packsaddle

As painful and as biologically impossible as the image is, I understood the duck thing. The cow is beyond comprehension. THAT is quite a set of requirements! Thing is, somewhere back in time, someone thought this was a good idea and EVERYONE either went along with it or else they were ineffective in their resistance. As much as I sympathize with your situation, you're confronted with either meeting these requirements or planning for an appeal to the very top. This is 'local option' in practice.

Actually, I was hoping to hear some good news about the wedding.

OGE, my friend, you can call me a jerk any time. Heaven knows, I hear it enough from my wife. She's probably right about it too. In fairness, if you were the target of Beavah's barb I would be very surprised. Thing is, he is the most gifted person I've ever read on these forums for being able to avoid a clear, direct statement. I guess it is a mandatory part of legal training to be able to leave everyone wondering what you really meant. (and just between you and me, I think he really just wishes Bob White was still participating) Edited part for fun: OGE, I never knew Bob White personally. I did spar with him a few times on these forums and I know he had strong opinions. And I read him often. OGE, you are no Bob White.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Hinkerbacker? Dinglejammer? Sheesh man, come up with some better names. I'd rather think about the images from the four letter words.

The Lou Holtz thing is good. However, don't let them read anything about George Patton! Or quite a few other persons I would definitely consider to be real men. Relating to Merlyn's thread a while back about blasphemy, some of what we might say today has been considered bad taste or worse in the past. My father-in-law used to slam his hands on the table and yell, "ENOUGH!" if someone merely mentioned breasts or certain diseases. And not too long ago I had some fun with Rooster7's inability to discuss female anatomy in anything other than slang terms - for some reason anatomically correct terms were somehow distasteful. Today, however, we discuss hideous things and never miss a single bite. But I suppose it is correct...in some ways we might still be cultural prudes. The problem is not in our words, but rather in our minds.

The mentor either does not know the requirements or else he is repeating something he has been told to repeat by the council. If the former, then you should ask him to read the references noted in the previous messages and ask him how he came to the conclusion about letters. If he's been told this by council then you can either knuckle under or prepare for an appeal. Either way, your son should make sure that all of his requirements, as written, are complete before his 18th birthday, and that the signatures where needed, to signify those completions are also on the paper and dated accordingly. Good luck. OGE, are you developing a chip on your shoulder? What's all this stuff about pedantic, blah, blah, blah, personality traits? Did I miss something? OK, don't answer that, I know I miss lots of stuff. I'm just curious to know if someone was mean to you or something.

I have managed to overcome this problem most of the time with my universal answer to most social problems: Good food, and plenty of it.

From what I see, age of the boy's parents has nothing to do with it. Must be a cultural thing. Actually, including my interactions with the public outside of scouting as well, it's the older adults who seem the most self-absorbed - retirees, elderly, etc. "I didn't pay a penny out of pocket for my power chair" Edited to add: Oops, I should note one BIG exception. There is a small group of aged people who without exception show up as perpetual volunteers for all kinds of charitable endeavors. The majority of them are Unitarian Universalists. They're even friendly to the scouts in spite of BSA's attitude.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I guess I'm living in fantasy land or something because most of the parents in our area are really supportive and appreciative and try to help whenever we ask. Yeah, there are a few who don't share the spirit but not very many, I'd say they're exceptions. I think there's another aspect to this and I admit this might just be the small sample I've observed in this area. Parents who are genuinely supportive of their children, like most of those in this area, also see teachers and leaders of youth programs as part of the family, and they support them as if part of a team. It is possible that parents who don't view things this way just are not mindful of the other adults who are trying to do things for their children. I could be wrong.

I had almost exactly the same thing back in early August. I felt a lot better after a week but it took about 3 weeks to stop hacking my way through every day. But it immunized me for teaching this Fall and I appreciate it. Scoutldr, I hope she recovers quickly but if it was like mine, she's really not going to be very well for the wedding. In fact she should stay home, perhaps the nicest gift she could give. I'm sorry it worked out this way for you...but it could be a lot worse. Lisa, Our health center didn't test either until this month. Up to now they've assumed that flu is H1N1. Absence hasn't been much of a problem for my students though.

