packsaddle

Oak Tree, Thanks. That seems clear enough. I still think this might be a fun exercise for life table analysis.

Brent, No I don't, 5% seems closer to what I have observed. But at the same time I don't claim to have made a comprehensive study. If I viewed it in terms of how many of the active scouts I see every week attain eagle, I could understand how the percentage might appear to be higher. F-scouter's explanation sounds good as long as the numbers are collected over a longer time. If the observation time is shortened the sample becomes more and more like a snapshot of who's there at the moment. But if the total number of registrations over, say, five years is compared to the number of eagles during that same time, it should get closer to a more stable representation. For some reason this stuff just seems easier if I'm thinking about age classes of fish or something. This kind of question should be adaptable to life table analysis, I think.

I think both of your arguments have merit. If you think about this in terms of production of crops, for example, Brent's approach is to relate each crop of eagles to the current standing crop. This is a snapshot of total enrollment and that proportion of the total that matured that year. I think this is a sound approach as long as the parameters are well-defined. Alternatively, the production can be viewed in fluid terms. If there is a net influx of scouts each year, balanced by the outgoing scouts, then the proportion of that flux that is represented by eagles is the view proposed by Oak Tree. This is also a sound approach but because for each view the parameters are different, it is difficult to compare them. As for me, I tend to think in Brent's terms because at any moment I tend to see the current standing crop and the the eagles that are produced during that year. And the 5% figure seems about right under those conditions. But, I have to ask, why are we arguing about this anyway?

We have a cold-weather camp/ski trip every winter. Different destinations...and nature has let us down lately, the cold weather has been, ahem, not very cold. Last year we had a wonderful cold weather backpack with high winds, dry snow, and subfreezing temperatures. It was wonderful. The winter is also a great time to go caving. Caves are about the same temperature any time so going into a cave in the winter makes you feel like you're warming up. So our strategy is: 1. take advantage of the weather and use it for the outing 2. or ignore it by going underground.

OK, the subject almost sounds oxymoronic doesn't it? In the Southeast I've been to: 1. Cataloochee in NC. High on top of the mountain, nice slopes, often artificial snow. I like the completely open sky feeling up there. Got a concussion on a big patch of ice up there one time though. 2. Wolf Laurel also in NC. Nice place to learn skiing. They have a program there that is designed to take scouts through their 'snow sports' merit badge but there is a fee for the lesson. There have been major renovations to the lodge since my last visit. 3. Beech Mountain in NC. This is a really nice place with good slopes and a great lodge. I met some people from Michigan who thought it was better than what they had up there (real mountains too). Get there early or hit the slopes late for some night skiing followed by a cold weather campout. Yum. 4. Scaly Mountain, barely in NC, you can almost hit GA with a rock. Very small, lately nothing but snow tubes, good for cubs. Almost nothing but artificial snow. If it snows at home, you can do as well on any local hill at home. 5. Sugar Mountain, you pass it on the way to Beech Mountain, but it is a good slope. I like the intermediate and advanced slopes but I can't take the advanced ones on Beech (I know my limit). Been a few years since I was there. 6. Sky Valley in GA. This is a very small slope with almost nothing but artificial snow. If you yell really loudly, someone up at Scaly Mountain might hear you. They are often closed - too warm. It is convenient to Atlanta and if nearly everyone needs to learn for the first time it is OK. After that, go somewhere else because Sky Valley will be boring. If you can spring for the price, fly to Portland and drive up onto Mt. Hood. Stay at Timberline and after a day of skiing, rest your bones in the hot tub surrounded by snow and exceedingly beautiful vistas. Have a drink at one of my favorite bars of all time and then eat a gourmet meal at one of my favorite restaurants, in front of the big fireplace and enjoying the transition from snow-blindness to a starry, starry night. Then crash in your room and get ready for another day, maybe a climb to the summit.

Help, help! Someone get the wheelbarrow to wheel me to the couch so I can hibernate. I am stuffed to the gills. Surrounded by family, and all the pets (yes, even the python), and not a single argument - what could be better. I wish all those who can't be with their families, especially those in hospitals and our troops, can be with their loved ones soon. Gonzo1, I made the GBC this year. I just love the stuff and the best part is, I'm the only one who does in this family - its all mine. But that sweet potato casserole, mmmmmmmmm, it was mighty fine this year. Time for a snooze.... Happy Thanksgiving!

hendrickms24, I tend to agree. The boys may not say anything but most of them have sharper senses than we do and they don't miss much. They soak up everything around them and even if they don't say anything, they are processing all this information. Anything we can do to provide good examples of behavior helps. I know I have a very sensitive sense of smell when it comes to tobacco. If the car ahead of me on the highway has someone smoking and their window is cracked open, I can detect it if my AC or heat is using outside ventillation. I'm saying this simply because it is something I have noticed although at my age it is of little matter to my health. But I do worry about the boys and the example set for them by adults who sneak around or, worse, are blatant about it. Edited part: Happy Thanksgiving everyone, time to eat some turkey! Yea!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

OK, now that we've reinstated slavery and denied the right to vote to women...probably a few other things, I'm tempted to ask Scotty to beam me up. Maybe after the turkey...Happy Thanksgiving everyone!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Just curious Beav, why were the boys excluded if they weren't allowed to have their own campfire? I agree with your feelings about adult perks. Rank does have its privilege to some extent but that extent should not be destructive to the program.

