packsaddle

That would be human life (the six to twelve billion) valued by society in general. I doubt that my own sense of value has changed much over the years.

Over the collar, when I wear it. Most of the time I wear the NESA bolo or something similar. I agree with Kraut60 regarding functionality. If it was something I could actually use, I'd probably go back to the neckerchief.

OK, I promised to respond over in the parent thread. I have pondered this question for decades. If I had to put the problem into scientific terms, I'd construct a null in which people have not changed much in, say, the last 100 years. At least with respect to their basic urges and inclinations. Today, given the huge variation I've observed during the last 50 years, I'd had to say that I have no evidence to reject the null. What HAS changed is our ability to learn about the really nasty things we do to each other and the fact that when I entered the scene there were fewer than 3 billion people on earth, closer to 2 billion, and today we've breezed past 6, headed to 12 in a few short years. Any consideration of hypothetical changes must be normalized to account for population densities. But personally, in my life, I actually think things are much better today than they ever were. The advances in our understanding of neurobiology, psychology, behavior, learning, etc. are vastly improved where they were sometimes nonexistent. Technologies give society so many more tools to solve problems. Awareness and rational responses to problems are much more possible today than they ever were. Not that we elect to employ them consistently but at least we have no excuse today, not to use them. I acknowledge that, as Merlyn implies, some societies continue practices that I disagree with very strongly, usually involving violence of some sort. It is probably a separate argument over how much this relates to religion. I note that Dawkins makes persuasive arguments on that topic. This, I think, has not changed though. We merely have more immediate access to that information, and in that technological improvement lies the potential to change those sad situations. In some societies people like Merlyn and I would probably have very short life spans. Even in our own society today, we enjoy much greater ability to air our views now than would have been the case, say, 50 years ago. So my answer is, yes, I see life valued possibly even more than before.

Only one generation in my case. I had an unlimited radius from my house but, for practical purposes, usually about 5 miles. There were hills, forests, fields, lakes, rivers. I pretended to be dozens of pioneer figures that I read about in school. Books supplied the fuel for the imagination and the woods supplied the setting. It was wonderful. Today, in that same area, such latitude is unthinkable...it's a traffic-congested suburb contributing to sprawl of the worst kind. But my son, a quite different personality, also had this ability. We relocated to a school district that had some very rural territory and bought a house in the country. He had opportunities similar to mine. But the real limits were provided by the lure of new technologies (video games, etc.) and peer pressure. His childhood was still full of wonderful experiences and scouting helped in this. But it was a quite different childhood from mine. Regarding child abuse: it existed back then but it was more hidden, either by the community or by the victims. That aspect of growing up was, in some respects, a lot rougher back then. Just my personal view. I confess I have been very much more protective of my children as a result. I'll respond to the spun thread now.

Beavah, you're right of course. But does anyone really believe that NCLB will still mean much a few seconds after Bush is gone? If we stay focused ourselves on what is really important, as Brent implied earlier, BS legislation can come and go but we'll still have the results we demand. Acco40, right again. The technical skills you mention are of critical importance and there's a good living to be had employing them as well. Once the scientists and engineers have invented the technology of tomorrow, it will still require thoughtful and highly trained persons (who care about what they do) to make those inventions work for us. The 'institution that I serve' has a parallel program with a local tech school where persons can easily 'bridge' from one to the other, in either direction, course credit intact. This seamless relationship actually strengthens both institutions. We're not unique either. This kind of thing is happening in numerous instances across the nation so it's not quite as dire as it might seem. OGE, heh, heh, so....what did cross-examination of your priest cost you?

Hot-foot-eagle, I couldn't agree more regarding your comment about some adults. It brought to mind an observation I made a almost two years ago. I was attending a meeting of a committee for my state, one that is charged with providing approval of educational standards. The committee members were chosen through a strictly political process and are mostly members of the legislature. There are no professional educators or academics on it. Accordingly they are quite varied in their experience and outlook, as varied as the population. I heard one member observe, during discussion of science standards, "The Bible is all the textbook we need." Later, this individual and others made admissions that they didn't know the definition of science and some other fairly basic concepts. I was present as were at least two dozen professional scientists. The committee members knew we were there and declined to allow us to speak. Fortunately their attempt to scuttle the state educational standards did not carry the day...for now. Like I said, it is an evolving process, they have not by any means given up but, rather, have evolved by promoting their agenda through different, modified approaches. Those states whose standards have been 'dumbed down' may have similar stories...the people either lacked sufficient vigilance or else they supported the 'dumbing down'. It would be interesting to hear those individual accounts.

