packsaddle

This is one of those judgment calls. If a boy is motivated and interested enough and the leaders think he's responsible enough, then no adult should dampen that boy's initiative because they have some personal arbitrary unwritten rule. This is similar to the unwritten rule that no boy should be allowed to get Eagle before his XX birthday, one that I still encounter in adults who have some personal thought that they know best what an Eagle should be. I have seen plenty of boys in a Wolf Den who could have passed their WC as safely as those who are Bears. Edited typo(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Yeah, I think your baseball metaphors may work better where there is a legitimate baseball team. I'm supposed to pull for the Braves but they just keep letting me down. So I also pull for the Mets...mostly to bug my in-laws (they're Yankee fans). My daughter has a huge pennant in her room that proclaims "MATSUI" to which I ask, "Matt who?" Such fun!

Skeptic, which ones ARE the 'connected' forums? I'm trying to figure out what you were addressing. I think the answer that was just given is correct. Edited: Oops, I just figured it out. I remember that discussion. It wasn't that important to me so I mostly ignored it. But I understand what you meant. Sometimes it is impossible to predict what detail will be very important to one person and not to another. And if that someone claims it is acceptable to ignore that detail, the first person might take that personally. I chalk it up to thin skin as well as the reasons that were given previously regarding voice, tone, and inflection.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I agree that a Tiger den is open to some latitude. But once they go on, I agree that a den of 6-10 is a good size. Larger might be tough if you have even one 'difficult' boy. Smaller than about 4, the den starts to lose the social flavor which isn't a bad thing sometimes. My preference was 6-10. There isn't a hard rule on this though.

OK, there are a couple of ways to look at this. One way is that Eagle is a recognition by the organization - as well as by society - of the achievement, culminating in a badge and a certificate. I doubt that anyone can take the badge and certificate away but it is certainly within the rights of the organization or any individual to remove their recognition if that's what they decide to do - an 'excommunication' of sorts, I suppose. Another way to look at this is that aside from the material things associated with Eagle, this rank is a state of being. It is an affirmation by the individual of a covenant with the rest of the world that he will do his best to live up to the spirit of scouting as he understands it. The certificate is a token that other people have faith that he understands these things and can live up to them. In this sense, the ONLY person who can take Eagle away is the person who has been awarded the recognition. THAT person can, by breaking this covenant, choose to 'turn his back' on what he originally was. I suspect this has happened many times by men who became criminals or something similar. But in this view, an Eagle will always know that he is an Eagle - or he will know that he is not. What BSA does is superficial in comparison. edited for typos(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

John-in-KC, the other boy told him he is not EVER to shoot a pistol. A dad and his son can go the range any time the dad decides to take him. BSA can't regulate private actions. But you know that already.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

In case you haven't heard: http://www.necn.com/Boston/New-England/2009/10/06/Teens-accused-in-NH-murder/1254864608.html The news has emphasized that some of the four accused of this crime were Boy Scouts. I think they are saying this to emphasize how unexpected it was.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

No. Edit: I better clarify. My answer is to the title question, not the last one in the original post.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Either that is another one of those 'new' rules or else I was in violation very often when I led my Webelos for both Friday and Saturday nights with the Boy Scouts. I plead guilty. But they loved it.

Gern, no I think there's too much of a component of 'fear' in 'awe'. Remember that 'awe' was one of the two major components of our military strategy when we invaded Iraq, the other being 'shock'. I think that 'reverence' with its component of profound respect is better. I see no need of a deity to achieve this status. edited for typos(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Are we having fun or what? Merlyn, just curious, do atheists count Buddhists as having some common ground? Could an atheist experience a sense of reverence in the deep forest or while contemplating the stars, just not on behalf of a deity?

