packsaddle

Thanks Calico, you saved me the trouble. I don''t exactly agree with that 35 year old age thing. Me, I think that as long as we choose to elect apocalyptically stupid people to office, why limit the candidates by age?

Ed, I want you to sit down for this. I agree with you. There are ''closed'' troops in this area as well and as long as you keep it simple, there is no explanation needed. Just decline.

An example of a "denominational neutral pray" please? ED-ited part: "but if every public school day would start with a student led prayer of their choice, that would be fine. That should cover everyone. I might not like some of the prayers, but then other might not like prayers I do. And that''s OK!" Would 'devil worshipers' be included in this?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

OK, I agree that we may not use the tools the same way. We may not use the same tools to achieve the same mission. But it IS nice to know that we have the tools there in the toolbox, ready for use. And if we never use them or if we don''t know what they are,....I see that as a problem. We might miss what the mission is if we think we don''t need to use some of the tools. And we might not be successful if we have a clear mission but don''t know how to use the tools. To me this is one problem with local option. While I support local option with regard to membership and leadership, I see and appreciate the need for the methods - the tools if you will. The mission is what distinguishes the Boy Scout from other endeavors. But the methods largely define the program and help us to deliver the program. Assuming I read Brent's post correctly, this thread mostly seems to be about the uniform. One distinction might help here. There is a distinction between the uniform as a program concept and THE uniform as a rigid requirement. The official uniform is THE ultimate standard. The uniform as a concept is an idea which achieves the function or purpose of THE uniform. One way to address this distinction for the 8th method is to rigidly require THE uniform. This can work. Another way to address the distinction is to meet the conceptual goal. I think some would argue that as long as the function or purpose of the method is achieved, the way the method is used is flexible. Personally, given the changes to the uniform over the years, it is obvious that BSA has been flexible over the long time. To me this is less a question of virtue, based on how the uniform is used, but more a matter of whether or not the boys get the benefit of a good program. If they get that benefit, in or out of THE uniform, I see some virtue to it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Venividi, perhaps the answer to your question is the same as the reason that loudspeakers are used to announce prayers from minarettes in Islamic regions. Perhaps Christian fundamentalists actually want the same things that Moslems want. Perhaps they want the Christian equivalents of the Islamic madrassas. Perhaps their own private schools aren''t enough. I don''t know. I do know I would want any prayer of mine to remain private and not open to public scrutiny. There was a guy who used to show up on a corner in this town from time to time to exercise his right of free speech. He used those occasions to proclaim, over his bullhorn, that most of the students going in and out of the bars were going to hell, or something like that. Once in a while a drunk would try to engage him in debate, sometimes he would be offered a beer, mostly he was ignored. I often wondered if he would have been happier if we had a minarette he could climb instead of his milk crate. Perhaps this is just one more matter of perspective. I wonder why he stopped coming here? Maybe he gave up on us. Oh well, it HAS been getting warmer lately. ED..ited part: Heh, heh, Trevorum...I have a much more satisfying way to view the Ed/Merlyn thing. Merlyn is genuinely concerned about this issue. Ed tries to deny this but he doth protest too much! He is just baiting Merlyn by pretending not to 'get' these things. And it works beautifully. Trouble is, Ed has been so successful that he reeled you and a few others in as well and now you are just flopping around in the live well. I can just hear Ed chuckling with every cast. Heh, heh, great job, Ed! And don't deny it...you can't prove that you are NOT doing this, can you? (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

