packsaddle

OGE I'm a little more charitable. If you are suggesting GW enjoys an impish glee in our reactions, you may be correct. However, I am willing to give him other human qualities as well...having a good heart and best interest in other people, even if in his own unique way. If you suggest that he is a jester, then I note that to do that well requires a certain wisdom. At any rate, I'm not going to pass that kind of judgment on GW because I really don't know him well enough...and...once in a while he makes a very good point. So I try to take him seriously - at the same time being prepared for a good laugh. Edited part: Vicki, point taken. I sure hope that's a grin and not a grimace. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Watch Wachovia, they're also upside down. There are even more out there.

Hi Vicki, Before you and GW charge off on a thread-hijack, I will offer a couple of observations. First, as you might imagine, I've made remarks similar to GW's. Most of the time they are taken with the humor with which they were intended. However, and second, I have made a large number of observations of young people at the college level (I'm guessing numbers in the thousands now). It is clear that women are better prepared for intellectual demands at this level, if one considers their grades as the objective metric. For example, I recently served on a selection committee to identify the top undergraduate researchers for national awards. The selection process proceeded without reference to names or gender...all we had was ID numbers. At the end of the process, ALL of the top undergraduate research candidates were women. Nearly all of the undergraduates engaged in this kind of extracurricular activity were women. Moreover women are disproportionately represented in nearly every undergraduate program...after the first year... with the exception of engineering (and there they are becoming prominent in post-graduate programs). I mention that this is after the first year because that is the time when a disproportionate number of men lose their scholarships or flunk out. I can't make any conclusions for the reasons this is happening and I suspect the reasons are many. However, when I survey the bright, ambitious young women I know personally, numbering in the scores, so full of prospect and talent, of those I see engaged to be married, they are almost always engaged to men whom I think by nearly any metric are inferior to the women both in terms of intellect and maturity. The only hypothesis I care to offer is that these women chose the best mates they could find thus hardly offering evidence to contradict GW. On the other hand, my observations are confined to the South, and there might be some bias (see H.L. Mencken for reasoning). I add that my wife (and mostly likely GW's) also was no exception. It sounds like he knows himself quite well. But regardless of the biological or social reasons for these things, you must grant the possibility that GW might accidentally be correct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26bailout.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin I have to tell you, I've never even heard of anything the like of this. Words are not adequate.

I guess this thread should be titled, "Leave it to Beavah". Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll skulk back into my hole now. Nope, not so fast, I need to offer a quote that nolesrule might enjoy: "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple--and wrong." H.L. Mencken I can only wonder how he would respond to the news of these previous couple of weeks. Back to the hole...

hot_foot_eagle, Yeah, we've had similar discussions during YPT. The trainer always repeats the same stuff you heard and the audience always discusses who to notify first. The police or social services people (whoever) always come out on top. No one (not even the trainer) seems to worry about the order of notification as long as the SE isn't blind-sided by something that happened days ago and just now found out about it by reading the paper or hearing it on TV. But I don't think this is an example of a situation like Beavah was discussing originally.

OGE, as you say, the one thing that will please me more than seeing a bunch of these guys doing hard time in prison...is realistic and lasting solutions to the mess we're dealing with. I have to admit, I'm not optimistic about either option.

OGE, I'd say that the Republicans in congress as well as the Bush administration are responsible for what happened to the national debt. The tax cuts, the profligate spending, etc. and yes, the Iraq war. I guess in a broader sense, the American people are the ones who are responsible. We bought into the flawed policies and lies that with which we were confronted. So, if it makes you feel better, you can blame me. The house of cards that threatens our financial system was built over many administrations so while Bush didn't build the whole thing, he built part of it and he is certainly the one in the driver seat ("I'm the decider") for nationalization. I also blame each and every agent who 'winked' at rules and qualifications for new debt, thus allowing this crisis to build even more quickly. I also blame every person who sought a loan who knew or even suspected they didn't have the wherewithall to repay it. But where all those are culprits in my mind, I blame this administration if they lay that debt on my children and their children, and their children.

The way I understood the original post was that Beavah was asking whether or not such rules carried a 'moral imperative'? That's a bit different.