I thought NASTEA was a misspelling of the name of a popular instant tea. Edited part: maybe the KZXLWHM thing is a radio call sign?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"I don't reckon Feynman is competent to comment on religion or religiosity." OK, what qualifies anyone as not competent to comment on religion or religiosity? What, in your opinion, are the qualifications necessary to be able to comment? Personally, I'd say Feynman is as qualified as anyone, considering the subject and considering the depth of qualifications I see for many 'religious' people who comment. And why can't anyone else comment on religion and religiosity? Seems like this ought to be open to anyone. I have no idea what Feynman's teaching style was but I agree with you, if he did those things in that manner he wasn't doing a very good job. However, as I understand it he employed humor a lot. And if a student entered his classroom with notions of the subject matter that were incorrect, it was incumbent on Feynman to relieve that student of his illusions and teach him how to analyze ideas in a manner that allows him to reject those not supported by observations. And to show the student the development of the ideas composing the current understanding of the field, tools from which the student can begin to question other ideas. If successful, Feynman was justified in feeling good about what he had done. IMO. Or is the teacher supposed NOT to enjoy what they do? Edited part: Oops, almost forgot...can anyone give me a serious explanation for the difference between miracles and magic? Evidently Beavah is not up to it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"Everything must revolve around us." Beavah "I said nothing like that." me "No, I did." Beavah I am satisfied. I have been fairly consistent in asking what the difference is between miracles and magic? I remember some humorous explanations from others in the past but nothing serious. If you think asking the question amounts to equation, then that's your spin. I am asking, if they are different, then what is the difference? If you won't explain the difference then what evidence is there that you know the answer any better than I do? I'm amazed that you invoke Richard Feynman. His view was that of 'god of the gaps'. Richard Feynman: "God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time -- life and death -- stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand." Or you can listen carefully: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeCHiUe1et0&feature=player_embedded#

Social Security is not an investment program unless you think of it as investing in other elderly citizens. It is an entitlement that you are entitled to once you reach a certain age, dependent on your contributions during your working life. Assuming the program doesn't evaporate, some of us (me for example) will collect far more than we ever put into it, as did my father, my mother, and most of the previous generation. For others who choose option 1) for the second set of solutions, who cares...you'll be dead. So I'll try my hand at my own question starting with Social Security. Solutions: 1) die 2) eliminate the cap 3) establish a means test 4) abolish it and adopt an 'every-man-for-himself' approach (this was the Bush option of private investment...sounds GREAT in retrospect doesn't it?) 5) any combination of the above except for 1) and 4) because those pretty much take care of everything. Same answer for other entitlements. Health-care: 1) die quickly 2) do nothing (every-man-for-himself again) 3) make all politicians seek private coverage or else no coverage. I am firmly in the belief that we've already chosen option number 2. We chose it in 1993, maybe before that. We're just too pig-headed to admit it. Edited part: Responding to Eisely's following message - man you got THAT right! Low Expectations/Less Disappointment(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Sounds like an interesting exercise. Anyone who thinks Obama should solve something, or for that matter many things, should choose two of the big problems that face this country and then describe how to fix those in less than four years. This might be fun. Let's see: Economy War Debt Healthcare Environmental Protection Unemployment Energy Education Entitlements (Medicare, Social Security, etc.) other suggestions?

The well-placed lure is so enticing...I rise to the bait. (or was that a thrown shoe?) "Everything must revolve around us." No, that is your spin, your attempt to state something I didn't say in a manner that you hope casts the greatest possible aspersion on whatever I didn't say. (This is where another person might accuse you of lying ) I said nothing like that. Whatever it is you mean by 'everything' merely revolves and evolves and we are part of it. No sense of purpose or position, no intent. Merely there. I'm open to a clear distinction between magic and miracles because I don't understand a distinction. My null hypothesis is that there is no distinction. Provide me with clear, understandable evidence to reject the null. Incidentally, are you a Ron Hubbard follower? Just for fun, there was this a while back: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_education_edblog/2008/07/ucf-student-who.html All this for a cookie? Edited part: Mr. Boyce, in the spirit of humor, I'll quote my wife to provide an alternative view, "Scum rises to the top."(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"... and you still ate the whole thing?" Yep. If you'll pay a little more attention to what you commonly think of as 'food' you'll understand that many of us eat things that are far less palatable or acceptable, except we just don't think about it. In the case of my sausage sandwich, you are repelled mostly by an idea...not on a strictly rational basis. Just a 'taste': http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=2&th&emc=th Read the whole article, you'll never think about hamburger the same way again. The Eucharist thing is also just an idea. True believers really do believe this 'magic' but on a strictly rational basis, it is merely rather tasteless crackers and wine (or grape juice). It'd be a hoot if the wine was Mogen David. Bon Apptit

Yes, a tragic loss and devastating for those families and more. Calico, those deceptive voices don't make us listen. We choose to accept statements as fact and if they are in error it is also our choice if we ignore evidence to the contrary. Yes, if lies are shouted often and loudly enough, there is a tendency to listen to them. But it is incumbent on us to put them to the test or not to. And we have made those choices freely.

