packsaddle

Wow, my memory is really slowing down. This discussion just reminded me of a colleague (female, now retired) who taught human anatomy. In her labs each year, she would occasionally hire a male stripper (body builder type with really well-defined muscles) to come to lab and pose nude so that students could compare diagrams with the real deal. Not a single complaint was ever lodged by either male or female students. I guess it might have been different if the stripper had been female. I wonder why?

This unit has a nice mix of all sorts of ethnic backgrounds. We don't have any special program things to accomplish this, just a more-or-less traditional program that families all seem to be comfortable with. I think the hardest barriers to overcome have more to do with economic status and we don't confront that very often.

Peregrinator, we did have a chat afterwards. But if you think we had much effect on those raging hormones, you need a reality check, fella. Get a grip.

H'mmmm, interesting faith, that Buddhism. The more I learn about it the more I like it. As far as 'hornyness', that comment reminded me of the drooling stares I observed as the boys peered out the church van windows gazing (lusting?) after a particular bikini-clad passerby. I so wish I could have gotten a photo of those leering faces behind the glare of that window, completely consumed by fantasies of desire, some of them didn't even know what was happening to them. I and the other leaders nearly fell on the ground in laughter. The boys didn't even notice us.

Horizon, I had the same Eagle BOR experience. There weren't 10 of them but they were like bank executives or something in a board room way up in an upper floor of what is now BankofAmerica. The Eagle BOR had to be attended by reservation only and it was crisp and formal and lasted about 30 minutes. They knew the right questions and it was direct and efficient.

Thanks Beavah, I think. I hadn't heard that one about Ryan's marathon claim. Perhaps we need to examine his long form birth certificate, you know, just to make sure. I can see that he'd fail immediately on that first point of the law. Probably need to fact check everything from him. I just bested a world record but I suspect someone else has already bested mine using the same fudge factor. You think the phrase 'voodoo economics' is ready for application yet? What this is, is Romney's insurance that no one would dare do anything to him. We can't afford to risk having Ryan in office. But I'm still sticking with Romney, BTW, just in case you're wondering. It's not 'in the bag' yet but I think he can still pull it off.

NJ, did you accidentally post that in the wrong forum? Edit: oops, just re-read the OP and I see the link now.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Eagledad, I can't find any reference to a child whose mother is a strip tease dancer. The issue in the article seems to be confined to whether or not those dance revenues qualify as tax exempt. It's all about money. I say remove all tax exemptions. That should pretty much take care of the problem.

I thought it was a band that had some kind of transit authority. I wonder if they are also performing superannuated tours? Just checked and OMG, they are!

I've personally known plenty of racists and plenty of people who were opposed to the Civil Rights movement. A billboard less than a mile from my home when I grew up declared that MLK was a communist and later that Earl Warren should be impeached. I've SEEN violence motivated by racial hate up close and personal. That was the environment I grew up in. Back in the late '50s and early '60s, most of those violent, hateful persons were Democrats and a lot of them claimed to vote a 'straight' Democratic ballot. I knew Klansmen who were Democrats. The Republican Party in the South was weak BECAUSE of left over bad feeling with regard to the Civil War and its aftermath. But the Civil Rights movement and national Democratic support of the various Civil Rights laws along with Republican opposition to those same laws changed all that. Lyndon Johnson was prescient when he declared that the South was going to be lost to the Republicans as a result of Democratic support for civil rights. That shift set the stage for many other similar shifts as well but it basically gave the South to the Republican Party. That shift was finalized in 1980. When I first became conscious of politics it was fairly common to see ballots on which Democratic candidates were running unopposed. Now the opposite is true. And regardless of other reasons and changes that accompanied the shift, that change was initiated by racial politics. Like I've noted before, I still know persons who are open racists. Not a single one of them claims to be a Democrat.

Snakes. Lots of them. Ones they can handle and wear like neckties. Ones that scare mom and little sister. Ones that bluff and hiss and play dead. Ones that look really big. Ones that let the cubs pretend THEY are snakes and make up contests about snake things. Snake-shaped treats. Snakes on flags. Games that involve slithering. Snake puppets that the boys can use to make up stories about snake things. Let their imaginations run wild.

We've had a couple of the ones Beavah mentions as problematic. They were so conflicted with their former unit that they quit scouting completely as early teens. But a buddy in our unit convinced them to consider switching to ours after they had been out for a couple of years. So they arrived and we treated them like 'prodigal' friends and they responded with great enthusiasm. One had quit as a Life scout and he finished Eagle with a really nice project and then he stuck around as part of the SP to help with the new guys. The other one didn't make Eagle but he was very active. He just wanted to do outdoors stuff and didn't seem interested in advancement. Of course we've also had the ones who move from another state. We've never had any big problems, at least not any bigger than the ones who have lived here and been in the unit the entire time. I suspect this is something that you have to work with on a case-by-case basis.

