packsaddle

Joni, I will address the sense of angst you just expressed. This situation was not of your making. You are not responsible for its creation. The response is beyond your control. Professionals must take the lead here. You merely need to step aside and offer assistance if needed. Any personal feelings you are having, you are having out of your choice. You do control those feelings. The phrase that comes to my mind is 'objective detachment'. This is what we feel when we're stitching up a cut on another person. We insert that needle and suture and watch him wince but we go ahead anyway...we are setting aside our feelings of sympathetic pain in order to do what needs to be done. Your feelings are not going to hasten the solution to this problem and, if you let them take control, they might just hamper your interactions. Don't let that happen. One alternative way to view this is as a learning experience, not just for you but for all the boys as well. Figure out how to make something positive out of it. Another alternative that may or may not work is to try to find some humor somewhere in all this. Think of it as living the dream...Edgar Allan Poe's. Come on, now...that DID bring a little smile, didn't it?

Heh, heh, OGE, what was that sign Harry Truman had on his desk, "If you can't stand the heat, be willing to pay high taxes" or something like that.

We have to drive 4 miles r/t for that milk and I don''t come close to thinking this is rural. I pay about $1200 property taxes for a 4000 sq.ft. home. The streets are nicely-paved and lighted. The neighborhood is safe and family oriented. Public transport comes within a couple miles of our home (at the milk, actually) and goes through several towns. It is free to ride (paid out of taxes and grants). My friend, you need to move South and leave that heathen yankeeland. BTW, there are quite a few former Brits living in our neighborhood and in the nearby sailing club.

Yeah, I agree with Beavah. Sorry I didn''t notice this thread sooner but it has moved quickly. Joni, I have never seen anything close to this messed up. There are people who get PAID to handle these situations. Let them.

OGE, you still feeling the bruises? Anyway while I strongly advocate his political demise, as I mentioned in another thread, once he goes back to his natural state, the alcohol and drugs will probably take care of everything else. I wonder what it would take to switch to a parliamentary system? Probably impossible for all practical purposes I guess.

I guess I''m focused on being able to boot him out more quickly. As it is we''re stuck with our bad choice until some arbitrarily chosen calendar date rolls around. If the PM knew he was up for recall at any time, he might just be a little more responsive to the people. Bush''s poodle was put down neatly and quickly. I''m envious of that ability.

Scrap the whole thing and go to a parliamentary system so we can quickly dump a deadhead like we have now.

I have to tell you, I''ve watched that thing several times and I''m in awe. ...and deeply thankful she married someone else.

Brent, Throw in the Bush daughters and I don't think much of any of it. Happy? I'm elated that we've finally won the war. Now we can turn the whole mess over to the successful Iraqi democracy and get out immediately. Thanks for the great news. I am astounded that you would even mention AQI. I remember a similar claim by the military back in 2006 as well, and "fatal blow" before that, and "mission accomplished"...oops, there was that "bring it on" thing. You know, don't you, that Al-Qaeda wasn't significant in Iraq until after we invaded. Or do you have evidence to the contrary? Do you know the difference between AQI and Al-Qaeda? Have you read the report that came out last February? You know, the one that outed the failed attempts by Feith, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld to make a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda to justify the war? What about Al-Qaeda everywhere else? Have we defeated them as well? The only digs of significance are those into which thousands of our good men and women are being planted. I, for one, hope they end soon. Beavah, I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding fiscal policy. But this is not the result of Dubya alone. We as a nation condoned a feeding frenzy and expansion of government that exceeded anything the old tax and spend people could have dreamed. This happened during the Reagan years, as David Stockman eventually admitted, but they had an actual agenda. This was merely "grab as much as we can while we can". The recent book by Greenspan lays it out pretty well but I guess that as Greenspan says, as the President, Dubya could have controlled it. He didn't. But then he had a history of excess, didn't he? We trolled a bottle of Wild Turkey through Texas and caught a President. Heck, we could have saved a lot of money, caught that one with MD 20-20 or a pint of rosie with a skirt, maybe a little blow on the side.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Brent, Pollutant trading, as a concept, originated in 1920 and economists have promoted a "cap and trade" mechanism as the way to manage and reduce emissions for many years. But until the SO2 allowance market was created by the 1990 Clean Air Act, the concept had not been market tested. It is far from a mature practice but it clearly engages market economics as a means of managing a wide variety of environmental impacts. I am a little surprised to discover your resistance to it (I''m feeling like our positions have reversed, somehow, you do know this is a "conservative" idea?). The idea is gaining wider application and, yes, there are both successes and failures. The carbon trading idea is just part of the larger concept and those who engage in it form a system in which the free market will work its magic under the unseen hand of economics. This is hardly a "liberal" approach. I hope you see that. Dubya: I don''t hope he crawls back into the bottle, I expect him to. It''s a life-long addiction for him and he was a drunk until he was 39. Then after a conversation one evening with Billy Graham he saw the light. Right! I almost fell for it. I actually hoped that he could, would, unite the country. I was willing to give up the whole election thing if he would just follow through on his promises. He failed tragically...for all of us. But I admit, for me it is personal. A drunk nearly killed my family. About the same age. He measured 0.35 BAC and was laced with Xanax. And he entered a last minute not-guilty plea, entering the court with the same smirking swagger that Dubya has. He had no insurance. We paid dearly and he went to Oklahoma to attend flight school. Not even a slap on the wrist. We allowed a drunk to lead the country and look where he led us. For the sake of my family, I know we did as much as we could to rebuild after our personal tragedy. The country, on the other hand, put this guy at the wheel. We knew the risks. We sent him back again. What arrogance! So now we are paying dearly. Again. For one more failed drunk. Yes, I expect him to crawl back into the bottle. It''s a perfect fit for a life of deception and failure. Al Gore, on the other hand, is smiling with his big house, private jet, comfortable life with all kinds of successes coming his way, and yes, the little statues and the Nobel Peace Prize. He is a celebrity everywhere he goes. He is doing the one thing that burns his detractors more than anything else...he''s living well. Good for him.

