packsaddle

My response was to the fact that a drunk (under the influence) adult was allowed to drive away. That, to me, is a potentially deadly situation as opposed to something that might be viewed as a poor role model. To me there is a difference. Momof2cubs, are you saying it is wrong for me to share a tent with another adult male leader? What about another adult female leader? Either way I have violated that rule many times. And likely will continue to in the future.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Oops...sorry 'bout that - I guess the cat's out of the bag now. (also, sorry, loaned out my last one a while back to Trevorum) Another perspective on this might help. If as good as we all have it in reality, we nevertheless grouse and complain like we do now, just think about the whining and complaints if suddenly living conditions became similar to Darfur or something. Seriously, Scoutfish, whenever I have tried to ponder why people do the things people do, I find it helpful to visit and spend some time in the primate building at a good zoo to remind myself that basically, we are monkeys. It helps. Really.

WARNING!!! In case anyone has ever wondered, I now have convincing evidence that Scoutfish is, in fact, an alien from outer space. I offer in evidence this quote from a historical document called, 'Alien Nation', made by an actual alien among us, Detective Samuel 'George' Francisco: "You humans are very curious to us. You invite us to live among you in an atmosphere of equality that we've never known before. You give us ownership of our own lives for the first time and you ask no more of us than you do of yourselves. I hope you understand how special your world is, how unique a people you humans are. Which is why it is all the more painful and confusing to us that so few of you seem capable of living up to the ideals you set for yourselves." I believe it is not 'just' a coincidence that Scoutfish has made an almost identical observation. Of course I could be wrong. Perhaps we ('you humans' to you, Scoutfish;)) just don't like being told what to do...you know, that 'local option' thing again.

OGE, as a person whose family was almost killed by a drunk, I agree. A couple of months ago a good friend was obviously under the influence. I insisted on driving him home. He objected strenuously until I promised to call the cops if he didn't give me the keys. He gave them to me. I actually HAVE made the call in the past. They got caught too. At least Basementdweller took the boy home.

This is a great idea for the younger children. It is obviously related to the existing 'Junior Ranger' program that is offered to both boys and girls but expands the opportunities to additional qualifying activities for scouts. My daughter did this back in the '90s in Yellowstone. She still cherishes that experience and the memories of being 'adopted' by a wonderful young female park ranger. She still has the Junior Ranger patch. Plus it was a fun way for our family to tour the park while she worked on the requirements. Thanks for the link. I'm going to post it again so it shows up 'hot': http://www.nps.gov/fosc/forkids/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=165372

Lisa, the ones I have known already know they need help. It's painfully obvious. They usually have a much better idea than I do of what kind of help they need...they're living it while I'm just observing. The best I can to is to offer help and then to actually help, if I can.

You forgot Trump...who used almost the same lame excuse for his lies as Gingrich, that other lying snake. (apologies to herpetologists, I just HAVE to use this metaphor...I know snakes are not evil) (unless they're in politics)

"over the moon...."????? This means it's a good thing, right?

FScouter, as I see it the EDGE method (whatever) is not inherently wrong. I use parts of that method all the time while I am teaching but I also employ many of the seven components that Beavah listed in the other thread as well. I think the problem is associated with the assumption that a single very simple model (which EDGE certainly is) can be applied by all persons to anyone in all learning situations. If Dilbert is the model for every Boy Scout, then EDGE will probably work fine. Dictating a method like EDGE makes an assumption about the way this works that many of us (especially those of us who actually do teach) recognize is unrealistic. Not very many boys are going to understand EDGE well enough to apply it effectively and many of their pupils may not respond to even a perfectly-delivered EDGE method...because different people just respond differently to different approaches to learning. A good teacher will spot the needs and adjust the methods to fit those needs. I don't see this in the EDGE method and I sure don't see persons who are not of receptive mind figuring out even how to apply EDGE properly in the first place. When Beavah wrote in another thread, "I think EDGE is just poppycock. There's a difference. . Bad yeh oppose. Poppycock yeh just smile and make fun of so people don't buy da snake oil without thinkin'.", I agree and this is, I think, what is happening in this thread. We're applying some ridicule to an idea which, if it really has strong merit, will survive nicely because it works so well. I'm not going to bet the ranch on it though.