"There will ALWAYS be prejudice against gays but as the society is rapidly changing and becoming more tolerant and accepting those bigoted people are becoming a smaller and more isolated group." There may be fewer of them but I still wish they'd stay in Idaho or someplace rather than moving to the South.

tgrimstead, if you ever make it over this way to NC, you should try SunDrop. It's the original soft drink that Mtn. Dew is a poor knockoff of. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I was about to call platypus out for that 'bigot' remark but then peregrinator stated his belief that "people don't have the right not to be offended." H'mmmm...play on.

"All of 'em should be forced back into da real world and have their kneecaps broken." OK, but when you and your goons arrive with the baseball bats, just try to remember that I wasn't part of the academy when all that was happening. I can't disagree with what you say about what has happened, I'm not sure anyone can disagree. I just maintain that your protests are too little, too late. OTOH, I just love the mental imagery of this, the real world part at least. The kneecap part...I can't imagine the whining as a result. It's bad enough as it is, lol. But you're right about the business college. This is true for some other fields as well. They get an advanced degree and go right into faculty positions someplace. The number of people around me who have actually had to solve real problems in the real world I can count on one hand. So what about Romney? Think about the twists and turns he's taken. He really IS capable of changing his mind. I think what bothers you about him is his coldness and THAT's what I think we need in a manager. He's willing to make the smart, hard decision and when people are about to get hurt, when Obama would hesitate, Romney won't feel a thing. He'll do his best to look like he cares but that emotion will not taint a single decision while he's in office. We'll just have to disagree I guess, as to whether this is a good thing or not. So back to the original question for the topic. I'm not certain about the Tea Party...it is such a fragmented and mercurial thing. At one time the TP seemed to be little more than the result of a post-mortem ejaculation by the old Confederacy that somehow found its way into the Republican party and caused an unwanted bastard child. I'm thinking maybe it should be called the 'Mordred' movement. Then I glance at Palin or Bachman and I realize that may be giving them way too much credit. They're not all of them racist. A single characterization just can't quite describe them. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"Nobody ever encouraged us to become Eagle. It was something you wanted and you figured out how to do it." Right on! Well said, Kahuna. That's exactly the way I remember it too. Completely on the boy and his own initiative.

And..by the way, Happy Labor Day!

I date back to the early 60s. We did actual patrol camping back then. Patrols, not troop. The patrols would organize our own hikes, campouts, and skills development outings. We'd plan them, equip them, and then inform our parents of the plans and then head out into the woods and do them. But things have changed. One of the reasons I generally never return to places I've left after living there is that places usually change and my old home area changed tremendously. There is no way I'd allow boys to have the kind of freedom we had back then...in that area today. It is now full of risks that we never faced back then, and I wouldn't allow today. I suspect there are still places where boys can still roam as freely as we did back then but for most boys, I don't see today's world as having many of those places. Times have changed. Other changes: there is now an Eagle project and blacks are now allowed to join. I agree with Desertrat's note that youth protection and intolerance of bullying has improved things as well.

Beavah, an op-ed piece in the NY Times illustrates this conflict nicely. "Not only was it a matter of social justice, Ford wrote, but paying high wages was also smart business." This was Henry Ford manufacturing Model T's. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/opinion/henry-ford-when-capitalists-cared.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120903 After citing several other such examples of business/worker mutual benefit, extending into the early 1970s, the article continues: "Today the prevailing cut-to-the-bone business ethos means that a company like Caterpillar demands a wage freeze and lower health benefits from its workers, while posting record profits." And then he notes that this is uniquely American. That is my point. We led the world after WWII in every sense. We developed the world economy. We essentially set the ground rules for everything. And the world adopted it, nearly the entire world. I submit that in the type of ethos we've chosen since the neocons succeeded, we're still leading the world. Just think of the paradise it's going to be when everyone has that same ethical sense. Just think. But that's the direction we chose. And Romney is the guy to take us there.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Beavah, you're a nice guy. You care about people. You have a personal conscience and a personal moral compass that I have great respect for because you can describe and defend your ideas with great passion. You'd likely have limited success in the business world. Evidence is the fact you can ask these questions: "The question I have is what part of that is legitimate profit, eh? What part of that is earned by helpin' others lives get better in return for a small portion of their time?" I ran that first question past a colleague in the business college and he reacted to the phrase "legitimate profit" in a way that was similar to how some us recently reacted to the phrase "legitimate rape". Your argument is predicated on the idea that the outcome indicated in the second question is unlikely through the kinds of business practices you seem to think are 'shady'. You may be right. Business doesn't care, though, because a competitor WILL exploit that kind of business practice if you don't. And then the competitor will outcompete you and the people you care about will lose anyway. You seem to think that government regulation is a good thing. I think BadenP is correct. McCarthy would have you on his list. The Peace Corps wants YOU! While I think you are truly faithful to the spirit of Christ's teachings, THAT is neither the spirit of business nor of the free market. There IS no spirit at all, as a matter of fact. In order to remain competitive, business can be, or perhaps must be, indifferent. Business simply is what it is. It runs simply because it does optimize economic transactions using the simple mechanism of maximizing profit to accomplish that goal - and if another economic system is as efficient as ours it may outcompete ours or other systems eventually. A sense of religious morality is not the reason that the Chinese kick butt in the world marketplace. If we don't compete effectively, we will be removed as competitors, and rightly so. The irony is that THIS is what we said we wanted. If you think our economic system is incompatible with Christian morality, you may be correct. But that IS the way it is. In business, morality is relevant only in as much as customers allow their sensitivities to override their desire to optimize their purchases. And we know how well that worked for many industries in this country...reference that thread on scout uniforms made in China. I can well understand your disappointment with the Republican party. My sympathies. But as far as the economy is concerned, if there was a hypothesis that ANY of the economic plans that are articulated by either party will achieve the goals they state...or your goals for that matter...I'd put my money on the null. The market is what it is and it's going to be what it's going to be. But we need someone who can actually understand the market and can actually manage the government. Romney wins hands down on that. Besides, I could be wrong. World peace might be at hand. Cold fusion might work after all. And utopia could be on the way. Either way it will all be irrelevant on 21 December.