Get your two-year-old into a grass skirt, holding a spear, and get a video of that song out onto Youtube! Too funny! But do it so you and yours will be able to look back and laugh for the rest of your lives.

Nolesrule, my friend the witchdoctor, by the time I got to "bing bang" I had already started snorting tea out my nose. Thanks a whole lot for teaching me what to say...and do. BTW, I'm fairly sure that a certain tune is going to be my 'head music' for at least the rest of the day.

Dunwoody is not exactly the setting for 'Dukes of Hazard'. And Brent alone is not symptomatic of how we got here. ALL of us who have enjoyed the life that our parents wanted us to have...have all contributed to varying degrees. This is the other painful edge of the sword that is wielded by the marketplace. It doesn't have a sense of foresight, or of strategy, or morality. It just optimizes the efficiency of transactions at this moment. WE are the ones who collectively choose to impose strategy or other limits to the marketplace and in that sense, because we have chosen to enjoy the market while ignoring obvious problems (such as deficits and environmental impacts) we have soundly earned whatever comes in the future for our children. To the extent that some of us have tried to change this course and failed, the fact that we tried is irrelevant to the marketplace. We failed. And we will enjoy the future the same as those whose intent won the future. To paraphrase what I was told many times during the Vietnam War, this is the American economic system - love it or leave it.

I might take you up on that offer. What are your trip dates?

I would argue that nuclear IS greener than coal or oil. The problem is that until someone finds a way to plow fields with electric tractors or fly on electric airplanes, just a couple of examples, electricity isn't going to be our salvation. Save for that, nuclear is not all that bad. If we purchased and adopted the technology that France has developed for fuel reprocessing, and allowed the operation of breeder reactors, we could sustain a lot of energy generation for a very long time with a lot less environmental impact. The waste that eventually must be disposed of is already here anyway and we can't even make the rational decision to put it in a safe place. Talk about stupid! Of course nuclear gets a HUGE subsidy, courtesy of the federal government, that is the only reason it is viable at all. Lisa, people will choose to make those investments on their own without those rebates - if and when it is the most cost-effective rational decision for them to do so. Those alternatives will be more attractive once the price of energy increases enough or else the cost of the alternatives falls.

John-in-KC, I'm going to relieve you of an illusion. It's similar to the idiotic illusion that the oil under ANWR can replace our imports...utter nonsense. There is not nearly enough geothermal potential to replace what we generate with coal. Over 95% of the coal used by this country is used to generate electricity and that amounts to a little less than 50% of all the electricity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sources_of_electricity_in_the_USA_2006.png Combine that with about 20% from natural gas and a couple of % from oil, and the fact that ALL of the non-hydro renewables currently make up less than 3% of the contribution....good luck. The areas that have geothermal potential are not near many of our major population areas (think New England and the Northeast in general, not to mention Chicago, Milwaukee, rust belt, etc.). Transmission losses between these areas and places that have significant geothermal potential would make that electricity very expensive. Especially compared to that strip-mined black stuff right next door. If you go to the Columbia River gorge area you will see some huge hydroelectric dams that have empty bays for additional generators. Not even close to harnessing all the hydro potential of that river BUT, if you scan the hilltops you will see growing forests of wind turbines. Why? Government incentives. For example, Duke Energy (arguably the largest power company on the planet) has recently pledged not to build any more coal plants (after the one they have planned now). Why? Because states, more and more (NC for example) are mandating that in order for them to be allowed to operate, they must achieve a certain percentage of their system as 'renewable' sources (hydro, wind, etc.). Duke Energy has no choice - but they do have the money to just 'buy' this 'match' so they buy it. There is nothing in the law that mandates where the renewable is located so they buy it in Michigan or Iowa or Washington, OR they cooperate with businesses building wind turbines (think...former oil man turned onto wind). Those big dams on the Columbia are federal projects...not for sale. So wind becomes the cheaper way to meet the requirements. Is this a thoughtful way to meet our energy demands? Does it allow the marketplace to operate to support development of wind energy on the basis of its profitability? The answer is 'yes' ONLY if the profitability is skewed in favor of wind by government regulation. If we let the market (and the consumers) determine the source of electricity on the basis of market forces alone, we'd have to hit some high coal prices before those renewable alternatives were effective market players. If left to the consumers and market forces alone, we'd shave off every mountain in the Appalachians that had coal underneath. This is not to say that such incentives and mandates are NOT the way it should happen. But people had better realize that a shift to alternative sources IS a shift toward greater government control over markets. Me, I'm still waiting for a truly conservative approach. None proposed, so far, from any of the political types.