Amen to that! We had a guy who dipped in our outfit. He had the disgusting habit of leaning over whatever trash can was nearby, to spit or to disgorge a wad out from his cheek. It only took one visit by this guy for all the trash cans to disappear from the office on subsequent visits. He never seemed to 'get' it. Until the memo about tobacco use came down from the top, that is. After that his vile effluent was deposited all over the edges of the front entranceway. The thought I never could shake, though, was that he was married. His wife actually kissed him on the mouth, maybe even.....uuuuuuuuugggggggghhhhhh.

Eamonn, I am in complete sympathy. For similar reasons, I decided back in 1996 to devote all my energy to the boys. You should never feel ambivalent about that.

Been there, done that. The long-term health of the program, it's long-term outlook, and the long-term growth all depend on a long view, strategy, and committment. Chances are that the previous DEs knew their tenure was short so they didn't invest in the long view. This is a legacy that takes a while to overcome and the current DE's pay metric won't help. It is better for the boys to have one good program than for the DE to have 'good' but deceptive metrics. Consolidate the units in the way that best serves the boys and the COs. Then later, if a good program and increasing recruitment grow the unit, reconsider multiple units. Tell the DE to suck it up for a few years while the worker bees do the job for him.

I was just curious to see how far you were going to ride that nag. BTW, to answer that question about South Carolina, you might read Walter Edgar's book, "South Carolina, A History". It is a very readable and fascinating history of SC and, really, the entire South. South Carolina doesn't rank at the bottom of nearly every list for no good reason. Kind of a tag team effort with Mississippi and Arkansas, I suppose, to see which state is the most wretched. No, South Carolina attained it's status the old fashioned way, it earned it. And Walter Edgar has done a masterful job of explaining how, in case anyone still wonders. Good read! But, TheScout, South Carolina comes close to the constitutional ideal about which you seem so wistful. Take a good look, with a little lack of vision and lack of a good educational system, any state can do it.

So....the TVA is not consitutional? Other similar entities? The Federal Reserve? The abandonment of the gold standard wasn't constitutional? Since Nixon we are no longer trading with legal money?

Hunt, as valid as your point is...and I do not for a moment dispute it, I have long known well that I will never be a diplomat nor will I likely be elected by popular vote to any office of significance. I hope you recognize, as I do, that this affords me a certain freedom not enjoyed by those who are compelled to remain, let us say, more politically correct. As for the use of the term, I refer to Wikipedia for its questionable but fun version: "Traditional local fairy tales of Britain say hobgoblins were 1 or 2 feet tall, hairy, and naked or wearing brownish clothing. They lived by the flames of the fire and rarely went outside. They were described as friendly, impish, ugly, mischievous, good-humored, helpful, mean, grotesque, and fond of practical jokes. If annoyed, they would turn nasty." Some of that stuff describes me to a 'T', your choice as to which ones. I assure you, however, that I am a very corporeal being. My point was that, considering the extensive variation of manifestations of supernatural deities currently accepted by BSA, it is not a huge stretch for acceptance of a faith that requires no such deity, or at least not to rely on the supernatural.

VentureRobb, I understand how you might feel, under those conditions, a bit hypocritical telling him not to smoke. I do not intend for that statement to be personally critical, just that I imagine I would feel the same. The best way out of this is for someone (better, everyone) to quit smoking. Otherwise, you are either going to ignore the rules or else you are going to tell him to 'do what I say, not as I do'. This is inescapable. At one time I thought smokers were a dying breed. But looking around various college campuses, I have begun to doubt it...the 'habit' seems to continue strongly among students (and these are supposed to be smart people). I used to work for an agency that had a strict no-tobacco policy in buildings and in all vehicles. On many occasions I had to inform guests and to remind subordinates of the policy. On one occasion I put someone off a boat and onto the shore. Years later now, whole cities are going smoke-free. But it was a rule that had my commander's signature and I followed it. Whether you follow the rule or not is your decision. I wish you the wisdom to choose well.