The bottom line, fella. The 'purpose' of business is to make profit. Romney did that quite well. And if some of it happens to trickle down to people whose labor led to his profit, so much the better. Yes, his actions took advantage of various forms of leverage and cost some jobs in order to turn that profit. It was nothing more than allowing an optimization to occur quickly rather than festering over the long term. In that sense all he did was provide mercy killings for weak business plans and in return he was paid well by his investors. That is good business. Plus, I give him a lot of credit for his handling of the Olympics. That was the kind of management that is needed. Besides, don't you remember 'Voodoo Economics'? That's what we decided on way back then. And that's what we're still committed to. Romney is perfect. Look, if you want to claim that Romney's approach is merciless, perhaps heartless, I can't disagree. But if it turns a profit while optimizing the system, it is good business. And in the Darwinian sense, while some people will get chewed up in the process, in the long run it will be better for the collective. Can you honestly see the Obama approach accomplishing that goal? Really? Edit: heh, heh, it just occurred to me as well....think of the great stuff Saturday Night Live can do with Romney/Ryan. Delicious.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

12 million jobs: "So why make a promise like that?" Beavah, did you just fall off the turnip truck? That was a speech at the convention of a political party. It means nothing. It's not going to happen any more than the promises that Obama broke were going to happen. Social Security? C'mon, you already know I'd cut that whole program right now along with Medicare and Medicaid if it was up to me. There is not and never was any such thing as 'security', only a temporary willingness to give welfare to our own elderly parents. Anyone today who thinks that system was or is sustainable is delusional. At the very least we should admit that it IS welfare for the elderly and remove the income limit or put a means test on it. Simpson-Bowles was an anemic plan and you practically said as much yourself a couple of years ago. If we were serious about getting the debt under control we'd have come up with something more aggressive than that. Failure to pass even THAT plan was confirmation that this country has decided to let fate make our decisions. So be it. I agree with you that it won't make much difference who is at the wheel of a bus that has already plummeted over the edge. That happened during the Bush administration. We're just waiting to get a close-up look at the ground. So yes, Ryan is a liar and a sycophant and Romney will say whatever he thinks will get him elected. But at least Romney has demonstrated an ability to change his mind. The toadies in the audience during that speech probably believed him! That's a good laugh! Romney may be a clod in foreign policy, so what? He IS a good business manager and that's more than I can say about the current occupant or the one just prior to him. So all other factors being somewhat unimportant, I'll go with the good manager who has no personality and is willing to sometimes lie to the public rather than the poor manager with a great personality and who only lies part of the time. Romney doesn't really care about people. He cares about the bottom line. And in that manner he is by far the better match for an economic system that needs a manager. I am absolutely convinced that Romney will be willing to let people undergo hardship, even if it means that the middle class is sacrificed in favor of the rich, in order to better manage things. That clearly is what he represents in life. And it is the choice that the American people made a very long time ago. Time to let it happen. Have a great weekend! (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Andee741, Oh I think I understand what you mean about some of them. They're all susceptible to temptation to some degree. I sometimes think that with regard to food, for example, they are the moral equivalents of raccoons. I kind of enjoy watching them. Give them a piece of cake and a bowl of ice cream and the look of reverence on their faces is just sublime. Asleep they're angelic. Don't want to think about some of those other times...until we're ready to laugh at the memories.

That foot-in-mouth thing was Ryan's part. "Mission Accomplished" Eastwood was just being Eastwood. I understood what he was doing. If someone only saw a clip it did look a bit bizarre. Probably too obscure for most of the delegates. I thought it was kinda charming in a way. Edit: I just remembered what Eastwood reminded me of. There used to be a guy on the island who owned some property near a really nice stream. He built a stone lectern by the stream out in the open and in the evenings he would lecture the frogs. No lie. Clint has finally arrived.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)