NJCubScouter

I may have missed a thread somewhere, but what new Handbook are you all talking about it? I take it from the discussion that you are not talking about the Scout Handbook, but rather an LDS-specific publication. Is that a publication for adults or Scouts?

That photo is surprising, but I don't think we should read into it that there has been or will be a change to the uniform policy. A more likely explanation is that National just doesn't examine its publications closely enough to make sure the contents (especially photos) are consistent with policy. Many examples of that have been discussed in this forum over the years. It still surprises me when a blatant example like this turns up, though. If there is a change coming, it's interesting to note that it's only in the last 10 years or so that the BSA actually INCREASED the number of different neckerchiefs in the Cub Scout program. When my son started Cub Scouts in the late 90's, there were two, a "Cub Scout" neckerchief (for Wolf and Bear) and a Webelos neckerchief. Then the blue neckerchief for Bear was introduced and then a few years later (not sure exactly when since my son was a Boy Scout by then) they put the Tigers in the blue uniforms with an orange neckerchief. So they went from two to four (plus the neckerchief for Boy Scouts) in a short time period. Now, several years later, the CSE is photographed with a bunch of boys wearing no neckerchiefs at all.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

upnorthmn, when I first saw the title of this thread near the top of the list, it seemed familiar. In looking at it, there is a good reason for that: You have managed to reactivate a nearly NINE year old thread, for no apparent reason. On the other hand it was interesting to see some of the names of posters who have not been active in the forum for many years. And as it turns out, this thread contains the fifth post I ever made at Scouter.com. What a blast from the past.

Brent, I don't really know that much about Barbour and Pawlenty. I don't think the Republicans would dare nominate another Bush for president, at least not unless the economy gets much better. And if the economy does get much better in the next year or so (which probably isn't happening), it probably doesn't much matter who the Republicans nominate, and you would see potential Republican candidates heading for the exits in droves. As for Chris Christie, well, I do know quite a bit about him. Though I don't believe a lot of what he says, I do believe him when he says he's not running. It's one thing to say you're not running and then run, that happens all the time. It's another thing to also say what he said, which was "I don't think I'm ready to be president", and then run. Anybody in politics knows that if you say that and then run, you will hear about it every single day until the election. It's also kind of interesting because it implies that he thinks that someday he WILL be ready. Anyway, I could say more about Christie and why I think he is in the highest office he will ever hold, maybe another time. One thing that will be interesting is when any of these guys do decide to run, what kind of skeletons are found hanging in their closets. I realized that neither of us mentioned the one person besides Palin who is getting a lot of attention as a potential candidate, and that is Newt Gingrich. Speaking of skeletons in closets.

I'm sure they are having these problems because they moved to Texas. Companies and organizations in New Jersey never have computer problems. (That was a joke. It's sad that I feel I have to say that, but I know I do.) By the way, when did "fail" become a noun? (As in the title of this thread.) It seems to me that until about, I don't know, maybe a year or two ago, something that "failed" (verb) was a "failure" (noun). Now, quite often, it's just a "fail." (Not when I'm speaking or writing though, I still use "failure.") Maybe this has been developing for years and I just never noticed it, but it definitely seems to be much more common recently. Who decides these things?

