packsaddle

Oops, I just remembered, SeattlePioneer had used that description in another thread as well. Here's the quote: "And the biggest problem is keeping the uneducable and those not interested in education in schools, where they corrupt the academic environment and suck up resources." Wow, SeattlePioneer, I'm still waiting for the answers to my previous questions. Who ARE 'those people' you seem to loathe so much?

In the thread on Union busting, SeattlePioneer wrote the following: "Until public schools kick out the uneducable and those not interested in education, they really can't imnprove much. And instead of encouraging that, we have laws that prohibit it." Seattle Pioneer, what is the basis for your opinion? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Moreover, Lisa wondered who those 'uneducables' were and, I admit, I'm interested in reading the answer as well. So SeattlePioneer, here's your chance to educate US. Who are these 'uneducables'? What are the criteria for identifying them? How are those criteria to be applied? ..In a way that prevents prejudice from entering the process? Some details about your ideas would be helpful. As it is, most of what you've advocated is left to our imaginations. Help us out with some specifics. SeattlePioneer, are your children in public school? Homeschool? Private school? Just curious.

To follow up on Lisa's suggestion, I've restarted that previous thread on vouchers and homeschooling that should serve nicely for SeattlePioneer to answer Lisa's question.

Beavah, I think most Americans would agree with your sentiment on liberty. But our dollars, as you mention, say something else entirely.

Oh....THAT Tripoli Yes, that's right. But I am mostly thinking about THIS Tripoli now. We've invaded quite a few others as well. I was amused while in Costa Rica when my hosts proudly claimed to have defeated the United States when (so they claimed) we sent the filibuster William Walker and his small force to take over Nicaragua and Costa Rica and enslave the people to form another part of the Southern Confederacy. I guess part of that is right, he DID take over Nicaragua and DID want to take over Costa Rica. And he WAS an American. All I could say to my hosts was...congratulations on a big win!

That train left the station in 1945 when Roosevelt made the deal with the king of Saudi Arabia. That agreement has been confirmed by every administration to this day: We get access to oil, they have the benefit of our military to defend that access and, coincidentally, the kingdom. CENTCOM was created by Reagan to maintain that military capability. AFRICOM was created by George the third for largely the same purpose. There were no huge military threats to this country in Africa to counteract, just a lot of interest by other countries like China in those natural resources. We don't need to spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined in order to defend our country. We DO need to spend that much in order to project our access to the natural resources of the rest of the world and, posthumously, to continue to poke a stick in the eye of General-and-President Eisenhower. I think that in different ways, both he and Roosevelt foresaw what could happen. I doubt they would like what DID. Edit: On second thought, I guess that train actually left the station long before, for example when we invaded Mexico in the pursuit of a rather shameless land grab. "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli..." Somehow, it all actually makes perfect sense.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Whether based in racial prejudice, or homophobia, or some other source of fear, there are always reasons for churches to split and they will. Heck, who ARE the Protestants if not a bunch of malcontents who split from THEIR church. Like TheScout wrote, "The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together." Indeed.

Welcome to the forums, Lucky_scouter. If I read your message correctly, it looks like you are a teacher. If so, I thank you for your service. You will find a wide range of views on these forums and few of us are reluctant to state our opinions. That said, I sympathize with your view on this. I have watched closely (I've been involved with science education) over the recent decades. It does seem that there is a lack of interest in education among the public. I am not sure if this is merely an anti-intellectual spirit or merely a desire to get something for nothing...or some of both. Either way, it does seem futile at times to continue to try to provide quality education. I can give you one element of optimism, the few students who successfully get to this institution are mostly excellent, as good as any I've seen at any institution. And they will succeed in life. Therefore, at least someone somewhere is having at least a little success.

Trev, the great thing about that long all-summer camping trip I took her on around the US, was that we were in an Expedition with plenty of space and there were lots of skulls here and there out west to beef up the collection. So what we have is mostly mammals, usually larger ones (coyotes, bobcats, elk, antelope, deer, raccoons, opossums, armadillo etc., but no humans...yet). I have my list...muhahahaha! I've picked up quite a few Bald Eagle skulls but I had to turn them over to the fish and fur people. We only have a couple of snake skulls and a couple of interesting fish. Birds are OK, but we really want more herps and small mammals. Frogs are tough to get without a beetle colony. Same for most really small mammals. But... I guess it's a reasonably good excuse for another trip sometime!