I applaud dubya''s personal efforts to cut costs. They make a lot of sense, especially the part about water conservation...in Texas. His personal life is one thing. Public policy is quite another. Here, the two (Bush and Gore) are in agreement. They both acknowledge, indirectly, that it''s all about money. Administration policy tends to promote a free-market approach to the economy and to environmental problems. In this approach, the costs will eventually cause the market to compensate in some way, perhaps in reduced resources or resource use. Gore is actually practicing this in his personal life, with the carbon trading thing. Unless he has broken some law, he is, in fact merely exploiting the economic system that the Administration has put in place. In this sense, he is embracing it on a very personal level. Why would any good Republican find fault in this? My answer is because he is Al Gore. The same Al Gore who got the most votes. The same one who has gotten the limelight for award after award and who promotes an environmental cause. Bush on the other hand offers a stark contrast in failure after dismal, tragic failure. Criticism of Al Gore, really, is heightened because of this stinging contrast: bad enough for Gore''s good life successes and much worse for the failure of the man who is supposed to be the champion of those same critics. While the critics turn their attention to Gore, he can take pleasure in showing his wealth and accolades. At the same time, those critics are turning their backs to Bush. Even worse, they all (even dubya) know it''s over. There''s no way that those failures are going to go away. They''re going to haunt this nation for generations. They had their chance and they didn''t measure up...and they know it. Gore is smiling. Dubya is waiting, maybe hoping, for the best thing left that can happen...oblivion. That oblivion, if dubya''s smart enough to even sense it at all, is well-deserved. But if he''ll just go back to his drunken habits, he''ll never notice.

"...do you need a passport to get back into PA after a visit to the Garden State?" Heh, heh, not if you got your prophylactic innoculations before you went there. And her-who-must-be-obeyed doesn't mind the smell of ethylene chloride. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Congratulations meamemg, I hope you will quietly reflect on your accomplishment with a personal sense of honor for the rest of your life. This is just the beginning.

If, for the sake of argument, I accepted all of Gore''s critics'' claims regarding his personal energy usage, none of those things would have any bearing on the ideas he is stating. If you want to call him a hypocrit, fire away. I hope that same label is applied to every other capitalist who ever embraces an environmental issue - from Bill Gates on down. But I can''t help wondering if such criticism isn''t really just envy of a man whose wealth came easily, for whom life is rich and affordable (and he pays his bills), and whose life accomplishments vastly exceed those of his critics. I''d bet that BSA would lavish attention on him if he indicated an interest in helping scouting. Or am I wrong about that? I''d bet that BSA would lavish attention on Jimmie Carter if he indicated an interest in helping scouting. Possibly Bill Clinton. Anyone disagree?