It will be interesting to see what happens in the Republican primaries (including the polls that are probably going to start in a few months, considering the Iowa caucuses are just over a year away!) if Sarah Palin does NOT run. It seems to me that she has attracted such a huge share of the attention for the past year that any other potential candidate has been unable to get anyone to listen to them. She has basically crowded out the field. That does not necessarily mean she will win the nomination, but who's going to beat her? I'm not sure how any of the other potential candidates are doing with fundraising, but I can't imagine that its very easy at this point. The tea-partiers seem to be in control of the Republican party right now (or at least, close to it), and it's difficult to see any of the also-rans from last time getting much traction with that group. Both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee tried to be the "conservative candidate" last time as opposed to John McCain, and neither really caught on, to the point where the anti-McCain faction had to draft Fred Thompson to be the "conservative candidate", and he didn't catch on either. Am I forgetting anybody? Is there a credible potential candidate other than Palin who has a chance of getting the backing of the tea-partiers? What about Jim DeMint? I have heard a lot about him but I'm not sure I've ever actually seen him speak, so I don't know if he is the one galvanize the crowds. I think a lot of Republicans are unhappy with him because of the statement that I believe he made, something along the lines of he would rather the Republican Party be a purely conservative party and be in the minority in the Senate, than have the majority with the help of "moderates." I think a lot of Republicans (though maybe not a majority) realize that if that their party basically drums out everybody to the left of Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint and Michelle Bachman, they are not going to have much of a shot at winning the presidency next time. By the way, as for her television show, I have not seen it and don't plan to, but it's nothing personal -- it just means that her show is one of the 99 percent of "reality shows" that I have no interest in watching. One exception is "Dirty Jobs", with Eagle Scout Mike Rowe -- and he's even done at least one episode in Alaska! Not to mention he is the narrator of "Deadliest Catch", which is filmed entirely in and around Alaska. Maybe he should run for president?(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Eamonn, You seem to be saying the economy in Ireland is having much the same problems that we are here, but of course we didn't go with the euro. Maybe it was a mistake to go with the dollar? And how is the UK, which stuck with the good-old pound, doing in this mess? Is the economy there significantly better than in the US? I have heard about the economic situation in a number of countries lately (all bad, except for China, but they are going to pollute themselves to death), but I don't think I have heard anything at all about the situation in the UK.

Trust Packsaddle to come up an outing at a lab! Just kidding, it sounds like a good idea, as do all of these. Better than my troop, which is sort of stuck in a rut with our 10 weekend trips a year being basically a rotation between only about 13 or 14 different places, and always the same...(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Beavah says: If that means payin' gas or camp fees, that's goin' to be what? 25 cents an hour for the SM's time? If that means giving the fellow an REI gift certificate for wear and tear on personal gear every year, so be it. If that means giving him a big shiny new plaque every year to show his boss or an all-expense-paid night on the town for SM and Mrs. SM to keep the home front sound, so be it. Well, you had me until the last one. Actual expenses for gas and fees, sure. Gift certificate, and looking at it as a reimbursement for wear and tear, I don't think I've heard that one before, but ok. Plaque, absolutely, though I don't think a new one every year is necessary; maybe a nice certificate in the non-plaque years. But the all-expense paid night on the town... it just seems a little over the top and more like "compensation", which legal or not, Scouting volunteers generally don't get. Our troop does pay registration fees for all adults, although if someone is not active but just on the roster, they are asked to pay. This is the case with a few ASM's who graduated from the troop and are away at college, and usually their parents are happy to pay in order to keep them registered. For weekend camping trips where there is an individual admission fee (like last weekend's trip to "Scout Day" at the Naval Academy, which includes a ticket to the football game), everybody pays, adult and youth. Otherwise if it is a matter of renting a cabin or campsite, the troop pays. For food, there is a flat fee per trip, which everybody pays, and the food-shoppers stay within that budget (and if it sounds like we might have some patrol method issues, yeah, well...) I have a feeling the Scoutmaster himself does not pay, but nobody really asks about it, and nobody would have a problem with it either way.

I had to look it up too. But you have to wonder, is it really "her" Alaska if her candidate for Senate (in her own state) can't even beat a write-in candidate? (I realize they are still counting and suing, but that's the way it looks.) Not to mention that she abandoned "her" state by resigning halfway through her one term as governor. If I lived there, I would contest her ownership, you betcha.