Yeah, I don't see why we have to be so oblique about this. We've been wanting to kill Gaddafi for a long time, since his involvement in so many terrorist activities including the bomb at the Berlin night club and then blowing up Pan Am 103. "....to the shores of Tripoli..." I hope we get HIM this time instead of another embarrassing failure like in 1986. Note that in 2008 Gaddafi successfully paid off our government and then President Bush restored Libya's immunity from terrorism charges and had pending legal actions dismissed. Nice(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Scoutfish, If that doesn't make it to Youtube, someone is seriously shirking their duties! OGE, I just love it when you show how profound that show was and how timeless its relevance to our lives. A civilization of alien mollusks, for example, might even think of the episodes as historical documents or something.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

grmaerika, you are probably in the majority in that opinion. And sadly, I will probably not live long enough to see many of those exciting possibilities come to pass, I just hope I get to see as many as possible. I do know this: nothing remains the same. There is change always and it comes very quickly. And the things we are discussing here are tiny things compared with what is inevitable.

grmaerika, I don't see what the problem would be with regard to transgender. By the way, THAT's already here too - transgender marriages at least. But it's a good question for those who are opposed to gay marriage, or gay membership. I've posed it before, using a personal example. So let's say that I suddenly want to REALLY get in touch with my 'feminine side'. I do the whole Monte. And I'd be stunning, too! Now if, say, Eagledad (sorry, I feel like picking on you for this...no special reason) suddenly found himself single and attracted to me. Would he be gay? Should we be allowed to marry? Or do we just 'live in sin'? Does the BSA exclude Eagledad? Remember, we're talking role models here. Alternatively, although I'm physically female, I'm attracted to other females. Am I gay? Or not? Am I to be viewed by BSA as a female leader? Or excluded as a bad role model? Why? Why not? Be clear about the answers. Or does BSA now institute karyotyping as part of the application process, you know, just to be sure? What about chimeras? Persons who have genetic defects? BSA already allows these as members. I agree that these new technologies and possibilities present ethical challenges to those who have difficulty making ethical decisions for themselves.

Oops, I miswrote. I SHOULD have written, "...there ARE gay scout 'role models'. There always have been." As for me, all of my skeletons are...well, skeletons actually. Mostly skulls..part of my daughter's skull collection..wanna contribute? I was writing about the irrational fears that people have with regard to imagined things: monsters, evil spirits, gay leaders... Except that gay leaders (oops, sorry, 'role models') are real - and some of us seem only able to live with this fact by imagining that gay scout role models are NOT there. Kind of like reverse imagination: instead of imagining things that we're afraid of, we're NOT afraid because we imagine that gay scout 'role models' are NOT there. But as for gay marriage, that's here too. It's growing. It's not going away. And in time, those opposed to it will become a smaller and smaller minority. The point about the Episcopal Church is that they knew the risk of a split and they DID it anyway. And they did split. Moreover, neither faction has perished in flames as a result. But if 'the policy' DID change for BSA, there would be no split. Any members who choose to leave scouting will merely leave scouting same as if they had suddenly decided to go to another planet or something. Same as any person leaving scouting does already. Scouting would still be there and BSA would continue to have a lock on the trademark, etc. Scouting will continue. But if anyone chooses to leave, it will be their personal choice...not a result of being forced out by the organization.

Sheesh, how many times do I have to write this....there ARE gay scout leaders. There always have been. There always will be. Those of us who want to exclude gays simply don't know about this or who they are. As long as the 'policy' is in place, you probably never WILL know who they are. So keep a sharp lookout and turn up the gaydar to maximum sensitivity. That leader from the other troop at summer camp....might be gay. The next adult applicant to your unit...might be gay. One of the previous leaders in your unit....might be gay. Your priest, the Pope, the top brass in Irving, TX, Obama, George Bush, pick any politician....all might be gay. I....and Scoutfish (he doth protest too loudly sometimes???)...might be gay. And you will never, ever, be sure about any of us. But we are here, all of us. And always will be. And you will never ever know....

Yeah, why shouldn't gays have the right to be as miserable as anyone else???!!!