A friend just emailed me this link: http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070930/OPINION/709300309/1008/OPINION&GID=pg7jpOwATwcyQFoXN9I6LOJ3FTjGo0Up2N0ct4XbMRw%3D Although I agree with the idea of the author, the last paragraph has a problem. "Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens deserve the full and equal rights and protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. No religious teaching should deny them that. Religion-based bigotry must end now and forever." The problem is that its meaning depends on the reader''s understanding of what "bigotry" is. And that is highly variable. When I was much younger I was what would have been considered by many here as conservative. I voted for Richard Nixon. I shared the values that were articulated by Barry Goldwater. As time has passed, as I have mentioned to my students, I have been wrong about so many things that I am now automatically suspicious of things that seem to make sense. Therefore I am automatically suspicious when labels are used instead of ideas. As with the conservative or liberal labels, the bigot label should be applied carefully or not at all. The ideas themselves are the best option. But while I tend to agree with the author of this article, I''m even more delighted with his courage to say it publicly in the South. Wow! (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I would not have had to delete this duplicate if I could have previewed it first to spot the formatting problems...hello, hello, anyone listening?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Local1400, aaaaahhhhhh Brevard. Sorry, this is off topic but, let us face it, the topic is old news now. Anyway, Transylvania County and Brevard have be on my top places list. If you have not been there recently, Brevard has some other great establishments as well to eat or enjoy in other ways. And, if you want to enter a time warp and go back to the days when you could get into the movies for 25 cents, the theatre is authentic...and wonderful. It DOES cost more than 25 cents though. Not to mention one of the nicest colleges anywhere, the most amazing population of white squirrels, and on....and on. Aaaaahhhhhh, Brevard.....

Lisabob, that was a sad story and I agree with you. I think this problem is more common that we might like to admit. I just learned that there are units in this area that will not allow their scouts to participate in events with units from certain other churches. Keep in mind that this is not racial but rather church-on-church - actually religion-on-religion. Just imagine the level of hatred toward atheists if they feel that way about other religions! And I sure hope their attention never wanders around to that second amendment...

Back when my children were little, we went cold turkey for about three years. Then, as they felt the social pressures we let it back in a little at a time. It took about another year to let them watch on weekends and then it was back for limited times during the week. Now, I like ''House'' (my role-model) and my wife stays glued to the ''Weather Channel'' (boooooorrrrriiiiinnnnggg). And the kids, one spends at least 6 hours each day studying for his final year at college (no lie) and the other works with animals for 14-hour shifts after which she''s too tired for TV. I''m OK with this.

I know that area. Lost is probably the wrong term. Perhaps disoriented is better but ''lost'' is almost impossible. I guess it''s a matter of perspective.

Thanks for bringing it back to life, Terry. Gern, you''re describing courtship in the South, right?

Wow, dsteele, Dave, it is good to confirm your continued existence. I was wondering if you''d come up for air again sometime. The light bulb must have burned out in your office recently, heh, heh. It''s good to know you''re still around.

funscout, Knock, knock, back to biology 101. Populations evolve, not species. As for proof...anytime I hear someone saying some idea of science has not been proven, it indicates to me that the speaker does not understand science. Needless to say, there is nothing in science that supports the contention that creationism should be given equal status to evolution, at least not in a science classroom. But that contention has been beat to pieces in another thread, not to mention absolutely trounced in a Dover, PA court decision. I suggest that you read the court decision and perhaps some of the detailed accounts for how the creationists tried to promote inclusion of creation in the biology classroom. It is very illuminating of not only the vacancy of intellectual capital for the creationists, but also of their willingness to lie to achieve their agenda, thereby violating at least one commandment. Warmer climes ahead for those guys, heh, heh. John-in-KC, in a similar vein the evidence that is mounting seems to increasingly support a human influence on climate change, not the other way around. Now it is possible that some new observation will change this completely and we''ll find out that it''s all due to solar burps or something but for now, the evidence is pointing to US more and more. I''m still open to the alternative view if stronger objective evidence is found. Right now the alternative view is mostly couched as skepticism or suspicion at the evidence and ideas. This, in itself, is not bad. However, if that skeptical view is not applied equally to the opposing argument, then THAT constitutes bias, maybe worse. About all teaching being biased, even math...I''m wondering how a Laplace transform can be biased. Or a Taylor expansion. Have I missed something along the way? OK, the instructor might use examples that support some personal view but a social or political agenda does not alter, one bit, the fundamental mathematical process that is being taught. Bias might color the learning environment but I fail to see how it changes in any way, say, the commutative law. Care to clarify?