Or as Princes Leia would say in a situation like this, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin (BSA dictators), the more star systems (CO's) will slip through your fingers." Charming...to the end

I like Beavah's rational approach and I especially like the analogy. If my Ford vehicle has an inferior radio (which they all do it seems), I replace the radio with one that works better. I'll keep the old one on the shelf in case the new one doesn't live up to claims but I'll swap things around to customize the vehicle. It's called 'local option'. To use a political analogy, since the term 'dictate' is being used here, perhaps the choice is between the Egypt model or the Libya model. I'd really hope that BSA doesn't see itself as analogous to Gaddafi. Edit: A little-noticed benefit from the Middle East rebellions is set of new analogies that protect us from having to worry about Godwin's Law. nice.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Lisa, almost everyone around here carries or owns firearms so I mostly refrain from making suggestions like that. When I was CM, the families that were most dysfunctional were single-parent families and there was no amount of counseling (whatever) that could compensate for the complete absence of that second parent. In some cases a grandparent WAS involved but most of the time, they were so elderly or infirmed so as to be unable to do much more than they already did. I just tried to help out when I could spare the time. I'd help by doing as much transport duty as I could and sometimes keeping a boy for the parent if they were running late or some other problem. The problems had more to do with the number of hours in the day and the fact that only one person was involved than with problems that could be addressed with parenting courses or something like that.

"Acco40 for President!" I'm going to pick up that gauntlet. So...OK, you'll have to suffer this thread on the forums for at least 24 more hours. By now, most of you understand the dim view I have toward these things and, in particular, the ability of the American people to make good decisions. Therefore, in keeping with what seems to have become that great American spirit, I'll promote the hope that not only will Donald Trump be nominated by the Republicans, I hope he beats Obama. It would be just about the best way to accomplish what I couldn't have before..that third term for Dubya. A Trump Presidency would, at least, rush things along to their inevitable outcome. Oh yeah..... Plus we would get the benefit of his superlative intellect and investigative skills to find the truth about Obama's birthplace. Nice. And man...just think about those limericks: Trump, Grump, Gump, Bump, Dump, Sump, Rump, Pump, Lump, Stump,.....

Take TwoCub's advice. Watch "The Caine Mutiny" Reflect on Twocub again. If you don't 'get it' after that, jump ship.

Eagle92, most people, after pushing their car for 20 to 30 miles, would gladly substitute a gallon of gasoline, pretty much at any price.

Acco40, are you going to answer any of those questions for us?

Early 40's huh. If you think you're reflective now, just wait. Welcome to the forums.

"I sometimes think that selecting a legislature by lot like jury duty would be better than the current system." I sympathize. It is almost as if anyone who wants to be a politician - in the best interest of the public - ought to be automatically excluded from it, they're so incredibly...hard to find the words...'thoughtless' and 'self-serving' come to mind. I understand Lisa's point and at the same time there is something to SR540Beaver's post that hits close to home, at least that part about his son and college costs. Part of his frustration originates in those politicians as well. There was a time when public colleges and universities were better-funded by the taxpayers. Today what we used to think of as 'public' is being redefined. Back then in some states, almost any resident student who met the entry requirements could get a degree mostly funded by the taxpayers. Somewhere along the line, the anti-intellectual spark began to cut those tax-based funds and instead substitute for them such things as lottery scholarships. The so-called 'educational lotteries' are an obscenity. Now, high schools are under parent pressure to 'make' their children get grades sufficient to qualify for those scholarships and the colleges are under the pressure to accept them, even if they don't qualify academically. Universities and colleges can only respond in limited ways: lower standards and accept more students with those scholarships, or raise tuition and allow more marginal students in, or raise tuition while preserving standards (or even raising them, thus incurring the elitist label and risking even less public funding), or some mix of the above, perhaps incorporating corporate sponsorships, etc. None of these alternatives help the good student from a family like SR540Beaver's. And I don't see any changes for the better on the horizon. But getting back to Beavah's post and Lisa's point, I remember when, after there were predictions of huge surpluses at the end of the Clinton administration, there were two arguments as to how to respond. On one hand there was an argument to use the surpluses, if they materialized, to pay down the debt thus causing interest rates to decline and allow more investment here at home. On the other hand, there was an argument to count on that surplus in order to cut taxes temporarily in order to stimulate investment and job growth. We chose the latter. And now we seem to want to ignore that 'temporary' thing. The investment and jobs...well, those did happen...overseas. Yes, there were many factors that led to our current predicament. At the base of nearly all of those factors can be found the results of our collective will, as expressed through our votes. We are going to get pretty much what we deserve. And the shame of it is that honest hard-working folks like SR540Beaver who don't deserve it are going to feel the pain just the same as the others who do deserve it. It really saddens me.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"Just because people "have long ago decided to let circumstances dictate the terms of the outcome" does not mean that we should just give up and say, "Fine, people are foolish and will reap what they have sown."" Heh, heh, You are not all that pessimistic if you are still thinking in terms of 'should'...anything. I'm not saying we SHOULD give up. I'm saying we have already made the decision as a people. I'm saying that for whatever reason, you and I and the few others who see things this way are not enough to sway a choice that has been made by so many. I'm saying that there is no way the mass of people who have lived with an 'us or them' outlook, and a 'want something for nothing' attitude thus far in our history...there is no way they will suddenly start listening to jet526 no matter how much sense he makes nor how loudly he shouts. The reason they won't is because for their entire lives before now, putting bigger and bigger debt off to the future has felt good...as far as they are concerned it worked. We ARE going to reap what we have sown. Like I wrote, interesting times ahead. Look, I'm not all doom and gloom. Maybe there is such a thing as magic. Perhaps Pons and Fleischman will suddenly discover their mistake and make cold fusion work. Maybe the tooth fairy will leave us a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. But these things evidently haven't worked so far. I tend to side with the 'null' because it is more often correct.

