Lisabob

Er hey folks, that bit about life, liberty and happiness is to be found in the Declaration and not the Constitution. Back to the topic, there is the notion of a tyranny of the majority. Read what Tocqueville had to say about it in his famous work on US democracy, "Democracy in America." I think that's at the heart of the problem with using referenda to decide complex and controversial social issues.

Hey Gunny, I have relatives who live in your state and they told me they didn't plan to vote. They are older, conservative, unwilling to vote for any Democrat but disgusted with McCain and unsupportive of Palin due (I think) in large part to her gender, not her politics. Now are they representative of a large group of people? Hard to tell at this point with not enough data to successfully mine. I'm still waiting for a lot of raw data to come in so we can better answer the questions Calico raises. But sure, there are people who simply didn't vote this time even though they normally would, and it does appear those folks are more likely to have been on the Republican side this time around.

If you send me a Private Message with your email address, I will email you the list we give to webelos who go camping with our troop. It is a word doc. best, Lisa

Hello, A couple of questions so we can give you better advice - is this an indoor (cabins?) or outdoor (tents?) camping experience? One night or two? Have you or your son ever camped before? And what's the weather supposed to be like in your part of NC next weekend (or in mid-Nov generally)?

Just did the third party math. It turns out my "several million" comment was a little optimistic, as current estimates are showing approximately 1.5 million votes for all third party candidates combined.

Actually I have a bet riding on whether or not the final tally will top 130 million so I've been paying close attention to this. Most of the early reports of voter turn out were statistical models and in part because of the early voting phenomenon this year (first time we've done that in any big way) it was harder to get the models right. To complicate matters, not all states appear to be including some or all of their early vote totals in their tallies at this point, and some states are also still sorting through however many "provisional" and absentee ballots were cast. And then there are states that are having some "issues." Washington and Oregon have only reported 67% and 79% of their vote totals, respectively. Missouri, still "too close to call," is apparently not being included in some news outlets' vote totals yet. It is entirely possible that the totals will go up by another few million before all is said and done. But, yes, there have been some rather breathless media reports that would have benefited from a healthier does of fact checking, too. ETA: Don't forget that several million people voted for third party candidates too. As a percentage of overall votes that's not a whole lot, in terms of pure voter turnout, they should be included. Most news networks only report votes for the Dems and Reps though.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

Yes so Stosh automatically forfeits, correct? DanK, I'm sad to see that CA passed the proposition. But there are historical examples of rights being taken away. In some American colonies white women and free blacks of both genders were allowed to participate in politics on an equal footing with anybody else, provided that they met the other qualifying requirements (usually property and religious affiliation). Following independence women lost the right to vote in federal elections, as did blacks in some of the states. So while it is not unprecedented, I agree with you that it is still a very sad commentary on the mindset of the majority in CA.

Narraticong, you are reading too far into what I said. I don't recall discussing Bill Clinton, Al Qaeda, or 9/11 in this thread. But if you insist...we can go back at least as far as Ronald Reagan and George Bush #1 with blame for 9/11. After all, both presidents helped fund the Islamic "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, which (directly and indirectly) allowed for the rise of Al Qaeda in general and Bin Laden in specific. We could probably go further back to Jimmy Carter's botched handling of US responses to the Iranian revolution in 1979, which helped to give rise to the spread of Islamic fundamentalism (Shia versions in the case of Iran, but certain Sunni interpretations as a partial backlash too). We might decide that we need to go further back to Ike and his cronies in the '50s, who actively suppressed a non-religious, popular leader who promised open elections in Iran after deposing the (US-backed) Shah the first time. We helped overthrow Mossadeq for the unforgivable crime of being pro-communist and therefore assumed he'd be worse for us than a corrupt, illegitimate and much-loathed western puppet of a fake monarchy (check out the "Eisenhower Doctrine"). Or maybe we should go back further to....oh heck, never mind. My point is not that crises and problems have no historical shadow. My point is that of all the claims made, the argument that Obama is somehow going to be responsible for the lack of a Christmas bonus this year, is one of the more wild-eyed and unfounded ones I've heard in the last couple of days. (Sorry funscout, but there it is.) As if things were coasting along just fine until about 11pm on Tuesday and then, BAMN! all of a sudden the economy just imploded out of the blue, as soon as CNN called the election for Obama. C'mon now people, think! We all know better than that.