I guess I've been lucky to have pretty good speed through it all. Probably limited only by whatever computer I'm using at the time. So I've always been pleased with the site. Thanks, Terry, for all you do to keep it afloat.

A thorough answer to that question could fill a book. But the briefest answer I can give is that, it isn't. Education, in some sense, is an individual function that is free to be embraced or rejected by every family and child, in spite of compulsory education laws. In my view education is the responsibility that families have for their children. I am of the view that uneducated persons are not competent to decide what constitutes education and that is why adults are the ones who impose it on children. Likewise, adults as a society do this for several reasons: duty to family, love, and self-interest. There is no aspect of society that benefits from ignorance and so we have decided that even those without the personal means must be provided basic educational opportunities. The future of the society depends on it. Such a public purpose can be accomplished in many ways and we are free to turn away from public schools to private ones. But as a society we do see the importance of providing this opportunity to all children and we have chosen to employ existing government structures to provide the means to this end. Enter politics and, inevitably, all the comments that are exemplified by this thread. It is an evolving process, constantly identifying the changing goals and then modifying the means to achieve them. That's my view, at least.

I hope my words were taken as constructive. I apologize if they offended anyone. Education is a topic for which I have strong interests and I agree that it is frustrating to see how things are going. In many ways I share your concerns. However, I think there are ways to improve the situation...but it starts with families and interested parents and a society willing to take on this burden. It is the hard thing to do - but the easy stuff has already been done. TheScout's quote is very appropriate. It is essentially the same idea as the 'Tragedy of the Commons'. Prevention of that sad end for a democracy depends strongly on maintenance of an educated electorate. If we don't understand our individual and collective roles in a democracy, then completely selfish decisions are a predictable result. (This is one reason I'm skeptical of democratic success in countries that have poor levels of education.) I see education as the foundation for every aspect of our national future. Nothing could provide a long-term threat to this nation as profoundly as our failure to maintain both high educational standards and high performance. But we always have the means to control this if we want. Happy 4th to everyone!

Ed, I'm going to mimic that beaver on the sleep aid commercial...did you just write (say), "Ozfest"?