Eamonn, if you read me carefully, you'll see that jet526 and I are not in strong disagreement. What I see is someone who seems just to have discovered the problem and seems to think no one else has. If these cost-cutting measures are so great (and again, if you read me carefully you'll see that I have long advocated much quicker and stronger cuts than are being suggested here), these could and should have been implemented back when a single so-called 'conservative' party had ALL of the branches of government under their control...but they didn't. For that reason, anything I hear coming from them now just falls flat as ingenuous. They had an opportunity to do the right thing and they didn't. Now they are just playing politics so that they will have a chance to return to power so they can fail to do the right thing again. I am not optimistic. I do see that we could quickly address this problem. As Beavah has mentioned, if both parties wanted to show their sincerity, they could merely implement the rather limp recommendations of the most recent debt commission. They won't. So I am not optimistic. Jet526 will continue to shout about all this and eventually he will also realize that the American people have long ago decided to let circumstances dictate the terms of the outcome, not good sense and planning or honest self-discipline. And really, I'm OK with this. It means that this country has embraced a purely Darwinian approach to society and that we have placed our faith and our futures in those Darwinian forces of the marketplace. Let me be clear, there are solid truths out there. The very real laws of nature will apply themselves. Our poor choices will eventually have their consequences and the system will demand its payment. Moreover, the system won't care about pain, has no compassion, no sense of future or purpose. It will merely exact payment. These will be interesting times. It would be nice, IMHO, if we could at least be honest enough to admit our choice. But we aren't. So be it. That was my turn, now time for others to rant....

Sorry, your response looked like argument, not agreement.

I wrote, "The Fair Tax would eliminate most of this rancor." Jet responded, "Payroll taxes are stupid taxes. They penalize productivity and are involuntary. A consumption tax would be far better. The do not discourage wealth creation and can be avoided by anyone willing to do without a particular good." Jet, you obviously are profoundly ignorant about the Fair Tax. I suggest that you goforth and educate thyself: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

Just to make sure everyone is 'on the same page', a flat tax is very different from the 'Fair Tax'. A flat tax keeps the IRS but applies the same tax rate on everyone as has been mentioned. It is merely a single tax rate. A 'flat tax' does not eliminate the prospect of special interest incentives, deductions, credits, etc. It could end up pretty much the same as we have now if left to the lobbyists and politicians. The Fair Tax, on the other hand would eliminate the income tax altogether. It is an internal tax levied on every step of the supply chain so that by the time a purchase is made, all the taxes have already been paid. If structured to be revenue neutral, it could automatically adjust to balance the budget and provide the cybernetic restraint that we have lacked through personal (un)discipline. The market would merely do its thing and if we, as a society, choose to fund public services, we would automatically pay for them, reflected in the final purchase price of goods and services. Yes, the goods and services would be more expensive at the checkout. On the other hand we would keep that portion of our earnings which are currently being paid in income taxes. The only people who could complain about this are those who pay no income tax (and this currently includes some very rich people as well as the indigent). But in general it puts the burden of the costs onto those of us who churn the market with our transactions. It would be a nearly optimal linkage of the marketplace to the federal government. Of course this would still leave us vulnerable to the idiots we elect to state government.

The Fair Tax would eliminate most of this rancor. Jet, I guess you weren't following things back when we shifted from a balanced budget and a surplus to our current status partly BECAUSE of those 'temporary' tax cuts. Personally, I think there is a moral responsibility to pay for goods and services that are received...even if the costs are painful. Sure, if we don't want the pain, get rid of the services. But in the meantime until we make that decision, we should not put that bill off onto future generations..we should pay those bills now.

Green blood, huh? That makes you either a horseshoe crab or from the planet Vulcan. Frankly, I'm leaning toward Vulcan...