In theory, yes. I reality it probably depends a lot on the dynamics of the situation. Here are the questions that I would ask, if I were the Tiger DL. 1) What is the relationship between the families involved? Are they neighbors/good friends who have a close connection anyway, where the kids from both families know, trust, and like both sets of parents? If yes, then maybe it would work. If no and this is purely a babysitting or convenience type of relationship, then I'd be inclined to say no. Part of the purpose of the Tiger partner is to allow for the child to share something special with an adult who plays a meaningful role in their lives. 2) Will the other parent's agreement to serve as Tiger partner for this child take away from the experience of his/her own child in the program? This might depend on both boys' personalities. If one is a handful or really needs an adult's undivided attention, then the other will suffer. 3) Is the other parent someone who really has the capacity to work with other people's kids? Or are they basically just a name on the piece of paper? Some adults could do this, some are already minimally involved with their own kid. In the latter case, having a "Tiger Partner" for 2 boys who isn't really that involved would place more of a burden on the TDL. 4) Does the boy not have any other family members who could serve as his Tiger Partner? Grandparents, aunts & uncles, older cousins, etc.? 5) Is the kid an absolute terror? Does his presence routinely make it difficult to run a program? One hopes that the typical 6 year old wouldn't be able to derail things single-handedly, but there are a few who can and do. In those cases, I would want to insist on a parent being present. Depending on the child, the families, the den dynamics, this might be a viable (though not optimal) solution, or it might be a really bad idea. Ultimately it would be a good idea to sit down with all involved parties and discuss the options and decisions, whatever they may be, so that everyone is on the same page. I hope this helps you and the TDL think things through a bit further.

Funscout, let's have a reality check moment. Christmas bonuses were in jeopardy regardless of who won the election. You may have noticed that the economy was in the tank, the stock market was a disaster area, and companies large and small were being squeezed and throttled BEFORE the election too. Or is that Obama's fault as well? I'm sure there'll be plenty of blame to place on the Obama administration once he's actually in office and taking actions. No need to blame him for "causing" things to go south before he ever sets foot in the oval office too.

"That's kind of religio-political supremacy is central to Islamist thought, eh?" Beavah, I want to ask you to clarify what you meant here, because one of the defining features of most variations of Islam is the lack of a central figure who is widely believed to be "supreme." Now there are exceptions to that, but they tend not to be the more widely followed types of Islam. In most variants, there simply is not some pope-like figure who can be reasonably said to be The Leader of the faithful. And in fact that's one of the things that makes it harder to figure out how to approach the extremist groups. Or, did you instead mean to suggest that theocratic rule in general (not a particular person as leader) is key to understanding Islamist (not necessarily Islamic) thought?

Frank, That's a harrowing tale. I wish you a speedy recovery and I'm glad you're back.