Ahem, that "ditto" part is sort of troubling for some reason...or do I remind you, somehow, of the "Bald Ego" himself?

Firstpusk, I presented that link to the forums quite a while back (your followup link to Gern was great, BTW!). While I agree with you, the response that I got was that those who were critical of Gore still interpreted his interview the same way that the Republican strategists did when they interpreted it the way Ed does. I think Ed really believes what he says. The Republican strategists obviously reworded it to make Gore look bad for political purposes. It worked. Al Gore is not a monument to intellect (unless compared to Bush). He was born into a life of privilege and with a silver spoon in his mouth. He went to private academies and ivy league schools. He is not a man "of the people" in that respect, and hardly represents the persona of the Tennessee "Davy Crockett" man. However, Al Gore is sincere. He is not stupid. He does and says what he thinks is correct and to some extent, I think that is what ticks off his political opposition the most. That and the fact that he lives well and can just shrug them off. (I could say the same for Jimmie Carter) He got the Nobel and the other awards. And he got the vote of the MAJORITY of the voters in 2000. I suspect he can sleep well enough knowing these things. But for him to continue to try to make a difference when he really doesn't have to lift a finger for the rest of his life...now THAT is a real difference. And, I might add, should be embraced by scouters as exhibiting real scout spirit.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Trev, ahem, that would have been Jane and Dan, I think. Brent, I do appreciate the fact that you read those reports. And I know you and Trevorum are both conscientious in trying to get things right. So I used you both as an example for the rest of us. Thanks. OGE, If you are the one who deleted that duplicate thread I just started about moms...thanks.

In case you haven''t see this before, I thought I''d share this for all the moms out there. My students loved it.

A CO with 15,000 families! Wow! In our area that''s larger than the entire town, by maybe several times...including the college students! And I think there are about 12 churches in this town, maybe more if I count the little ones way out on the fringe. I''d say three packs, easily. Unless the age structure is weighted heavily toward the ''over-the-hill'' side. You could also be your own school district and maybe start a small college. WOW!

...trying one more time... Anyone who reads this thread from the start nearly HAS to accept evolution...of threads at least, heh, heh. But the title of the thread is designed to inflame, so congratulations! Completely successful! OGE, I agree completely. I would likewise note that while some of us may disagree with comments made by Ed or Brent or others, it does little service to our ideas when we attack those individuals rather than providing well-reasoned counter-arguments. If they have their eyes closed to alternative views, rubbing their noses in it will not likely open their eyes. Yeah, the film is a popularization of ideas that are politically and socially sensitive - and (depending on which question is addressed) the ideas themselves are still maturing scientifically. I would not show the film to my class except as a tool for real discussion (which isn''t happening in this thread). Most of the evidence given in the film are readily available in more technically rigorous forms. Those are the sources of information to which I direct students. I urge the participants in this thread to do the same. Go ahead, view the film if you must. But take the points that Al Gore makes and then continue by doing the homework. Go to the original literature. Read that and the followup literature and later studies. Don''t succumb to a ''bumper sticker'' level of argument. The ideas being debated are more worthy than that. IMHO, If anyone rejects the idea that the global climate is changing, I suggest they are either engaging in a self-deception or else they are terribly uninformed (I really AM trying to be nice). If anyone rejects the idea that the energy balance of the earth is changing, same suggestion. Find a time machine. You''ll be much happier in the year 800 or thereabouts, back to the days of Theodoric of York. (sorry, couldn''t resist) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K80T-6zhG9Q "Perhaps I''ve been wrong to blindly follow the traditions and superstitions of the past centuries. Maybe we barbers should test those assumptions analytically. To experimentation and scientific method. Perhaps this scientific method could be extended to other fields of learning. Like natural sciences, art, arcitecture, navigation, perhaps I could lead the way to a new age. An age of rebirth. A Renissance.! .....Nah!" If anyone rejects the hypothesis that the changing energy balance of the earth is causing a net increase of the average energy (heat) content of the earth, I''m open to that outcome. But I ask for the evidence to the contrary. I would like to examine it. So far, the mass of evidence points to an increase. If anyone rejects the hypothesis that net changes in the energy balance are influenced by human actions, again I would like to see the evidence on which that rejection is based. Again, the reasoning for human influence is sound. The evidence is still accumulating and eventually, the evidence will allow us to determine how much influence different factors have, including human influences. As long as anyone merely expresses skepticism or doubt and remains open to new evidence, ready to reject ANY hypothesis on the basis of good evidence...then I agree with them. But in this thread we have the following: "Those who deny the fact of global climate change are, by and large, the same as those who deny the fact of biological evolution. It''s the same mind-set." and then... "Trev, Same as those who believe humans are causing GW are, by and large, part of the "blame America first" crowd, who think we are to blame for the 9/11 attacks and for all of the world''s problems." Shana Alexander and James Kilpatrick couldn''t have done it better. OK, I admit it...this stuff is fun. But Trev is wrong in painting all skeptics as creationist liars. And Brent, who capably takes the hit and then hits back, takes things up a notch, using patriotism. Guys, you are both expressing the SAME kind of prejudice. And you''re not exactly covering yourselves with glory. Why not just discuss the actual evidence? "It''s interesting that some of us are willing to look at both sides of an issue, while others stick to their point no matter what evidence is shown." Funscout, As true as this is, this is not interesting. Rather, it is sad. It is also why we (collectively) sometimes take so long to do something right and why sometimes we NEVER get it right. It is tragic. The way to absolution is to actually engage in the science. We can all do this. Science isn''t shackled to religion. Everyone is free to engage in it. It does require some work, though, and blind faith isn''t welcome. The original literature on global climate change is mostly online and available. The actual evidence, in some cases, can be downloaded from public databases. We should set aside the bumper stickers and be willing to do the really hard work of making a decision based on substance, not hype...from either ''side''. ...maybe it will go through this time....