I think I agree with Eamonn with one exception. While those of us who have been reading the threads for a while know how old some topics are, those new members who haven''t taken the trouble to search the archives could easily view these repetitive topics as new and helpful, IMHO. My uniform probably wouldn''t pass inspection if someone arrived with a ruler and a manual in hand. I only wear a couple of knots and only the required patches. If that makes me a slacker, I plead guilty. Also, although old ladies for some reason seem to like me a lot (this has long caused me to wonder about the meaning of life), I know that some people don''t consider me to be a nice person...and if I could get into their heads for a few moments, I might agree with them. But in these threads, I assume that adults can disagree and still get along, even be friends. And as for getting heated, well, that''s just human right? So if I''ve angered anyone in the past, sorry. At my age I''m not likely to change much so next time you see me you are welcome to punch me...if you can catch me. I would also like to take this opportunity to agree whole-heartedly with Beavah regarding the socks. Eeeeeuuuuuuuuwwwwww! And, thank goodness, the official BSA thong remains out of sight most of the time. That said, with a wink to socks, I like to see the boys in uniform. It is, as Beavah noted, best if the boys reinforce this among themselves with, perhaps, some friendly support from the leadership. This unit does require full uniforms for certain situations (courts of honor, for example) and we keep a supply of second-hand components in case someone forgets or has lost something on those occasions. We will supply the uniform to anyone who can''t afford it so other than male forgetfullness, there''s no excuse not to have it.

I''ll offer a slightly different perspective - that of one of my college students. I take groups to tropical paradise and island adventure for two to three weeks. The total cost is about $2000 and varies according to the length of stay and time of year. That includes airfare, ground transport, housing, meals, and three hours of college credit AND tuition. It does NOT include laundry, souvenirs, snacks, alcohol, or getting that sleek beauty to tell your fortune. To me, it is the deal of the century.

Rest assured, Gunny, that probably all of us in these threads are engaged and actively interested in their families and in education. You have nothing to worry about...if you are worrying about it, heh, heh. The home schoolers have reason to hold their heads high. They have accepted the inherent moral superiority of the Darwinian approach and I salute them for it. It IS a bold, courageous decision on their part. As a result they need not be concerned for others and I need not be concerned any further for them or their children as well. It is a perfectly rational way to go if they make that choice. But, as you note, the results are checkered and as Lisa notes, the children and society pay the ultimate price for failure. But THAT is the essential requirement for the Darwinian approach to work...failures must be selectively removed. My fear is that as a society, we''ll have to pay a greater price for ''carrying'' some of those failures along with the rest of us.

Congratulations, give the boys a pat on the back as well. I had to think for a moment about that name change comment.

Trevorum, I thought that the eruption had been employed to ''explain'' some of the verses in Exodus. I could be wrong.

OK, back again. Lisa, I have to tell you I''m very sympathetic to your arguments. In my model, the poor would continue to have opportunities for education. Most of my rebuke is aimed at people who are not poor, but would hypocritically take a government handout in order to escape (in their minds) to private schools. In my view, people with that mindset are a burden to any organization to which they belong. I view vouchers as nothing more than a political deception to gain votes from stupid people and, as you say, the net effect will be negative for the poor and for society in general. I don''t advocate a "you get what you pay for and if you''re poor, too bad" kind of approach. Although we really DO get what we pay for usually, that result has been pretty good in our area...mostly because the majority demanded a superior product for our money. I do NOT wash my hands of the poor, however. I recognize that the opportunity needs to be there for anyone of any economic status for a good education. And my sympathy is even greater because I do realize that the real impact of the purely Darwinian approach will be on young people...and that the social impact will last for generations. Being from the South, I see the fallout from this every day. Rather, the modified Darwinian approach I advocate tends to disarm those who promote vouchers because it accomplishes the same thing with even less government. It also forces those same people to either put their money where their mouths are...or else it exposes their hypocrisy. I suspect that many of those who see the real personal cost of going private will change their support back to a tax-based public system. Unfortunately, once back in the system, unless they''ve changed their mindset, they are unlikely to be positive assets to public schools. But, as scoutldr noted on 9/19 with really nice sarcastic humor, that has already been the situation for a while.