Or less, perhaps. Look at what Bush did to the national debt in less than 8 years. Debt is 'devilishly' easy to accrue. Whether it's bad or not depends on the ability or willingness to repay.

Well, I guess I can honestly claim to have changed some of my political views. At one time I thought Biden was the best candidate for President. Didn't get that chance, though, so I dropped back and hoped he'd be picked for Secretary of State. OK, so now I'm sort of glad THAT didn't happen. Biden has a great mind but sometimes it's disengaged from his tongue. I like him for VP. But, then, WOW! Tina Fey is really hot! (Vicki, you out there somewhere?) Edited part: Oh, all right...the debate. If they had made a joint statement I could have considered that to be politically neutral. No way - the separate statements, no matter how they were intended. It takes two to make a debate, though. If McCain doesn't want to debate, then there won't be one. If there is, I'll listen.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

If I am to believe the fed chair and treasury secretary, last Thursday we were on the brink of an economic cataclysm, an abyss so apocalyptically deep and dark that they have not been publicly open with how bad it could have been...had not AIG and others been nationalized. And this haunts me a bit because of my long-standing view that this administration has taken the country over a cliff...the driver at this point is almost not relevant. And in his farewell speech at the UN, Bush himself referred to a "house of cards" - I could hardly believe he used these words so often applied to his administration. Anyway, I DO have a vision of how bad it can be in the abyss. And I do not want any of us, least of all our children and their children, to suffer that fate. The nagging question I am left with is if we DO nationalize these institutions, debts, and investments, will this do anything more than build a taller house of cards? Will it be anything more than another postponement of a fate made even worse for the delay? As my mother used to say, maybe "it's time to take our medicine."

Trev, you'll notice that up to now I've resisted this thread but I want to offer you some reassurance. When I lecture, in the larger classes I sometimes encounter a 'troll', a student whose intent is to be argumentative for the sake of wasting time or some similar purpose. I have found the best approach to be never to assume anything about their motives. Rather, I try to respond sincerely as if the questions are themselves sincere. In time, trolls eventually reveal themselves or convert to real students. Other students help with this through peer pressure but that's not the same for a forum like this. So I support your engagement in this conversation. That said, Jei64822, regarding your statement, "I apologize for lying, but...." As Fritz Perls used to say, everything in front of the 'but' is B.S. Once you've compromised your honesty, it is almost impossible to regain others' confidence. And yours is suspect in my mind.

Beavah, I agree. I guess I engaged in civil disobedience when I refused to swear on a Bible in order to be registered to vote in NC. The registrar informed me that in NC, "you can't vote if you don't believe in God". And I was told that by law I HAD to swear on a Bible. I responded that whatever my beliefs are, it is no business of the state of NC. It was a slow day for me so I waited for the head guy to meet with me. After a brief conversation he backed down. I guess he broke the law too. And then I voted...for Richard Nixon. Sad, yes, but it had to be told. And in some sense that vote, in retrospect, is difficult to defend as an ethical decision. I guess BSA overlooked my criminal past when I applied for membership. My view of a customer is someone who pays money or some other thing of value in return for a good or service...from a vendor, BSA and the unit being the vendor. In this sense the families are the customers and the volunteers are merely tourguides, grocery clerks, or perhaps ticket punchers, some of us better trained than others.

Bob White wrote: "Lots of people have been arrested who didn't break laws. If arrest was the same as guilt then there would be no need for lawyers." So I have to inform you: 1963 - "On Good Friday, April 12, King is arrested with Ralph Abernathy by Police Commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor for demonstrating without a permit." 1967 - "The Supreme Court upholds a conviction of MLK by a Birmingham court for demonstrating without a permit." http://www.lib.lsu.edu/hum/mlk/srs216.html I'm only sorry the memories of some are so short. And then Bob White wrote, "To suggest that the the laws of segration are somehow on ethical par with the advancement policies or uniform policies etc. of the BSA is inane." Assuming you're talking about 'segregation', I agree that the importance of one to society is greater than the other. However, I didn't suggest such a thing. YOU mentioned MLK and Ghandi as examples of persons who engaged in civil disobedience. Here's what YOU wrote about them: "They did not break laws, they chose ways to protest and stay within the laws." They didn't. I just gave examples of how you were wrong about Ghandi and MLK. My inference is that civil disobedience involves...DISOBEDIENCE. According to your reasoning, Ghandi and MLK "both are criminals and both lack the ability to make ethical decisions." And I find that to be just incredible.

