packsaddle

The name thing is a problem because regardless of any discomfort someone might feel, or not, such terms often dismiss what might otherwise be thoughtful or informative interactions. For one person to use a term or a name to characterize a second person's opinion or understanding of complex issues is often to say that the second person's view is unimportant. It may be a statement of arrogance and prejudice by the first toward the second. I think we've all seen this at different times in our lives. In my view it denotes a person who is reluctant to subject their own complete thoughts to open and honest critical examination. And dishonest persons sometimes employ the tactic to avoid detection. I guess this is why I am so drawn to science. Even when fallable persons engage in it, science as a process will eventually bring correction to thinking errors. When someone refers to me as 'pinko', 'liberal', 'fascist', 'chauvinist pig', or 'meanspirited', etc., the names don't bother me personally because I have a thick skin. My wife, for example, often refers to me as a humorless, WASP with thin Nazi lips. To which I reply, "I do too have a sense of humor!" At the same time, I am sorry for those individuals whose reluctance to explore ideas causes them to dismiss by means of pejoratives, those persons who carry the ideas. Sad. Everyone's loss.

Agree with gwd-scouter about Camp Old Indian. Gets better every year. Also agree regarding Rainey Mountain, but it is in a great location for high adventure (but not really much better than Camp Old Indian). The others in the Appalachian region are all nice in my book. Goshen is magnificent. But my opinion is probably not reliable on camps. I've almost always enjoyed the food and found the overall experience fun and relaxing no matter where we land. Even those weeks when it rained constantly the whole week. Boys too. Helps to be a little laid back I guess. Or else I just like camp...yep, that's it.

I agree with scoutldr. But our camp has lousy coverage (a weak hot spot in the parking lot only) and a guideline against cell phones for the boys. Inevitably cell phones and game boys, etc. sneak their way into outings. If on the boat, I wait for the tell-tale 'kersploosh' that signifies another electronic device sleeping with the fishes. On land, they just get lost or smashed. This is where the spirit behind 'caveat emptor' or 'informed consent' is applied to complaining boys or parents. It can't get lost or destroyed on the outing if it remains safely at home. I just hope that splash isn't MY phone going to Davy Jones locker.

Well, I think I've heard that 'mamma' joke version before. I've had to rethink that form after the whole soccer head-butt thing. Ouch, that could hurt! Anyway, Linda J, the idea of something being 'mean-natured' is quite subjective sometimes. Meanness is something that (in my mind at least) implies intent. I guess there is accidental or unintended hurt but intentional hurt is meanness. And on the receiving end, perception is everything...which underscores the need for good communication skills, something that many of us (me included) often neglect. And then there are persons who might be supersensitive about certain things, you know, like some of the hot-button issues discussed elsewhere in these forums. Perceptions are almost out of control in those cases. What to do? I guess we can just be ready to admit error and apologize...that is, unless we were being mean.

Well...there's always religion to fight over.

Beav, Heavens! In the spirit of Haystack Calhoun, Mike Clancy, Brute Bernard, The Great Bolo, Rip 'the profile' Hawk, Two-ton Harris, the names just go on and on....Of course championship wrestling is real! But there are some who would perhaps mutter (carefully, under their breath) that it isn't wrestling.

I was just reading some of the things mentioned by KnaughtyFox and Grumpye..wait, my glasses were dirty, I misread those names...and I decided to add some things. Aside from pouncing, etc., there is a question of accuracy here as well. I will use a couple of hypothetical examples. First, there is a second-rate television show involving a Texas ranger whose main character is 'acted' by someone who will remain anonymous (but whose name rhymes with Chuck Norris). If I were to mention that he has a really bad beard and no acting talent, would that be poor netiquette? Bad manners? Rude? Accurate? Sometimes the truth hurts. Should we therefore avoid it? My personal answer is...it depends if someone with a really bad beard and no acting talent can flatten you. Second, if I had a scout whose father was, let us say, rotund...corpulent as Falstaff. And, using Daniel Pinkwater as an example, if the father is proud of his portly dimensions (as is Daniel Pinkwater)...how do I refer to it if mentioned in conversation? Do I describe his fat butt as magnificent, as it surely must be? Or am I allowed to mention that he "...has a spread like a Texas back 40"? How about, "...if he wanted to haul 'butt', he'd have to make two trips"? Surely something must also reside in the perception of the recipient - and while Mr. Pinkwater might be flattered by my comments, the other parents overhearing this might react differently. Doesn't it work the same on the net? H'mmm? Suggestions?