I'm seeing a lot of whining and complaining but no solutions. When we started our family, we studied the local schools. We found the district that offered the best schools that we could find in the area and then we moved to that district. We subordinated EVERYTHING to getting the best for our children that we could find. The administration and school board were not exceptional in any way. However, because this particular district had a large number of families who DEMANDED a higher level of education, that is what we all got. These families took control of the educational process for their children and they got performance. Families who were poor or disinterested also benefitted. They were welcome. I live in a region that is sometimes ranked among the lowest in the country for most metrics regarding educational performance and yet, in our district my children were taught by some wonderfully talented teachers, many of whom had advanced degrees, PhD-level in many cases, for the subjects they taught. This outstanding set of opportunities happened because enough families demanded this level of service. And we supported it in many ways, not the least our own considerable time spent partipating actively in many of the school functions, not just sports. When I read statements such as "...one size fits all government programs do not work..." I respond, "Well DUH!" A casual glance around even a small subset of this vast country will reveal anything BUT a "one size fits all" educational system. What you will really find is a system that, yes, reflects political pressures borne unevenly. But it also reflects the results of vastly different levels of local support and demand for the kind of results that I think many of us want. In effect, "one size fits all" is hardly a reality...what we really have is exactly what we demand either through our actions or through inaction. The only generality I can draw is that mediocre investment usually generates mediocrity. That really IS "one size fits all". Yes, the states can dumb down their standards and many have. There are powerful pressures to do this coming from forces that operate from many different motives. But in the end their success in weakening standards is a result of good people doing nothing - of motivated people remaining idle. No one deserves to get something for nothing and if you want performance, you have to pay - both economically and personally with your time and efforts. When I survey the variability of education in the South, I see local populations getting precisely what they desire, as expressed through their investments (and this is more than money), or lack thereof. On the other hand, states such as SC, for example, which have some of the poorest schools and both some of the best and the worst performance, nevertheless have among the very highest standards in the nation, in spite of forces trying to destroy those standards. And how do they maintain this high bar? There are enough people willing to put forth the effort to make sure the bar remains at the high level it is. This isn't regional. Read the report. Three states often rank near the top for most of the comparisons: SC, WY, and MA. Vastly different populations and regions demanding the same thing and getting it. The people pretty much get what they want, if they are willing to put their investment (and I don't necessarily mean money) where their mouth is. Edited part: Barry, we're doomed only if we continue to just complain and point fingers, if we don't 'step up to the plate' and make a considerable personal effort. But that should go without saying no matter what. We take the first step toward that doom when we start thinking of government as 'them' rather than 'us'.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Maybe not completely but at least I understand in more detail the apparent contradiction you present. The question regarding BSA has a lot to do with perception. When one of the small rules you describe from Irving causes consternation in Philadelphia, contrary to what they want to do locally, then central authority is quite clear. Less clear to them would be the decentralization of dogma or ideology in spite of the pyramid structure of the organization. The authority ultimately rests at the top. But to maintain the moral absolutist view explains how you can support that situation (although I hate to inform you, the moral relativist train left the station with a lot of us on it a long time ago). However, if that is the source of the apparent contradiction then the real conflict is between those holding the different views, absolutist versus relativist, and further argument regarding, for example, whether or not atheism is immoral is pointless. BSA, however, has adopted policies that reflect the absolutist view. This has resulted in several notable recent developments, exclusion of gays, exclusion of atheists, and the legal position that BSA is a religious organization. The last part was necessary in order to legally act on the other two. From the other thread from which this one was derived, it is also apparent to some of us that BSA's emphasis on this aspect of membership while ignoring other aspects that BSA claims should be the basis of exclusion, constitutes a glaring inconsistency. Some of us would label it hypocrisy but regardless of the label, it presents contradictions of both policy and reason. Moreover, in practice BSA doesn't REALLY enforce the stated policy. They can't. It's impossible. The same way it is impossible for those of us who want to control the border and eliminate illegal aliens to REALLY get rid of the 12 million or so already here. Reality simply puts the lie to such absolutist positions. Stubbornly (and perhaps stupidly) repeating some mantra amounting to little more than a pout won't change the reality for BSA any more than it will solve the problem of illegal aliens. Reality is messy, solutions will be messy and absolutes will be illusory. In the case of BSA, there is no way to know absolutely what is in a leader's heart or mind. If they are gay and are not "avowed", then they can be a member as far as BSA is concerned. If they are atheist but not "avowed", same thing. BSA doesn't act until they think they know something that they can never know absolutely. Their 'knowledge' is really an opinion based either on gossip or statements by the outed leader. But then BSA acts in its absolutist way. The boy or the leader is sometimes given a chance to recant. Just say the words, "I believe", and everything will be fine. "I am not gay" and everything is fine. If they don't recant then the media eventually reports one more story to sell to its readers and listeners and moral absolutist scouters wring their hands over the bad publicity (there's that 'mentally awake' thing again), maybe even start a thread on a forum or something. But through it all, in spite of its desire to maintain an absolutist policy and an absolutist grip on local membership, BSA remains hopelessly inconsistent in application and if a little more 'mental alertness' was availble, the inevitability of the situation would be obvious. Here's my concern: Perhaps it IS obvious. Perhaps this inconsistency is actually OK with the top of the pyramid. THAT, to me then, would truly be hypocrisy. My chances of ever knowing that, one way or the other, are slim to none.