In 'nature' life is brutal and short. Have a nice day. You might also want to re-examine your concept of so-called 'natural' sexual activity. If the monkeys haven't done it, it can't be done. This would also apply to some other animals but the absence of hands limits their options. Moreover, for the vast majority of the history of this planet, humans simply didn't exist. Oak Tree, I'm not sure what the problem is with your links either. But I think you got the point across. As for 'strangeness', that's a matter of perspective. If what you mean is that there seem to be some logical inconsistencies or perhaps ironies in the way membership policy is worded or applied, I agree. But as Trevorum has noted in the past, things ARE changing and eventually there is a chance that this organization will become less prejudiced and more welcoming in its membership policy.

Scoutingagain, I keep mentioning the neighbor not because he flies the Confederate flag - those are common in this area - but rather because he flies the American flag underneath it. He's not the only one in this area but they are fewer than those who merely fly the Confederate flag. There's something about a teaparty supporter who does that...which simply defies reasoning.

Acco, I refer to the discussion in this old thread: http://www.scouter.com/Forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=180153&p=1 Here's the quote from the Kansas case in 1998, from the BSA attorney: "Although Boy Scouts of America is not a religious sect, it is religious, and, while the local council is not a house of worship like a church or a synagogue, it is a religious organization."

Most of my old girl friends eventually referred to me as some kind of pig. I think Vicki knows what I'm talking about (Vicki, are you listening?) But they never said that when I was in my uniform...they thought the uniform looked great (ok, ok, they thought it was 'cute'). Anyway, somehow I seemed to enter pigdom some time after they really got to know me. ...wistful sigh...I used to love the way they scratched my bristles...leaving those scars...with those 10 foot poles... I guess I was made for the South and the tropics. I love it. I love the air so hot and thick you can cut it with a knife. I love the feeling of being so soaked with sweat and grime and rain that nothing else matters...a sense of complete freedom from the fear that I might get wet or dirty or something...I can crawl around in the volcanic mud, slosh through the streets and ditches, chase gobies up streams, catch shrimp in the lakes and rivers...without any care at all. Oops, maybe they were right, I just may BE a pig after all!!! Edited to add: Ooooooo,,,I just figured out what 83Eagle meant: the pig in a class A in the crowd is ME, and always has been...that's why I've never seen one...it was ME. 83Eagle, that was sneaky...I like it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

As I understand it, BSA claims to BE a religious organization.

Actually, I've observed LOTS of crowds and I've never seen a pig in a class A....

..there's a pig wearing a 'class A' uniform someplace? ...I'm trying to picture this...They DON'T have functional sweat glands, you know....

An ethical dilemma...do you owe the new SM the benefit of your observations...or do you owe everyone NOT to prejudice the new leadership with respect to this boy? You seem to know things that you are unwilling to reveal in these anonymous threads, to anonymous persons. Therefore I think you are better prepared to decide if these things are important enough to communicate to the boy's new leaders. My suggestion, IF you DO decide to communicate your misgivings, is to make sure you only communicate things for which you have personal direct experience. And to communicate them in a way that is not provocative but rather an objective account of what you have personally experienced. And if, in retrospect, you have thought of solutions that could have been tried, those would be helpful as well. But the Eddie Haskell analogy was prejudicial here and I suspect it will be anywhere else. Before you create an unintended but self-fulfilling situation, I would strongly consider letting the new leadership form their own prejudices, based on their own direct experience, without the influence of yours. Who knows, maybe a second chance IS what is needed for this boy.

"I don't care what you pay teachers, the educaitonal system has students for how long a day? 6-8 hours? What are they learning in the meantime and on week ends and during the summer? Does anyone in their life reinforce what the teacher says matters?" I interpret this to mean that greater or lesser pay for teachers isn't necessarily going to have an effect on student performance - but rather that a living environment in which education matters WILL have a positive effect on student performance. If I am correct in my interpretation, I agree. I add that such an environment in which education is truly valued by the community will also tend to value teachers more and that will tend to accompany increased pay. In reality, the trend that I see is that persons who blame teachers for failing students respond by wanting to pay less for those teachers. If anyone can explain how this translates into better students, as Ross Perot said, "I'm all ears". "We as a society cannot dump the burden of educating our children on the school system and wring our hands about incompetent teachers when Dad and Mom don't care about their kids education." The irony is that these are often the same moms and dads who are blaming the teachers. This is one element of the self-fulfilling aspect of ignorance, a cycle that is almost impossible to break. I am not optimistic.