Fascinating! Are you saying that NIH and CDC and FDA, etc. are unconstitutional? If congress has passed a law in which certain work is to be done, and it has been signed by the president, and funds have been appropriated, are you saying that work is unconstitutional?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I think that answers the policy question. The conundrum of tobacco use remains, though, and it exists partly because of the way we understand or define, 'addiction'. Here is a paper that expands on this. Warning, it is rather long: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3733/is_200104/ai_n8953244/pg_1 If smokers are truly addicted, then the behavior of tobacco use is a self-perpetuated destructive behavior that should not be condoned at all by scouting as a role model. If smokers are not truly addicted, then their claims to the contrary are not credible and they should quit. But, as the article indicates, it isn't that simple.

Faith is almost inescapable in some form or another. When I go out the front door, it is an act of faith that my car will start, that my home will still be there when I return, that I WILL return, that my dog will still like me when I return, that my wife...ok, better let that one go for now.... These could be considered working assumptions but outside their independence from a supernatural hobgoblin or something, it is hard to separate these from articles of faith. So my answer is that faith based on the supernatural should not be necessary for membership. Any form of faith should be acceptable.

Fireworks were illegal where I grew up (NC). But I remember quite well sitting in the back seat of the deputy's car with my little 7-year-old buddies, fuses poking out of our shirt pockets...and the deputy leaning over the seat looking mean asking, "you boys know anything about someone shooting firecrackers?". We were wide-eyed, practically frozen with fear and almost unable to respond, "nooo sirrrr". Trevorum a couple of years later I and those buddies had almost exactly the same experience you had. Interesting. And every last one of us is still alive today...amazing. Fuzzy, I think the comment about the KoolAid was more a reference to a certain religious cult and its demise, not to imply that you are a druggie. At age 16 this kid is guilty at least of apocalyptic stupidity and his mother doesn't put much of a shine on things either. But if he has been charged, I tend to agree with letting the process happen in the proper manner. If he or his mother is bent on pressing the issue, then they by-all-means should. A powerful lesson is being taught to everyone no matter how it is resolved.

I have to agree with OGE. I'm also not clear on why VentureRobb is upset, if he IS in fact. Tobacco is bad and no honest person is denying that anymore. An addiction that can't be set aside for a weekend is a bad addiction whether it's to nicotine or to heroin. And frankly, sneaking off with a needle for a fix would not be much different, just illegal...I liked scoutldr's response. "I'm the youngest leader at 29 and we are all to addited to quit (even for a weekend)" is simply a BS self-deception. Quitting or holding off is hard to do therefore you're conjuring up a convenient excuse for not doing it. I have friends twice your age who quit successfully this year...cold turkey (congratulations, madmike!). These were two or more packs a day Camel smokers. If they did it, anyone can. But you know this already, you're simply not willing to do what it takes. This may seem harsh but I sense that getting you to see the truth will take something harsh. Edited part: Sorry, madmike, I didn't mean to imply that you're twice his age.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Brent, I understand and apologize.

TheScout, I'm not sure what you mean. I do support public health research and I think it is a good idea. Are you implying that public health research is NOT a good idea? The question is not about constitutionality but rather how research is funded. The way I interpret your message (and this could be wrong) is that you are OK with embryonic stem cell research, even if funded by state governments. As I understand what you write, if your state decided to fund this research you would agree with that action. Or am I wrong? My question, that you still have not answered, is about government funding in general. Do you believe that for any idea, it's 'legitimacy' is determined solely by what's written in the constitution?

TheScout, You need to read the posts more carefully in the future. I didn't write 'federal government'. I wrote "government". You clearly think public health is NOT a legitimate function of the federal government. Why then would it be a legitimate function of a state government as opposed to a county or parrish? Or city? Or family? Moreover, your position could be applied, for that matter, to many other functions of government. Care to list them? I'd be interested in reading them. Edited part: Dan and I evidently were typing at the same time. I agree with his posts.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Gern, your question on page 1 to Brent regarding the frozen embryos went unanswered but I remembered it when I read this headline: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15701301/site/newsweek/ The issue regarding the frozen embryos, a byproduct of IVF, is an issue that is vexing for those who oppose embryonic stem cell research - I understand why Brent didn't answer. The article I mentioned above does not directly answer your question but it caused me to think of one potential answer. If all of the millions of devout Christians and others who support the right to life movement and oppose things like abortion or embryonic stem cell research...because they believe that unborn human lives are being destroyed...If they would merely open their wombs (or their wives' wombs) to implantation, one by one, of those frozen and about-to-be destroyed embryos, they would solve the problem little-by-little and it would be a generous gesture that surely would serve as an example for the rest of us. So...what do you think? Anyone ready to step to the plate and save a human life? It is 'adoption' in the most fundamental sense, right?