Sick People! I forgot sick people! That would include all sorts of maladies, people with HIV and cancer, genetic abnormalities, handicaps, herpes, the list goes on. (A joke question: know the difference between herpes and love? Answer: Herpes is forever, tee hee.) Anyway, these defectives should probably also be excluded. Oops, typo (hope that's not grounds for exclusion)(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Heh, heh, would a glutton for punishment qualify? If so I plead guilty. Checking my glasses, suddenly I'm seeing quadruple...the oath lists three things at the end: physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. The god thing occurs as a statement of duty and as part of the DRP. But the three things promised in the oath are ranked equally, not in order of ascending importance. Or do I have that wrong? The comparison is not to equate gluttony with some aspect of morality (although I think some might argue in that direction) but to note that physical health IS ranked by BSA as equal to moral living. In that sense the comparison is in how these are applied to membership which, as noted, is NOT equal. (That mentally awake part, ahem, should scare heck out of a lot of us). As pointed out, BSA is willing to wink at the first two while focusing its exclusionary wrath on the third. This is the part that seems hypocritical to so many. If all the drug-taking, tobacco-smoking, fat, slovenly, stupid, and crazy people were also excluded from membership, what a great organization we'd have! The numbers might suffer a bit though. But no, we ignore those first two parts as if we have no idea what they mean. And then feign indignance when young Denzil points at hypocrisy. TheScout, could you please explain to the CoL people how decentralized BSA is? The thing I notice is that you seem to advocate local option when applied to government (something that, to my mind, is really important) but to advocate the central authority with regard to membership in a national organization like BSA (something that, to my mind, is probably of less importance than overall government). Dare I mention the word?

Bravo, Calico...also Oak Tree and Lisa! Well said. One reason that the statement of fact might seem to be, well, unsavory, is that the reader understands its negative connotation to so many in the public. If the exclusionary policies of BSA are the wonderful things that some of us think they are, then we should shout them to the world with pride, not cringe when these truths are repeated by others. In the marketplace of ideas, discreetly hiding these policies from popular public view doesn't give them the opportunity to prevail in competition with the evolving values of the marketplace. And it doesn't preserve them in the eye of the public either if they are subsequently viewed in terms of hypocrisy. If we're so proud of the policies, we ought to put them out front so everyone can share their benefit. It might even boost membership. GSA in our area welcomes male leaders. The comparison of BSA to Nation of Islam is...wow! Got any more examples like this? Edited part: Gern (and Dan) I agree as well. TheScout, I'm curious as to what you think would constitute hypocrisy regarding BSA policy, if this doesn't already. What are the qualifications for hypocrisy? And I'm still interested, as well, in your thoughts on local option versus central authority.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Although we've never done it, we've considered it. The advantage of hiring a bus grows with distance, especially when some intangibles are considered as well. The actual cost to personal vehicles is greater than fuel, somewhere in the range of $0.50 per mile by now. The increased risk of accident with personal vehicles and the decreased liability offered by hiring a professional are both difficult to quantify but they are real. Then there is the peace of mind knowing that if you nod off during the drive, the REAL driver is doing it for you. You arrive with less fatigue and less sleep deprivation (maybe, LOL). But as mentioned, for shorter trips, the bus is just too expensive.

Well folks, the title of the thread sure as heck is appropriate. I wonder if the DHS is monitoring all this? George the second, are you out there somewhere? Still taking bong hits?

Dan, I had the same question. That line, "Any number of other groups require one to be male only or female only, or this race or that race, there is discrimination all over the place." caught my eye as well. I would like to know the groups that discriminate on the basis of race that don't get nailed by the mainstream. Even the private men's clubs in some places get lampooned at the very least for their exclusion of women. Gunny2862, I would also like to see your list. The Scout, I would agree with your assessment of BSA and so-called 'traditional values' IF local option was allowed. In that manner the local membership would truly have direct control of whatever values were to be delivered by the program. Do you think that would be a bad thing? As it is, the local memberships are dictated to by a central authority. H'mm maybe that IS a traditional value. BSA can put a stop to this 'treatment' by the press and the general public with the stroke of a pen...the choice is BSA's.