Gwd, I'm still up for a BBQ lunch sometime, BTW. The wedge you describe is not of Obama's making. I could have said the same for Bush II at the beginning of his administration (see my post from 2003), but he blew that later. The wedge is there because we, the people, put it there and we are divided because we choose to be divided. The guy at the top can be the smartest and most resourceful guy there is, but none of that will count unless we want to unite.

John my friend, I guess I am trying to put this in perspective. In the grand scheme of wasted capital (read, resources in general), this ranks pretty low on my scale. If I grant you every point that you make (and I mostly agree with your sentiment), this particular thing is nothing compared to the ABSENCE of clear, realistic, or effective action with regard to other issues that really DO affect us and the world. Compared to the pressing problems of today, problems that have been building for decades with little or no effective action, Obama possibly sees, maybe for the first time, that he is confronted with things that are insoluble or else have solutions that will rip the heart out of any political entity that promotes them...because they will be too painful to the electorate. I had a faint hope that Obama might luck into some solutions but I see none. I suspect he sees the same thing. The problems are so huge that there is no mass of political capital that can overcome them. So he tweaks and twiddles as we spiral deeper and deeper. His political opposition just helps move it along more quickly. Forget the 'carbon footprint' of AF1, or the time invested in the Olympics. It is nothing but a small token of what we squandered over the past decades and continue to squander because we are 1) ignorant or 2) indifferent or 3) delusional. Whatever, the reason is irrelevant because these things are going to catch up to us eventually. Worse, they are going to catch up to our children and grandchildren. And consume them in the manner of the beast we have created. The trip to Rio, the Olympics, not much different from a weekend at Camp David or hunting for quail in Texas. Twiddling. I hope I'm wrong about all this. Obama is a nice guy, an honorable guy. I think he's going to fail. I think that in that failure he'll still look good compared to his predecessor. But I think that there is no way to fix things regardless of who is there. I'm sorry for him and for us but mostly for our children.

******sound of snoring****** Be nice to argue about something important maybe?

Gwd, you have no idea how much fun it is to strip them of their illusions and then watch their responses. As for sacred cows, I'm feeding a student group a BBQ lunch next week. Pork. I'll make sure the lightning rods are in good order. Edited Part: Oops, I guess that should have read, 'sacred pigs'. Maybe I need to include some BBQ beef. Has nothing to do with anything but I just remembered that one time I was eating a great sausage sandwich in Philadelphia and bit into a mangled wedding band in the sausage. I'm fairly certain that I had eaten at least part of a human finger. Still have the gold, maybe I should sell it. But it was a good sandwich.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

That was probably a typo. He probably meant, 'ferals' or possibly 'fedoras'. Anyway, if they can't at least make a badge out of metal (aluminum would suffice, brass better) I'm not interested. I guess my job, in some sense, is to encourage students to heresy when it comes to ideas...to give them the tools and encouragement to question everything. Blasphemy, I suppose, would be to openly suggest that our mascot was the bastard child of the opposing football team or something like that. Maybe I still don't 'get' it. Ideas don't have mass and they can't be carried in a bucket, nor do they have feelings. They can be attacked and no one is injured as a result. And if they are wrong or mistaken ideas, then those ideas NEED to be attacked for the good of society. I just can't understand why bodily injury should be meted out to someone as a result. Satan is still a myth, purely imaginary. If someone cuts my tongue out as a result, at least I'll be able to do a really good Monica Lewinsky impersonation. Edited part: Dgogone tpyos.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Regarding teaching to the test, would you rather not have a standardized means of assessment? Any time there is an exit exam or some test of this nature, there will be a tendency to teach subjects that the authorities have judged important by virtue of their existence on the test. This is unavoidable and I'm not sure it's all that bad. Did your son wreck the car as a result? Does he know how to drive? If there is a problem it may be in the test itself. A well-designed test will not lend itself easily to shortcuts or lazy teaching. A shallow, or sloppy test will make it easy to pass with minimal instruction. This depends a lot on the standards that are established by each state or locality. Weak standards do not support outstanding scholarship. To be sure, you can still have weak students in the presence of rigorous standards, but their scores will reflect this. And those weak students will have a better understanding that they need to practice cleaning toilets. On the other hand, strong standards and rigorous testing makes it more difficult to compete with the apparent scores from states whose examinations are less rigorous. This mix of students arrives at my institution and the first year or so relieves some of them of their illusions the way their state might have done back when there was still time to do something about it. And losing that scholarship after the first semester is a showstopper for most of them. Welcome to reality, sort of.