Thought I'd approach the matter of sending your son camping without a parent along. I only have one son and so the poor kid has been my guinea pig his whole life, in a manner of speaking. We (husband and I) were very involved in cub scouts with him and I really buy into the power of the cub scouting program to support building strong families. Now I know a thing or two about boy scouting, but at the time my son transitioned from cubs to boy scouts, I have to say I was rather skeptical about some of the troop leaders. They didn't seem to pay very close attention to some actions the boys took - moderate chaos was not unusual at some troop functions we visited. Kids being kids, there was also some rough and tumble activity from time to time. I didn't know any of these adult leaders and wasn't sure if I could trust them to pay adequate attention to my kid's safety. None the less I didn't hover all that much. I sent him off on camp outs and only rarely went with him. I'll admit to wanting to be within arm's reach of the phone on his first couple of camp outs though, just in case things went badly and he needed me to rescue him. Didn't happen though. He has had some rough times, some challenging experiences, some unpleasant moments with some of his fellow scouts. He's camped in really lousy weather and learned from his lack of preparation. He's been hungry from time to time due to poor planning or implementation. There are a couple of adults he has met who he thinks are real jerks. Through all of that, he survived, thrived, grew, learned, and matured. Once I got to know the adults in the troop (and in many cases, their older children, who turned out to be fine young men and women) I felt more comfortable trusting their judgment with my child. There are some matters over which I have strong disagreements with other adult leaders from time to time, but I no longer worry that my kid would be unsafe in their care. So the point of all this is that I can certainly understand a parent's concerns and sense of caution - even extreme caution - when parents try to imagine what it will be like, sending their kid off camping without them. Pre-teen and teenage boys are not always the most logical, careful, or thoughtful creatures and I think all of us want to protect our kids to the extent it is possible. But the answer isn't to hover over them and only allow them to do things as long as you're right there. The answer is to get to know the adults in question. If, upon getting to know them, you feel that they aren't capable of keeping your kid safe, then maybe you should look for a different scout troop where you are more able to trust the adults in charge. A parent shouldn't keep their kid from having valuable experiences though, just to placate their own worries.

I voted this afternoon, took me maybe 15 minutes. The poll workers told me that by 1pm today they'd already seen greater turn out than in the entire primary election and they figured we were on pace for 60% or better of eligible voters in the precinct to actually vote. Not bad. I don't believe there's a lot of suspense about who is going to win the presidency tonight, at this point. Some of the major news media are saying they'll call the election as early as 7-7:30pm, depending on what happens in VA and IN (polls close at 7) and in NC and OH (polls close at 7:30). Not sure I like that idea of calling it so early to be honest - not much excitement after that, is there. Not to mention that half the country will still be voting at that time. But what can you do. So for me, the suspense will come in seeing whether or not Obama gets more than 40% of the vote in my Republican-dominated county. We all have to have something to look forward to, right? (By the way, my 14 year old is hooked on elections now I think. He's been following this more closely than I have and is marveling at the notion that next time in 2012, he'll get to vote too.)

YEah depends a bit on the exact poll. Looking at an interview with the Pew Center's Andrew Kohut (as fair as they come, that guy), I see that on October 19 2006, Kohut was reporting a 16% approval rating. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec06/congress_10-19.html But more importantly perhaps, is to look at who disapproves of Congress and why. In that regard I found this report to be pretty interesting, coming from Gallup (again, a well-regarded professional polling organization). This summer, they found that Congressional approval was at 14%, which was apparently the lowest rating in the 30+ year history of Gallup asking that question. Upon furhter investigation one thing they found was that the biggest drop in approval seemed to come from Democratic voters, who felt about the same way about the Democratically controlled Congress in July 2008 (11% approval), as they did about the Repubican controlled Congress in October 2006 (12% approval). Edited to add: OOPs, I forgot the link the first time. Here it is: http://www.gallup.com/poll/108856/Congressional-Approval-Hits-RecordLow-14.aspx While it may shock you to learn that I'm not too impressed with Nancy Pelosi and friends myself from time to time, the numbers in the Gallup poll do seem to support what Terry said in his recent post, that people are frustrated with Congress, and specifically that Dems have been frustrated with Congress' seeming inability to make much of a difference in the Bush policies of the last few years. Anyway, my larger point was that it is sort of goofy to blame either party exclusively for low Congressional approval ratings because there's plenty of blame to go 'round, and voters of most stripes are in a pretty ugly mood these days. As for term limits - people might want to consider the downsides. Living in MI I can tell you that even many former supporters have changed their minds after giving this a whirl. We have term limits on state legislative offices. The result has been huge turn-over meaning lots of inexperienced folks who are inept and can't really be held accountable in the longer run because before you know it they're term-limited out of office. Also a big increase in nasty partisanship of the cheapest/lowest sorts because hey, you're only going to be in the legislature for a short time so why bother with bipartisanship, compromise, and common sense. Just play attack dog to your heart's content and while you're at it you'd better bow lower to those "special interests," which could set you up nicely for some other job when you are term-limited out in a couple of years. There's a reason this state has been run into the ground and it isn't all the fault of Ford and GM.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

I like to tell folks that "PhD" frequently stands for "piled higher and deeper." Having academic credentials is no guarantee that someone will not suddenly develop a bad case of stupidity as regards their actions outside the classroom. (Let's be fair though. I know plenty of folks in all sorts of walks of life who may or may not be highly skilled in their chosen profession, but who are idiots in practically all other aspects of life. This is hardly related to the guy being a professor.)