The way someone recently explained this to me, I am ashamed to say, is that "active" is a designation needed to justify funding requests based on enrollment. The designation has everything with numbers and not much with actually being active. This piece of news has greatly dimmed my outlook in scouting. I knew this stuff was going on elsewhere but I naively thought this area was better than that. I mentioned to the fellow that what he described amounted to ''cooking the books'' - a lie - and he responded that it was business as usual...and has been for a while. I am very, very unhappy to have heard this. And sorry I hadn''t heard it sooner. It makes me ashamed and I''m thinking I may have to respond in some way. I''m thinking things over.

When I was CM, I never turned a boy away for any reason. I always found some accomodation. And I had angry parents on several occasions. I always tried to view them as concerned parents, looking out for their children and I was able to understand their emotions. But as mentioned, there may be more to this...

OK, yeah I see your point. And you''re right, Sean Penn is typecast for this one. I''ll modify my decision and wait for YOUR review. If you think it''s worth seeing, I''ll take a gander. Thanks.

I agree with Eisely. I read the book a few years back and because of that I will not view the movie. I won''t rent it. I see nothing redeeming about this story except, perhaps, as a model NOT to followed by someone else. It IS tragic and the whole thing was not necessary. Nothing heroic about thinking errors piled on thinking errors.

Eamonn, you have such a wonderful, loving heart and tender place for children and creatures. I am deeply sympathetic. We have both dog and cats (and glass lizard, fish, python...and I saw a mouse in the garage last night ) and we also share your feelings toward creatures, maybe not the uninvited ones. Our dog is a mutt (the best kind, IMHO) and she came right out of Sesame Street. Incredibly kind, loving, and gentle. But she''s really old now and I know we''ll be sharing your experience in the near future. She has had a wonderful dog''s life and she still takes a run through the mud in the creek once in a while. Fortunately, after three tries, she finally learned that ALL skunks can do the same thing. But now, she mostly just stays close and settles on the rug in front of the fireplace (which I will light soon, if the cool weather stays around.) The cats are siblings and fairly young so we''ll be with them for quite a while longer. The non-mammals are mostly novelties and, of course, don''t return much affection. I do enjoy watching the koi gobbling food from the water surface. If I wave a fingertip in the water they''ll come and nibble it. The glass lizard is getting old and I know it will become a museum specimen within the next year, probably...got the forms ready. The python, well, what can I say, we keep it away from the other pets. I appreciate it as well - a reminder that under the surface, life is cold and without conscience if it''s left to creatures like that. But life goes on and times like this are for celebration of that fact - with memories of lives previous and thoughts of those to come.