Lisa, heh, heh, no apology needed...I knew immediately what happened and I suspect my friend Gern did too. I''ll respond after class, gotta run...

Aquila, I see your statement in completely different terms. You stated, "When the government takes control, whether it''s health care or education, quality in general does not go UP." I would say differently, that government is never in control. Rather, when people lazily take a backseat approach and use government to rationalize their own lack of active support for education, then quality of education does not go UP. People are always in control if they live in this country. If a government function doesn''t live up to its duty, then the people have the power to change that. If they don''t exercise that power (and this takes time and resources) then they get precisely what they deserve.

Beavah, heh, heh, as Gordon Gekko says, "Greed is good". I already explained a ways back that because of our enlightened self-interest, we need the entitlement program called public schools in order to prevent precisely the outcome you describe. I recognize this. Since those families obviously will NOT take part in the private educational marketplace, the market can obviously operate fine in the presence of the entitlement program for them. If someone who does not qualify for the entitlement wants to attend public school anyway, then they can pay public school tuition, the full cost. This allows the market to operate and do its thing as well as the public school entitlement, thus providing educational opportunity for the poor as well as those who can pay. I thought I made this clear in an earlier post. It IS the perfect world. Beavah, there''s nothing wrong with being liberal. The thing that is undesirable is to expect products and services without paying for them. BTW, regarding costs, we paid $10K/year each for our kids in private school 20 years ago. The power of the marketplace can be credited for holding costs down for the private sector, actually decreasing them in a relative sense. We paid more back then because there was not much competition at the time. When the kids were older, the public school was much more competitive in every way. So we switched. Again, the marketplace. Public schools CAN be very competitive...if the public demands it. HOWEVER, if an unenlightened public demands a service without being willing to pay, they will get (and deserve) crap.

Scholarships and loans for college are not just handed out to everyone. First you have to be accepted to the college. Then there is either a means test or a merit test or both for the financial aid. Not at all like a voucher, although I''d consider supporting such financial aid for K-12 if passing those tests was necessary to qualify for the aid. The difference between the voucher approach and just letting people keep their taxes is the existence of a large bureacracy. Do away with that as well. After all, isn''t the bureacracy a large part of the public school problem? Sweep out the barn. Let people take personal responsibility for their own decisions.

I can see it now: The magnificent animal is in his prime. Just a hint of silver on his back, filled out after a full season of feeding on berries and salmon. The bear is walking across a clearing. At that same time, the three-year-old, just learning how to use the internet is watching the bear through a special web cam. The image has cross-hairs and the child centers the sights...and then hits "Enter". The neck of the bear erupts as a 375 H&H magnum plows through both soft and hard tissues...and then the bear goes down on the spot in a cloud of late summer dust. Flies immediately go for the open wound and begin laying eggs and sucking the juices. Yellow jackets crowd in to chew off bits of juicy flesh, beetles head for the feast. Little Davy has done it again, this time as a young sportsman, established once again the inferior status of animals to the almighty power of the internet. Dan, what was that you asked about floods? Have you consulted the Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District? The ''great'' flood of the bible is a myth, same as many of the other stories (miracles, mostly). But ''terrible'' floods happen with surprising frequency. Sometimes God must just want to thump someone for the fun of it. Oops, forgot, it was that ''gay pride'' thing or something, wasn''t it? Just like the World Trade Center and AIDS.....