Funny thing - I posted a reply a while back but it seems to have vanished in the ethers. So I'll try again. Brent, you claimed that pack's opinion of Bush was "extreme." I pointed out that based on the evidence, in fact pack's view is pretty mainstream, in that the great majority of Americans seem to share that view. Your argument about Congress is (at best) a tangent. But, if you want to talk about Congress, yes sure, their approval rating is horrible (between 18-20% right now depending on the poll). Beaver and Terry have hit on some good explanations for why this is the case. Let me also just point out that the Congressional approval ratings in late 2006 - back when the Republicans were still in control - were just about exactly where the approval ratings for Congress are today. So I don't think it makes a lot of sense to try to hang this on one party or the other.

You know Brent, when 86% of the American people think the country is on the wrong track and Bush's approval ratings is in the mid 20 percentiles, I hardly think Pack's views qualify as "extreme." "Mainstream" might be more like it, as he appears to be in agreement with the great majority of Americans at this point in time. Just injecting some perspective here, that's all.

Heh heh. The area I live in is heavily Republican and our local member of Congress hardly faces a tough fight for re-election. Despite that fact, the guy has opted to do a whole lot of those annoying robo calls. The other day I got 4! In the space of about 2 hours! And what makes it worse is that there's no way in the world I'd ever, ever, ever vote for the guy - but you can't exactly convince a tape recorded message of that fact. So. I found his home phone # and started calling his house and leaving him long messages about why I won't vote for him for every one of his robo calls that I get. Always polite, of course. Juvenile, sure, but I admit I got some satisfaction from it and he surely knows now that he doesn't have my vote. (And you know, I haven't gotten any more calls from his campaign since I did that. Probably just coincidence but it still was kind of fun.)

You know you don't have to listen to them. But they have 1st amendment free speech rights too, and so they have every right to attempt to share their political views with all who will give them the time of day. In that vein they are no different than you are, since you have chosen to use this forum to express your own beliefs. Side note - that pesky first amendment! Sarah Palin doesn't appear to be a big fan of it either! (Too bad she doesn't appear to understand it though...)

THe LDS church is not a major player in scouting in our area, but the local churches do charter scouting units. A couple of years ago we moved our roundtable to a more central location in our district, and we ended up being housed at an LDS church. They've been nothing other than welcoming and have done absolutely nothing to push any sort of religious or political beliefs on folks. One positive aspect of this is that leaders of several LDS packs and troops are more frequent participants in RTs and indeed, serve on the RT staff. They're lovely people who are clearly dedicated to scouting. They are (mostly) quite happy to interact with other scouters and other units to do joint activities, schedule permitting. I've noticed as well that the LDS troop I have gotten to know uses the patrol method, the adult association method, and teaches "scout skills" more effectively than a lot of non-LDS troops in our area do. It has also been quite interesting, talking with them about the way that their church uses the scouting program as part of its youth program. The age-based distinctions among different scout groups actually make a lot of sense sometimes, as I think about the number of non-LDS troops who struggle to keep a population of 10-17 year all happy at the same time, failing as often as they succeed at one (or both) ends of that spectrum. I don't know what the LDS church's stance on Prop 8 in CA is, although it wouldn't surprise me to learn that conservative religious groups of many stripes oppose gay marriage. But I don't see how this ties in with scouting. You don't have to join their religion or even like it, to be a scout(er), and a friend to others. Don't let a couple of interactions with a couple of individuals color your view of a whole group. (And no, I'm not in the LDS church)

Among other things, a problem with your logic here is that the beads are NOT a "gift."