vol_scouter, by that standard, Ronald Reagan and both Presidents Bush were RINO's too. Who's NOT a RINO by that standard. This whole thing about RINO's is nonsense anyway. Back when I became "politically aware", there were Republican Senators like Clifford Case, Jacob Javits and Edward Brooke, and others like VP Nelson Rockefeller, who would be called "liberal" today. Even Richard Nixon was from that wing of the party, though he was more conservative. Over the next 20 years, the conservatives and now the ultra-conservatives have taken over the party, so now it seems that the Republican leaders of the 60s and 70s were never really Republicans in the first place -- along with many Republicans of today, such as John McCain, who really is a conservative but is despised by the teapartiers because he sometimes compromises with Democrats. What has really happened is that many Republicans have had their party pulled out from under them. If this were any other country, these people would form a new party. In this country their only other viable alternative is to join the Democrats -- but they would find themselves too conservative to get nominated for much in the Democratic party. Look what happened to Arlen Specter, who in my opinion is one of the best lawmakers this country has had for more than 25 years. As for the other stuff, vol_scouter, I'll just pick out one thing: Do you really believe that the health care bill was "socialist"? I mean, really? It's not even close. Actual socialists would laugh their heads off over that statement. The bill doesn't even have a public insurance option. It is just some increased regulation of an insurance industry that badly needed increased regulation to stop them from ripping off the public. If that's "socialism", so be it. But it's not.

Gern, that's the funny thing about people who talk about "pork barrel" all the time, usually their definition of "pork" is a project in someone else's district or state. In their own state, where the project will provide jobs, speed up traffic, etc., it's not pork, it's that highway, or that bridge, or that federal courthouse, or that military base expansion, that we've needed for years. We'll see if the newly elected teapartiers are any different, but I doubt they will be. We already know Rand Paul won't be any different. And Sarah Palin, the hostess of the tea party, is a complete hypocrite on the subject. Alaska gets a huge amount of federal spending compared to other states. The little town of Wasilla had an entire administrator whose job was to coordinate federal grants, because they got so much. My town has a population about 10 times that of Wasilla, but has no such person, because the federal government does not spend a lot of money around here. Having said all that, it is my sincere hope that Palin does win the Republican nomination next time, as opposed to someone who can actually get elected President. Maybe her running mate could be that other new darling of the tea party, NJ Gov. Chris Christie -- who, to go back to Lisa's original post, is a Republican of Unusual Size all by himself. (Not that I am exactly a ballerina myself.)

JoeBob: Start with "Mission Accomplished"?

Lisa, This page has some information on the subject: http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/marriage.html It should be said that Garden State Equality is not exactly objective on the subject, although I agree with them. They are the main advocacy group on the subject in New Jersey. However, there is a report of a government commission linked on that page (it is the top item in the blue box on the right) which studied the subject about two years after civil unions were introduced, and reached the same conclusion.

This decision in Iowa is very similar to the one made by the New Jersey Supreme Court several years ago, essentially that the state constitution guarantees citizens equal protection of the laws, and in order to give a right or opportunity to one group and not another, the government must show that it is necessary to do so in order protect one or more governmental interests, and the government was unable to do so. The difference is that in New Jersey, while the Supreme Court was unanimous in declaring that the straights-only marriage law was unconstitutional, the court then split on what the state had to do about it. Three justices in New Jersey (including the Republican Chief Justice, by the way) said what the Iowa Supreme Court said: The state can comply with the constitution only by allowing same-gender couples to "marry". Four justices, however, said the legislature could come up with some other "status" that would have all the same rights as marriage, but not be called marriage. So the legislature passed a civil union law. Since then, there has been quite a bit of evidence that same-gender couples don't actually get ALL the same rights as "married" couples, so if another case comes along in a few years, the result may be different, and New Jersey will have "gay marriage." Or the legislature may make the change itself, though it's unlikely that our current governor would sign such a bill. But in both Iowa and New Jersey, the Supreme Court looked carefully at this issue and decided that their constitution does not allow the legislature to make the distinction that it was making. Like it or not, that is the role of a Supreme Court, whether federal or state. Whether you agree that they drew the line in the right place is, of course, a different story. I think they did. It would be nice if the legislatures would make these decisions so courts didn't have to, but in the end a statute has to comply with the constitution.