Yeah Gonzo, I know you wouldn't do that...I hesitated to respond because I didn't want you to think that I thought you would. How's that for a run-on confusing sentence? Anyway, I know better. What are you guys doing later this summer? PM me. The frozen darts...I like that. A sense of humor is always good.

"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent" I've long been fond of that quote not because it is true in all cases (it isn't), but because it describes a more subtle relationship. Words can hurt feelings but words can also be used to come to understandings, compromises, and to settle differences in a non-violent manner - in all situations where the parties actually want to find a resolution. Violence, however, is sometimes forced upon us by something or someone who is unwilling to use words rather than force. Their unwillingness or inability to use words is a statement of the fundamental weakness of their ideas...that they would rather resort to violence than to subject their thoughts and ideas to examination. And underlying this most of the time, is fear. I was recently reminded of this in an obituary for Jim Clark, the swaggering sheriff of Selma: http://www.economist.com/obituary/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9333348 THIS was truly an obituary for a violent, hateful man in a violent and hateful time and place. But it was a wonderful reminder of the legacy that needless violence, rather than meaningful discourse, leaves in our names. I think of this also when I consider our policy of pre-emptive war. We are going to pay a dear price for that legacy as well.

Gonzo1, Not accusing you on this but the prank you described hit a sympathetic nerve in me. I guess I might be a softie but I would have felt guilty if I pulled one like that. Perhaps I misread your description of that prank but taking someone to the edge of sorrow and despair or beyond, even if it's not real, isn't good fun. The topic of pranks has been discussed in earlier threads and it is difficult to identify ones that are positive.

You can get it on 'youtube': Considering the really bad acting, I'm glad I completely missed 'The Sopranos'. Hopefully she'll be better as our President. Chelsea must have a good sense of humor.

I'm getting it when I come to the web site and I'm working on a huge variety of nets across the country right now...traveling. I also have multiple virus and adware stuff. It is the same trojan horse you just mentioned. In addition, my pop-up blocker stops an add-on to outlook.exe. I sent a message to the scouter.com staff about it just now.

The good advice already given covers much of what I would have said. I'm interested in the nature of the problem with the pack. Is it lack of enrollment, lack of leadership, lack of volunteers? Anything else? I successfully saved our pack years ago. I did it by organizing the resources at hand and making the existing families aware of everything. Get your committee working and build it so that you don't have to do everything. Make sure that all the leaders are trained. If you make your DE aware of the impending demise he/she may provide some help with training, etc., but don't expect too much. If possible put your program together and make it available as a full year of events and dates. I distributed this as a pack calendar. Make sure the boys always have fun at pack meetings and special events like derby days and B&G. For regular pack meetings tap into the resources you have available. Every year in the fall, I'd have a fire safety program and the local fire chief would come in with gear and extinguishers and we'd go outside and extinguish a few fires of different types. I'd get a local guy to bring his snakes for a program on reptiles. Life snakes always hold attention. The local wildlife office can come in with a 'mystery' night where they can guess what kind of wildlife a skull or pelt came from. Just a few examples. For the derbies, we'd have special 'tune-up' nights where all the parents and boys could bring kits and tools to help each other with construction, 'secrets' of speed, etc. The derbies were all-afternoon events with hotdogs and all the trimmings as well as bake sale, etc. ALWAYS get photos into the local newspaper, even if they're slow being printed. I made special full-color certificates for every boy as well as the winners. And the entry fees paid for small trophies for everyone. The boys crave that instant gratification of all kinds of awards, etc. Use the events as a means of recognition of EVERY boy in some way. KNOW THEIR NAMES. Speak to each of them individually every chance you get and make them know you care. Mean it. They boys like the usual stuff: fire, water, things that shoot, icky things, etc. Use this to your advantage. If they are unruly, get them to help you with a 'problem' you're trying to solve. If you've made that connection with them, they'll fall over themselves trying to help solve the problem. Food helps too, both as pacification tool and incentive. Don't ever sell them short, just because they're little. They usually want to try anything...you just have to keep it safe. I really miss the cubs.

I would add that we contribute to the problem when we dismiss people by applying labels instead of discussing the actual ideas.