Sounds like a great trip. It's been so long since I was there I don't have anything to add except let us know how it went. I might want to try that approach as well.

"Oh good grief!", as Charlie Brown says. That'll have to do for the Halloween part of my message. But as for the altered Youtube clip, nothing there on either side had any substance nor any likelihood of coming to pass, except maybe for the high price of fuel (but he knew that when he said it). Maxine Waters is not going to lead a socialist takeover of the oil companies. The oil executive was obliquely offering the carrot of low-priced gasoline (lie, that isn't going to happen) and the stick of high-priced gasoline and guess what? The price is going to trend up, no matter what. Even at $10 a gallon, petroleum would still be a bargain for what we get from it. Drilling holes is getting more and more expensive and we're having to drill deeper and in riskier and more forbidding places. The price of extraction and production is going up so guess what? The price of the fuel will too. Everything else is theater.

For the long trips we split the fuel costs and reimburse the drivers. If possible we use the church bus and split the fuel costs for that thing. It actually costs less to use than covering the fuel for a fleet of private vehicles. But we have to compete with other users to get it. For short trips (50 miles or so, we don't have guidelines) we just eat the costs personally. We should probably go to a system such as mentioned by Brent but so far I guess no one has made the suggestion.

Has it been FIVE YEARS?! Holy Toledo, Batman! I just looked at my own registration date. Time to think about this, for sure. I'll name some names from whom I've gained direct clarification, understanding, and in some cases new perspective: OGE, evmori, Bob White, SR540'roadkill', JIKC, littlebillie, BrentAllen, Trevorum, NJCubScouter, Merlyn, Beavah...fact is, I can name every poster here who came with sincere intent, especially the ones who have disagreed with me about something (it's less likely for a person to learn from someone else who thinks the same way). The only ones who haven't contributed, IMHO, are the ones who have not been honest and those are very few.

Ditto to all of the above. I've had numerous myths exposed by reading these threads, mostly regarding requirements, uniforming, and a few things about leadership positions. Yes, I had my suspicions after reading the actual official documents but I was confident about these things after reading the discussions here. I also value the experience of the people here and especially those extra sets of eyes reading documents I don't have.

Merlyn, that's another one for my bulletin board. Right next to the Christmas card from George Bush.

Lisa, I agree.

Look, the decision as to whether the project and work qualifies...is made prior to doing it. If a project makes it through the front-end-approval process, and if it is completed as planned, then there should be no further discussion about whether it qualified. Am I missing something here?

SR540beaver, maybe your dark ages weren't as dark. I remember, for example, times when a fist fight between a black student and a white student resulted in permanent expulsion for the black student and a short suspension for the white one, when misbehavior in class resulted in the black student being sent home, the white student getting a visit with the assistant principal. The kid from the mill hill would get spanked hard if he skateboarded down the hall, the kid from the rich suburbs would have a private conversation. That's the sort of thing I was thinking about. These prejudices were SOP for that time. The cub scout in this case was the perfect example of how a thoughtless policy that allowed no options (and no prejudice) was eventually over-ridden by a 'thoughtful' school district. If that boy had been a poor black kid or poor latino kid, would there have been a similar outcry or outcome? If your answer is 'no' or 'probably not', then I maintain that you recognize, as do I, that prejudice is still available for a return to those 'dark ages'.