I for one am joyous to see Bob White's embrace of civil disobedience. After all, "The term civil disobedience was coined by Henry David Thoreau in his 1848 essay to describe his refusal to pay the state poll tax implemented by the American government to prosecute a war in Mexico and to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/ Ghandi most certainly did break laws (making salt comes to mind). http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/dandi.htm And if MLK didn't break any laws why was he arrested so many times? One of the galvanizing events in the Civil Rights movement was a crime - Rosa Parks's refusal to yield her seat to a white person. On the other hand, the equation of a violent criminal guilty of taking human life to someone guilty of petit theft is just incredible.

My Kevlar 'yak was way more than that and no, you can't borrow it. I've seen some good Royalex canoes wrapped so that one hand could grab both ends. We take them out, put them in the sun, let them straighten up, maybe put some presses inside to help, and replace the wood and trim, and keep on paddling. It leaves permanent creases but hey, they're eventually going to be beat to pieces anyway.

I agree with Beavah and I have to say I hope this trend is making him as uncomfortable as it is me. And I also liked the response by jet526. We had friends a few years ago who had to move out of their home for brief time (few weeks) during the summer so we loaned them our home while we were off on a trip. Their kids did a little damage but nothing we didn't expect. And they were so appreciative that they hired some persons to clean the house when they left. They left about a week before we returned. The cleaning crew unplugged the freezer to use the outlet. We returned to a very stinky freezer. We had to throw everything out. Hundreds of dollars of food. We made a quick decision about our friendship...and said nothing. And I have never regretted it. If I loan a canoe to someone who is going on a river, I make a calculation as to whether I can live without the canoe. I guess it just depends on who we are. Edited part: typo(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Always glad to help, Vicki. Hope the day is going better for you.

I'll give it a try. Bob's rule of thumb might have been poorly worded. If he had written that unethical persons are likely to be 'flexible' with other persons' rules, I might agree. And in that case, showing that ethical persons are also 'flexible' would not be a contradiction. So the worst criticism I could offer would be that it is a weak or meaningless statement and in fact, you can probably find such 'flexibility' in a variety of persons. There IS a further problem in that some might take the rule of thumb to imply that 'flexibility' automatically connotes lack of ethics. It would not. Of course the statement suffers from subjective personal judgements as well: what is ethical? What is 'flexible'? just two examples.

Eamonn, sounds like good basic food to me. Except I recently gave up all alcoholic beverages (stomach problems). Don't tempt me. Beavah I like your approach. The only time I ever called the real cops on a friend was when I couldn't stop him from driving drunk. He's dead now, liver failure. I've called the police a few times on people I didn't know...thieves mostly.

Aren't we all, my roadkill friend, aren't we all?

Eamonn, I certainly enjoyed the way you explained your view and I think I can agree with most of it. I am left with a question though. What kind of beverage is it that you think is odd? I'd be willing to give it a try, perhaps merely for the sake of oddness. Or maybe that would raise an odd eyebrow, whatever that is.

GoldWinger, You CAN tote your piece on commercial flights. It just has to be secured in a locked case in your checked baggage. At least that's what I do. It does depend on the airline but most of them have similar regs. Edited part: "So the first policeman of a Scout or Scouter is the person themself. That is an obligation freely and voluntarily undertaken." I can accept this as long as the person being policed IS the person himself. I see a problem if I, for example, am expected to police other members.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Just to follow-up on current events, the Bush administration has bought into the bail-out fad completely. We may end up with an additional $1 trillion (with a 'T') of debt just for what we decided to do this week or, as Eisley noted, we might make money. The implications are described in this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21gret.html?_r=1&oref=slogin We may have to redo this with a much larger bump: