scoutingagain

Well, if you believe in the right to life, and that, "millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors.", and "As Christians, our faith in Jesus Christ compels us to love our neighbors and to be stewards of God's creation. The good news is that with God's help, we can stop global warming, for our kids, our world and for the Lord." Seems to me this is a very Christian cause to take up. Although this should apply to any faith that believes humans have been given dominion over the Earth and it's animals by God. It also assumes agreement with the fairly widespread consensus that human activity does effect our environment and climate. SA

This is just a suggestion for those, (including myself) that run into things they don't like and feel there's nothing that can be done about it. Worry less about what you can't do and concentrate more on what you can. I have a committee meeting to go to now, and need to follow my own advice. Right now, there's not alot I can do about things in my District that go on that I don't like, but I can influence how the unit I serve implements the program. SA

Lisabob also said, "whereas most conservatives tend to see government as part of the problem and not the solution." If only that were true. SA

"Simple, the people that have no problems attacking Scouting don't want to offend Islamic leaders, countries and people." Not real sure where this connection comes from. I'm quite sure the ACLU would support the right of any media outlet to show pictures of the World Trade Center falling down regardless of who they offended. This is the same group that supported the right of white suppremists to express their views and also supports the rights of publishers of pornography. (Not to extend the debate on the ACLU, but the ACLU has also defended the rights of Christians to express and practice their faith.) However, just because the media has a right to publish certain material doesn't mean they should. The point is they have the right to make a choice. All of us I'm sure find one message or another offensive. I'm sure Christians would be offended if an unflattering cartoon of Christ were published by the Europeans. Jerry Falwell would probably say something like he would hope Europe does not suffer a natural disaster because God would not be there for them and there would be an effort to boycott Danish butter cookies. I'm sure the Christian kooks from Kansas that show up at military funerals saying God is punishing the US for supporting gays and lesbians would be involved somewhere protesting in front of European embassies. Others find the publication of the names and faces of military personnel that have been killed in Iraq offensive and believe this somehow provides aid and comfort to the enemy. We all have the right to be offended and the right to protest the publication of material we find offensive. We don't have a right to act out in violence toward others nor do we have a right to prevent folks from publishing material we don't like. SA

VMPost, I like the approach of your MB Fair better than our MB University. I'm curious, at your fair how many couselors are typically there and how many scouts typically participate? SA

Our District runs a merit badge university that covers 3 weekends and operates similar to the way the other multi-day fairs have been described. Scouts can sign up for up to three MBs. I agree with the Beav. Between summer camp and the merit badge fairs, days, universities etc. 99.99% of the MBs earned by scouts are done so outside of what the MB program was intended. The entire process has been perverted so that, as OGE pointed out, much of the effort required to earn the MBs has been taken out of the scouts' hands and offered to them on the preverbial silver platter. For all the hard discussion that's been had about the importance of the Uniform method, or individual units that tweak the program, the existence of these fairs, etc. seem to be regarded as a minor issue. Yet as pointed out, they have fundamentally changed the way MBs are earned in many councils and districts. And the irony is that many of these events are directly sponsored by the districts and councils themselves. They are a pet peeve of mine, yet seem to be so entrenched I see little that can be done. Frankly if the choice was to have 2-3 scouts working on an MB with a counselor at a Troop meeting versus 20-30 scouts sitting in a class being lectured to, to earn an MB, I'd vote for working on MBs at meetings. Yes, our MB University is just that, scheduled classes, with reading and homework assignments, projects due etc. It's school for crying out loud and so far from what scouting is supposed to be it drives me nuts sometimes. And yes, since our district's event takes place over 3 weekends, many units DON'T DO an outdoor activity that month. So we've taken away an OUTING and put the kids in SCHOOL for three additional days. Sometimes I wake up screaming just thinking about it. Sorry, you can continue discuss whatever it was. SA

As far as I know one person may hold both positions. The only prerequisite is that they have a frontal lobotomy before they sign the second application. Seriously, I can't imagine how one person could possibly provide quality service to both units unless they had absolutely no other responsiblities in their life, like work, family, friends etc. and then I would wonder if they would be a good candidate for either position. SA

I don't believe the government should be in the energy business, but providing funding for basic research and technology development is a legitamate role. Many new industries, technologies and businesses have grown out of basic research performed under govenment funding. However, Factoid of the Day, NOTED: Overall federal spending on research and development in energy efficiency has dropped 14 percent since 2002, adjusted for inflation. (The New York Times) Funny, that little fact didn't come up when the President was talking about controlling the deficit. What was that about walking the walk? SA

As Advancement Coordinator I will typically bring in my laptop with Troopmaster on it to Troop meetings. About a month or so before a COH I'll make an announcement that any boy that wants to see what partials they have and connect with an MBC to finish up a badge before the COH to see me after the meeting. It's a gentle nudge and usually works with 3-4 scouts every COH. Funny thing though. Over the years I've noticed the scouts that complete their advancement through Eagle don't earn many partials, and if they do, complete them relatively quickly without the nudging. SA

Gern, I'll bet that link lights up a few emotional circuits SA

Well, certainly the idea of nationalizing the oil companies could hardly be described a conservative idea. But a national effort to retool our energy infrastructure, similar to the effort to build the interstate highway system started by Ike, seems like a legitamate government interest. At least to this right of center, independant libertarian, Massachusetts conservative. SA

Didn't say the WMD were a fabrication by Bush, just that something we were told that didn't turn out to be true. Bill Clinton also told us he didn't have sex with that "woman." I don't believe him about his love life anymore than I believe Bush about national policy. I'm counting the days until I can hopefully vote for a McCain/Romney ticket. I'm serious about the xB. SA

If you want to read a great book about the inner workings of a suburban little league, check out Bill Geist's "Little League Confidential". It's a great read, will make you laugh and will let you forget your scouting challenges for a while. SA

Nothing has been posted regarding the reasons the city declined the ship. If they truly declined the ship on the basis of some political statment I would agree with much of the sentiment expressed in this thread. However, locally there is a small city that accepted a heavy cruiser and set it up as a museum. It is used by local cub scout packs and scout units but fundamentally is a big money looser. They would like to give it away to someone who could take better care of it but have no takers. As FScouter pointed out there may some logical reasons as to why the ship was turned down with no slight to the armed services intended. SA

Or the ones that show up at "rountables, training courses, and even the occasional troop meeting, pontificating on How Things Are Done as if the Scoutmasters Handbook had been handed down to Moses along with the Ten Commandments. Balderdash, Baden-Powell would say. Scouting is a game, not a science. As he wrote in the 1944 edition of Aids to Scouting, "What suits one particular troop, or one kind of boy, in one kind of place, will not suit another within a mile of it..." (From the Scoutmaster's Other Handbook by Mark Ray) Just providing another point of view. Ya, Semper I know the type. My unit err.. the unit I serve has been blessed with a notable absence of such types much of the time I been associated with it. Last fall we had two 11 year olds get into a minor scuffle during a troop meeting. An extremely rare event in the troop. They were separated, appropriately disciplined and life went on. One mom called the local police and wanted to press assault charges against one of the 11 year olds. Have a better week. SA

Gern, Didn't you listen to the Prez? That's exactly what he's talking about doing. (Al Gore talked about it six years ago.) But then again the President told us there were WMD in Iraq, the new prescription drug benefit would cost about a third of what it's really going to cost us, the Feds were doing a great job responding to Katrina, and he doesn't known anyone named Abramoff. Me, I'm looking to replace my Durango with an XB. SA

"Do you think I can at least rely on ExxonMobil to be investing some of their profits in developing alternative energy sources? " They could, but certainly aren't obligated to. ExxonMobil's primary obligation is to provide a return to it's shareholders. If they believe they can provide a greater return by investing in alternative energy, and believe they have the expertise to develop and successfully bring those technologies to the markety, I see no reason why they wouldn't. But they are not likely to do so until they are convinced they can't make as much money pumping and refining oil. Alternatively they could choose to distribute the profits to their shareholders as dividends and let the individual shareholders decide how to invest the money. Some may choose to invest in GE, reinvest in ExxonMobil, take a vacation, or donate to FOS:). If there is a compelling national interest to develop technologies to free our dependence on foriegn oil, to me that is a legitimate role of government. From what I've read today, that's what GW is going to tell us he's doing. SA

This from an oil analyst on ExxonMobil profits: "With pump prices rising again, the company's embarrassment of riches shows no sign of disappearing. "Unless prices collapse," said analyst Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co., "earnings in 2006 will make 2005 look like a cake walk."" SA

OK Gern, Let's say the government nationalizes the oil industry and artificially keeps prices low. That does not change how much oil & gas is available, nor does it change where it is. Low gas prices would continue to encourage consumption or the government would also need to regulate the way it was used, like limit the size of vehicles, who can travel on what days, who can buy gas when, etc. Low prices also provide no incentive to either the government or the private sector to develop new technologies to replace our dependance on oil, most of which comes from outside the US. We may have to pay a price for energy independance. I prefer $3-$4 per gallon gasoline, or say $3-$4 per gallon ethanol, than 1-2 lives of our armed services personnel per day or more. At those prices I can choose to modify my behaviors to consume less the ways I want to. I may choose to drive a smaller car, drive slower or carpool more. Or invest in a new company that is trying to develop a fuel cell vehicle, but would not hope to be profitable if gas cost less than $2.00 per gallon. The results of the free market are not always what we would like them to be. But they are what they are. I think housing prices in the Northeast are rediculous. Does that mean the government should step in and take peoples homes so everyone can have a place to live? There are plenty of unused bedrooms in those McMansions. Or should folks have the choice of working harder, or say start a business, to improve their income to afford a home in the Northeast or choose to move to another part of the country where homes are more affordable. Those may be touch choices, but they are individual choices and not mandated by the government. Anytime the government inserts itself into the market it effects individual freedom. Sometimes that may be necessary to protect everyone from market excesses, but such instances are not that common or would be better than letting the market determine allocation of resources. I can't think of many instances where governments have sucessfully controlled and planned distribution of resources better or more efficiently than markets. Most governments that have tried that approach have not lasted very long, at least compared to those that rely more on free markets. SA s

OGE, There is no question in my mind the oil companies are being opportunistic and taking advantage of a current tight market and high demand for refined petroleum products. The question is, in a free economic society, what do you want the government to do about it? Personally I am more concerned about our continuing and growing dependance on foreign energy sources, particularly from regimes that are less than friendly to us. Iran, Venezuala, and I wouldn't be supprised that once we effectively leave Iraq, the Iraqi's will not be the good buddies that the current administration believed would welcome us with open arms. I think it was McCain that said something like, "Until we(the US) begins to do something to move us towards energy independence, we will continue to be held economically hostage by these nuts." or something to that effect. That means getting our head out of the sand(literally and figuratively) and doing more than looking for more oil in the US. It means encouraging conservation, and energy alternatives other than oil. That is something the government could begin doing. We can only guess what Dick Cheney,(formely CEO of an oil & gas services firm and gov't contractor) discussed with the oil company execs invited to his energy summit several years ago. Whatever it was, I assume we(as in our duly elected government) is currently working that plan. We live with the results. SA

One thing I've always wondered about is, Why is it considered price gouging(subject to state and local penalties) when a local retailer jacks up the price of gasoline beyond the increase in his/her costs to achieve higher profits but it's considered basic economics, supply & demand, free enterprise, yada yada yada, when the big oil companies do it? Although it does come down to basic economics. As pointed out, oil companies can invest in new refining capacity, and extract oil from less profitable reserves, only to drive the price down of gas down and make the same amount or less money. Would you work 60 hours a week for the same salary you could earn at 40 hours a week? At some point the price of gas will make it worth the risk for an oil or chemical company to build additional refineries. But that won't be until there is a reasonable expectation that prices will stay at historical highs for a long time. The time frame to permit, design, build and bring online a new refinery, is on the order of 5-7 years at a cost of bilions of dollars. No one will build an additional refinery until they are relatively confident prices of gasoline will be high enough to justify the investment 7 years down the road. Or the price of gasoline will be high enough where folks will be willing to invest in hydrogen cars, or other technology. At $3-$4 a gallon there are other energy alternatives that become economically viable. The problem is, gas needs to stay at those levels, or when the price comes down, everyone will go back to driving gasoline powered vehicles and the new technologies will economically whither. One example, I read recently that for smaller farms, it is becomming economically competitive to use horses again. The cost to feed and house them is becomming competitive with fueling and maintaining a large tractor, and they can reproduce their own replacements. Personally I'd rather have the government not fight unnecessary wars than try and fix a problem the free enterprise system will eventually correct. That's assuming it really is a free enterprise issue. There's a big difference between taking advantage of a market vrs manipulating a market, as hopefully Mr.'s Lay and Skilling find out this week. SA

Fishsqueezer, Yes you don't have enough to do. For the record, I'm the only one in my household that eats leftovers. SA

Rick, You said,"As a matter of fact, I may be wrong, but I don't believe a unit can legitimately exclude a boy because his beliefs are different than the CO." I maybe wrong as well, but I do believe individual COs may limit membership of units they sponsor to members of their own organization or their faith. What they can't do is open membership to those the BSA excludes. They may also not limit membership based on race, but as pointed out, demographics and the allowance for religious dicrimination can effectively limit diversity by race. As FScouter pointed out, they may also run the program according to their own policies and guidelines, as long as they don't conflict with those of the BSA. This allows some units not just be religiously segregated but also allows some unit to discriminate based on gender. Some COs do not allow women to be leaders for example. If you don't agree with that, you are free to find a CO that does allow women to be leaders. SA

Gern, My take on your million dollar question. The beauty of the BSA system is you get to choose. If you want your son to be in a unit that accepts all religious denominations you can find one. If others want an all Christian unit, LDS unit, Jewish unit, Muslim or other religious unit they can. You, Jews, Muslims, and Christians are all free to participate in scouting in a unit that best fits each persons needs and interests. SA

I was going to post something along the line of what FScouter posted in the other thread, he beat me to it and did a better job. As far as I know the LDS units operate within the scope of the BSA program. The flexibility of the program that allows the LDS units to operate as they do is available to all BSA units. In my area there are Jewish and Muslim Scout troops. I don't know if they specifically exclude members of other faiths, but their activities(i.e. keeping kosher, prayers, etc.) and religious affiliations are such that I think a member not of that specific faith would probably feel uncomfortable. There are plenty of other units available for scouts that do not want to particpate in a Troop with a particular religious affiliation or specific religious practices. The BSA does not discriminate based on religion but the program allows individual COs to do so(well other than athiests). The unit I serve, a Troop is sponsored by a Methodist Church that is considered a "Reconciling Congregation". Church membership is open to "people of every age, race, ethnic or religious background, gender, sexual orientation, mental or physical ability, economic or family status." The differences between the Church's membership policies and the BSA's have never come up as far a I know. Although given the Church's policies I'm certain they would have no problems if the BSA were to change theirs. The Church also doubles as a Jewish Temple on Saturdays. However, none of the adults or youth members of the troop belong to the Church. Most are Catholic, a few others from other Protestant denominations. SA