Sadly, I doubt today that the market would sustain someone like Edward R. Murrow (whose broadcasts I remember as a child). Persons of his stature are less likely to provide the viewership necessary to attract the commercial support and the profits. In the end we do this to ourselves by making our choices - kind of like electing our leaders. In the words of Father Guido Sarducci, "I blame-a myself." Edited part: Case in point: Anyone ever hear of Robert McNeil or Jim Lehrer? There it is. Hunt, some of my students become very indignant if I suggest that championship wrestling is, ahem, less than it seems. I did ask them once, though, and 100% of the wrestling afficionados prefer Fox News. I know, unscientific poll, small numbers. It's all the access I have but such fun!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Fuzzy and Brent, I see some validity in both your arguments. There is no doubt that the Arab-Israeli conflict would exist in the absence of oil. However, there is also undeniable linkage of that conflict to the presence of the world's largest oil reserves. I agree with Fuzzy that our energy appetite (i.e. our dollars) provide 'fuel' for that conflict. At the same time, our free market economy seems headed for even greater shifts of our wealth to more expensive oil...at least until it is so expensive that we can't afford it. Last spring I taught a course (consequences of power production) that employed (among other sources) a very old book by Howard Odum, "Environment, Power, and Society". While the book is dated by more than 30 years now, it was eery to read those yellowed pages and see how visionary that man was so long ago. If only he had better communication skills for his exceedingly complex ideas....oh well. I guess we'll just have to see where the unseen hand and its magic takes us. I own one of the gas guzzlers. I will continue to own it when gas hits $15 per gallon. I'll just be very careful to drive it very little...and I'll stop mowing the grass (hey, maybe there IS an upside to this). I seem to have noticed fewer of those monstrous 'recreational vehicles' on the highways this summer...nice. Bet I can pick one up cheap - wonder how many chickens it will hold.

I read...mostly the Economist, and books. My students for some reason think that all they need can be found online. Some don't even know what a citation index is, much less how to use it. I suppose that sound bites are marginally different from bumper stickers but for depth of analysis, none of the sources listed in the original post offer much. For that matter (I shudder to think that I am in agreement with something Spiro Agnew said), television (as well as its bastard child, the internet) continues mostly to represent a vast wasteland for news. OK, I'll make a huge exception for Oprah.

And a good sense of humor it is too. By the way, in response so something you said, specifically, "Do you know that sophisticated RPGs can be bought for under $10?" You must remember that RPGs (and tanks and land mines, etc.) don't kill people...people kill people.

Interesting. And seems to make sense too. Do these arguments suggest the social mechanisms that would make such genetic expression advantageous?

Looks exactly like every blue card I've seen.

Brent, one thing about a quote is that there is no latitude for modification...it is merely a quote. My mention of that quote was intended to provoke further thought and discussion. However, if you read the book that was the source of the quote, you would understand that it does not apply to a response to violence. Once violence has been started, those who otherwise would have pursued peaceful means have little choice but to respond accordingly. I thought this would be easier to understand. Sorry.

Thanks, you can bet on it that I will visit your site and buy the book. I'm still betting that I can last long enough for one good trip down. I have an old 25' Old Town wood-and-canvas expedition canoe that I am rebuilding for a trip like this. Coupled with my all-original 1937 Sea King kicker, I hope to have a wonderful experience some day. Looking forward to your book.

The question of 'natural' versus 'unnatural' is very troubling but Merlyn beat me to the punch on this one. There is no clear distinction between the two. I can make a credible argument from one view that anything that exists is natural. Alternatively, using a different view, I could argue equally well that there is nothing 'natural' about any aspect of our society, perhaps nothing 'natural' about any people on earth. To me (being a 'natural' scientist) the better (easier) distinction is between 'natural' and 'supernatural', the former being capable of objective examination and the latter not. This makes concepts like gender or sexual preference perfectly 'natural' regardless of their manifestation.

