents. Either way, probably shouldn't think about it too carefully or we might opt for that cushy retirement or a hideaway in the islands...instead of that tantrum.

I am of the thought that of what 'nature' giveth, 'nurture' can take away...if the wrong kind of nurture. This is based on a terribly inadequate subsample of selected case studies that I have personally observed and is therefore subject to tremendous potential error. I agree with the comment, "That it is contradicted by cross-cultural behavioral studies is ignored." But those have been largely inadequate studies as well. I suspect that there are few conclusions we can make about human development or behavior that will not be accompanied by large error terms. So, on the basis of exercising my increasing embrace of the 'null' side of most hypotheses (which is one more facet of being an 'old fart') I tend to accept the solid foundation upon which nature rests and am suspicious of the mercurial world of those who would promote 'their' versions of 'nurture'.

I wonder how all this would have ended if Zimmerman had not been armed.

Eamonn, I will try to answer your question. To me, the fact that you feel unease or fear is the important aspect of your life. Whether or not that causes you to be labeled a racist is much less important. It is what you feel in your heart and the underlying reasons for those feelings that are most important and only you can truly address those because only you can truly understand the truth of what they are and why you feel them. In a word, 'no', those feelings don't necessarily make you a racist. I might feel similar things if I walked into one of the local biker bars full of white skinhead types - IF I didn't already know some them as friends and colleagues, lol. Fear and unease are something that comes from the context and that context might be almost any unfamiliar situation.

Basementdweller, I don't live in an urban area so I can't relate to some of the things you describe. This particular area is also unusual due to its college influence. But when I read, "Your at scout camp, there is a mixed ethnicity troop sitting next table over, you scouts are making marginally acceptable comments directed toward the ethnically diverse troop.....What do you do? Before you start I am going to call you a liar because you will do nothing.........Two years in a row it has happened..... To be honest it bothers me more than the boys......" that bothered me as well. Could you please give some more detail? This is familiar to me. But it is familiar in the sense that I observed similar things back in the 1960s of the South while I was a boy, and to hear about it today is indeed troubling. I'm guessing this happened to your unit.

In some sense, you also have to 'go big' in order to achieve the accuracy you want at that range...and also expensive. When I was more actively involved in this gun stuff, I derived benefit from learning how to concentrate and focus...how to control myself to maintain that focus (aim) and I enjoyed the instant gratification of seeing the resulting placement of the shot...or the instant confirmation that I needed to improve. I am a strong advocate for marksmanship (either firearms or archery) as a means to help ADD persons learn to focus and control their thoughts. So I guess I'm asking specifically what benefits, if anything, are there beyond what I described above. What you describe seems to be some kind of 'machismo' thing that might attract more 'machismo'-oriented members. Is that what you mean?

Scoutfish, You can tie in either the left-handed OR the right-handed configuration. Both ways are acceptable.

There are so many issues associated with this topic...the issue of racism may be part of it. While I acknowledge that the problem of racial prejudice has diminished over these past several decades, it remains available, not so far below the surface as some of us may think. But there is far more to this particular event, I think. I am reminded of the case of Yoshihiro Hattori back in 1992. It was a different situation but merely making a mistake about the address for a Halloween party and knocking on the wrong door cost him his life. As long as 'fear' is all we need to justify killing another person, as long as our 'claim' of it is all that is needed to establish fact, and as long as we have convenient access to the means of taking lives, we can expect more of these killings.

That raises an interesting idea: units forming their own chartering entities. I suppose that the unit parents could form an LLC for that single purpose. What might be required is some legal preparation (a few $hundred around these parts) and then the appropriate tax accounting (a $few hundred more at least to get started). Been there, doing that for a different purpose. But after that it can run fairly smoothly and if there was EVER a situation in which local option could apply, this is IT. The basic membership standards would be enforced by the unit itself with none of the CO religious baggage that it didn't want to have. And they could change such application of membership requirements essentially on a whim if they liked. This would be an interesting test of the idea that BSA is mostly about the 'numbers' (membership and money) if the LLC basically took the DADT approach to all membership matters. Interesting idea.

I'm curious. What does the venture crew gain at long range that can't be gained with a shorter range, say 100 meters?

In celebration I observed the green flash.

I agree with Beavah's comment about Obama. He adopted many of the Bush policies and has been slow to change many of them or else limited in the changes. I think that the one thing he did that might qualify as extreme was the health care legislation but he's backtracking on that as well. Not to mention that the basic idea came from Richard Nixon a long time ago. Back on track...I suffered through one set of Republican primary ads in my state and then vicariously in neighboring states and now they've followed me to Puerto Rico. Oh good grief! At least it will be over in a couple of days...official languages and all!

Beavah, thing is...the giant Harry Potter spiders (as opposed to Darth) are a myth (not to mention a biological impossibility). What I'm concerned about is saving the skeets!

In my view, Cub Scouts is THE most important program in BSA. It has the capability to contribute directly or indirectly to the growth of BSA in many ways. It can reach far more boys who are far more interested in the program at that age - and if so engaged, are far more likely to continue to Boy Scouts. There are more engaged parents, more enthusiasm in the boys, better attitudes, and a lot more fun (at least from the boys' perspective). Everything is new and fresh and full of adventure. BSA does seem to turn a neglectful eye toward Cub Scouting and I too am mystified as to why the above fundamental truth is not as obvious as the adipose tissue sagging from the Chief's double chin. The future of Boy Scouts and BSA is no further and no more complicated than those roundups for new Tigers and Wolves.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

drmbear, As TheScout wrote a while back, "The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together."

Perdidochas, I think there are quite a few Buddhists who are honest, atheist, AND members of BSA. Do you know something I don't know?

This is coming from someone who has resisted authority his entire life, consistently rebelled against the status quo, enjoys provoking students into ways of thinking that are new to them, has given up on ever 'fitting in' with social cliques, and who will now quote from Rick Santorum with tongue in cheek: When I hear superficial concepts like 'prestige' discussed as if they are somehow important (especially when applied to BSA leadership positions), "That makes me throw up." C'mon, why should anyone care about this kind of nonsense? If we enjoy working with the cubs that's all we really need. All that social nonsense is just a distraction. Edited to add: And I've consistently maintained that I'd take the cubs over the boys any day. I really enjoyed the cubs and I'd do it again if I ever got the chance (and with grandchildren now that time is just a few years away...WOOHOO!)(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"Can you explain how this helps?" OakTree, if everyone knows this then it has some 'intimidation' power because a person knows the possibility of oversight by someone else. At our committee meetings, a treasurer's report is produced along with a copy of the account statement (which the two signature people can also access online). Someone would have to be really 'not smart' to think they could go undetected for more than a month.

I don't buy that 'event funds' argument. Summer camp is a 'pass through'. You collect the checks and then turn around and write a big one equivalent to the collection. That's revenue-neutral. If any of that had been stolen the discrepancy would be noted when the check bounced. The theft had to be netted from 'unencumbered' funds.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)