Scoutingtexas, it seems to me that you have been going from thread to thread, insinuating that this individual is not a good leader or role model. I think it is fairly plain that you don't care for this fellow. But what you're doing? Could be considered as libel. And it does you no good. You think you have a leader who is doing morally objectionable things. Maybe you're right, maybe not. I don't live in Texas and I certainly don't know the individuals you are talking about. But honestly, how is posting a bunch of insinuations all over this web forum helping you, or the situation? I don't see it. Nothing in the WB curriculum amounts to a character test. Dark hint from other leaders are not enough to disqualify someone. If you're that upset and believe you have cause for your concern, go to the Charter Organization. But it better be a clear cut case and there better be loads of evidence to back up your claims because otherwise you're likely to be accused of causing problems where there are none, possibly tearing apart a troop, and, to be blunt, sticking your nose in other people's business. Another option would be to find another troop to serve or to put your son(s) in.

I'm with Eamonn that dumping this into the lap of the PLC could be a problem. I watched that happen in my son's troop after some considerable behavioral issues took place at summer camp this year, and the result was undesirable. The feeling of many adults was that an issue of sufficient gravity to require disciplinary follow-up is probably an adult matter, and that failure to deal with it at the adult level looked suspiciously like the adults were punting. As you might imagine, this perception of adults abdicating responsibility went over badly with the parents of all involved (including some PLC members who felt it had been dumped on them out of the blue with no clear guidelines) and resulted in some angry phone calls. Not good for anybody. Watching this mess unfold, I concluded that: 1) If you expect your youth leaders to deal with disciplinary situations, you'd better provide clear expectations and guidelines for punishment up front/before hand, you'd better make sure everyone in the troop knows you actually mean it in advance, and you'd better train your youth leaders to handle these situations. Dumping it on them unexpectedly is unfair to them, as well as to the youth who stand accused. 2) Whether this is the SM's or Committee's job is, perhaps, a debatable point but there needs to be communication and hopefully agreement between these parties, before, during, and after the matter is handled. A CC who tells people "hey that's the SM's job" and an SM who tells people "hey that's the PLC's job" isn't going to instill confidence or trust in anybody. 3) Anything that looks like punting or sweeping under the rug won't go over well and will cause problems down the road. 4) Keep the parents in the loop. If my kid does something he shouldn't and it is serious enough to require disciplinary review of some sort, I expect to hear about it - promptly - from the adult leaders. Failure to communicate about problems and how they're being handled will maximize the likelihood of having angry people call you when some decision - any decision - is made about how to deal with the problems. 5) Sometimes you have to decide who you want to keep in the troop. It would be nice to think that all parties involved would deal with their concern or anger in a reasonable manner, but we all know that's not always the case. So if you know that you're going to anger some family/families to the point where they may quit, who are you more willing to lose? The kid who causes the problems or the kids who are on the receiving end of the poor behavior? Because I guarantee you, Beavah is right that the "good" kids are watching you just as closely as the "problem" kids to see how you respond and whether you mean it when you talk about the Scout Law and Oath. (ETA: I should add, in our case, the results of a botched approach included 1 boy quitting, several more thinking seriously about quitting, and at least 1 boy outspokenly stating his loss of trust in the judgment of the adults who, he felt, didn't "get it." That's among the boys. Among adults, we lost an ASM and a committee member, lingering bad feelings among several parents, and another parent states that they no longer want their child to have conversations with any adult leaders for which a parent is not present. Yikes, none of that is good.)(This message has been edited by lisabob)

My son's troop has done these sometimes. Beavah, I don't know how it works elsewhere but I don't suppose you need to worry, if other units work like his does. Typically they get an introduction to a MB - have some fun with it, do some hands-on stuff, etc. - but those who want to actually earn it, would need to do considerably more than what is possible in a weekend. In reality, most boys seem to enjoy trying out some activities, but relatively few actually follow through and earn the MB.