OGE, sorry...been out on the river for a while. Your questions regarding Germany, Japan, and Korea seem odd for some reason. In each case, THEY initiated the conflict, perhaps pre-emptively in their view, and would therefore receive the judgment of incompetence. They could not achieve their goals in any creative or constructive manner so they chose violence. We had no choice but to respond in defence. In our case, WE pre-emptively started the conflict...needlessly as it turns out, since the stated reason for it (WMD) weren't there. I don't particularly enjoy the comparison that you have provided but that was your decision. However, on the subject of competence... prior to the first Gulf War we were an ally of Iraq. We supplied all sorts of things to them because they were in opposition to Iran. But there was a growing argument between Iraq and Kuwait. And there is a credible argument that Secretary of State Glaspie made a terrible diplomatic miscalculation during the increasing tensions between Iraq and Kuwait. From the Wikipedia site: "The relationship between Iraq and the United States remained unhindered until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait. On October 2, 1989, President George H.W. Bush signed secret National Security Directive 26, which begins, "Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security." [11] With respect to Iraq, the directive stated, "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer term interests and promote stability in both the Persian Gulf and the Middle East." In late July, 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq massed troops on Kuwait's borders and summoned American Ambassador April Glaspie for an unanticipated meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial. According to the transcripts, Saddam outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup, but went on to say: We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. Some have interpreted these statements as diplomatic language signalling an American "green light" for the invasion. Although the State Department did not confirm (or deny) the authenticity of these transcripts, U.S. sources say that she had handled everything "by the book" (in accordance with the US's official neutrality on the Iraq-Kuwait issue) and had not signaled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein any approval for defying the Arab League's Jeddah crisis squad, which had conducted the negotiations. Many believe that Saddam's expectations may have been influenced by a perception that the US was not interested in the issue, for which the Glaspie transcript is merely an example and that he may have felt so in part because of U.S. support for the reunification of Germany, another act that he considered to be nothing more than the nullification of an artificial, internal border. Others, such as Kenneth Pollack, believe he had no such illusion, or that he simply underestimated the extent of American military response." End of Wikipedia discussion Therefore, the incompetent are not necessarily limited to violence in their expression or behavior. That is to say, I did not mean to imply that violence was the only stupid thing that incompetent people can do. Just the worst stupid thing.

I once read, "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent." OK, it was SciFi but that at least makes a link to religion....?

Au contraire, no way was I equating Darth Vader to GM. If that had been the case, when the Empire tried to fire the Death Star at Alderon, brake fluid would have squirted backwards toward Tatuin or some other planet and the Death Star would have imploded in a cloud of rust leaving many angry retirees and stockholders. I was merely noting some famous and well-known Presbyterians. BTW, thanks Trev.

Except that in retrospect, there wasn't anything to inspect after all. The sanctions worked. Saddam was a paper tiger making a lot of noise and little else outside his own borders. So what's the body count today? How much longer will it take to establish that stable model democracy that will be spread to others in the region? How many more American lives?

My response to the boys is: "The President and Congress decided to engage in this conflict and a majority of the people agreed. Now it is no longer clear what the reasons were and different people hold different views. Hopefully we'll eventually know more about this."

Been there, done that. If your council doesn't have the records, then you must hope that someone at his old troop or council has a copy. After one particularly time-consuming episode, I make a policy of quickly contacting the old unit leader for transferring scouts...in order to get a copy of his records. Councils can't be trusted to keep accurate records. Good luck.

Ed, as you admit, we don't know what any of those organizations do (outside of their existence) to benefit the public at the marina. If the government made some kind of quid pro quo arrangement with each organization then payment for berthing does exit in the form of 'in-kind' services. Failing such agreement, any such service is freely given (or freely withheld). Berthing, then, would also be freely given and the decision subject to reversal, as the situation seems to be. I still maintain that everyone should pay equally and have equal access to berthing (assuming they cough up the coins).

I've been following the GM news. Ronald Reagan would recognize the unseen hand and the magic of the free market. Perhaps when we stopped buying French (you know, back when the French were stupidly opposing invasion of Iraq), our patriotic duty extended to everything with a French name, like 'Chevrolet'. Or else, the abysmal quality also had an effect. Either way, the market is following free market/capitalistic (Darwinian) principles...heartlessly removing inferior competitors. Doubtless, teaming up with Renault will cure GM's ills (LOL).

The frustrating thing to me was the realization that when I was a boy (in another council), we actually did the process correctly. And then years later, when I came on as an adult...thinking how much improved things would be, I found that no unit in our district followed the SB procedure. In fact, not only have I been unable to locate a unit anywhere in the council that follows the SB procedure, the council doesn't seem to be at all concerned with this deficiency. And after many years of doing it wrong, this has become established as part of the scouting 'culture' around here. As far as I can tell, there are very few, if any, actual registered MB counselors. And the council is happy to annoint any advancement form with no oversight as to the way advancement was accomplished. That said, our blue card is identical to the one described here. Three parts, nothing outside of the advancement form sent to the council. We use them, except at summer camp which has its own photocopied forms (also not sent to council).