Those who don't think this post is funny are one of two types: 1- People who have NO sense of humor and get more joy from expressing phoney outrage. - or - 2- Dallas Cowboys fans... I don't think it's funny. I expressed no outrage, phoney (or phony) or otherwise. As for having a sense of humor, I have been told, both in real life and on the Internet (including in this forum) that I am a pretty funny guy, and I love a good joke. I even like a lot of BAD jokes (bad in the sense of puns and back-of-Boys-Life-type jokes, not bad in the sense of evil - although I have, in my life, laughed at some jokes I shouldn't have. (Anybody ever hear the one where the punchline is, "Well, you're going to hate Thursdays!"? I love that one, but I can't tell any more of it than that in this forum, and it definitely is not campfire approved. Heck, in this forum I have heard objections to "And the sap is still running", which I thought was hilarious, at least the first three or four times I saw it performed, usually with a Commissioner or Cubmaster in the title role.)) But as I have gotten older I have realized that there are some subjects that make a joke inherently unfunny, and this was one of them. On your last point, when I do follow the NFL these days, I root for the Jets, who (and I had to look this up just now, I didn't know) seem to be doing very well so far this season. (Added note: I just looked up that joke on the Internet, so for anybody who looks it up, the version I know is shorter, funnier, has all the crude words removed and is set in (or actually on the way to) a federal prison, not in the Devil's domain as are most of the Internet versions. And it was told to me by a prominent (now late) New Jersey political figure, who was a great storyteller, and who told it as a true story with the names of two other actual politicians as the characters in the joke.)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Eamonn, that sounds like a reasonable deal. Please let us know what they say.

Merlyn, this is the Issue AND POLITICS forum, so there is nothing restricting threads to subjects directly related to Scouting. I think members of the forum tend to want to stick to Scouting-related subjects anyway, so the non-Scouting discussions are kind of self-limiting. Right before and right after a federal election, the non-Scouting discussions tend to outnumber the Scouting topics, and that happened again this year. John-in-KC says: This Commission is not congressional. It was appointed by the President. It happens on his watch, it's his. That is incorrect. The commission was not solely appointed by the President. The majority and minority leaders of each house of Congress got to appoint 3 members each (from among the membership of their house), and the president appointed 6, of whom no more than 4 could be Democrats. (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-national-commission-fiscal-responsibility-and-reform) (Pretty good researching, considering I had never heard of this commission before I read your post.) That means that Congress actually appointed a MAJORITY of the commission, members of Congress ARE a majority of the Commission, and half of those are Republicans. The Republican leaders got to appoint 6 of 18 members, and there were 2 other Republicans besides. (List of appointees here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform) And since the Executive Order provides that 14 "yes" votes are required to approve any recommendations, nothing could be recommended by this commission without official Republican approval. (And, somewhat predictably, nothing has been officially recommended, since your own link said that this is just a report of the two chairmen -- one of whom is a conservative former Republican Senator -- and was not approved by the commission.) (This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Do you have any more jokes about child abuse that you'd like to share?

You call this the "Obama Deficit Reduction Plan", but from the article you linked to, this is not a plan from the president, but from a commission he appointed. Googling the commission revealed that it is a bipartisan commission, and from the article you linked to, this is not even a report of the commission, but rather from the two co-chairs (one from each party.) I doubt the proposal to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction is going anywhere in Congress -- although, there are a number of (mostly) Republican congressmen who have been elected over the years on a platform of a "flat tax", and the mortgage interest deduction is (I believe) inconsistent with the idea of a "flat tax." So, whose line is it anyway? Not the president's, or not just the president's. So if people are going to do any "flaying", they should watch which way their knives are pointed.

Of course, in Yiddish (which, after all, is mostly a dialect or offshoot of German) that word (with a short u) means something else entirely. Actually several something elses depending on whether it is being used literally or figuratively, but none of them have anything to do with model trains.

I beleive a certain jr. senator from IL said something very similar. Oh? What exactly did he say?

Pack, you asked about the term "precalc" and whether algebra is included therein. I think the poster was using the term to refer to a particular course, the high school course immediately before "Calculus." My son's math sequence (from 8th grade) was Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2, Precalc, Calculus (and now in college Calculus III, which I assume is so named because his High School calculus course was considered to be two one-semester courses in sequence. Don't ask me what Calculus III is, I have looked at his book and it's like trying to read Vulcan, and I left my Vulcan dictionary in the spaceport.) Our High School also has Calculus III (only as an AP course) for kids who qualify for Algebra 1 in Grade 7 and follow the sequence all the way up. Not sure what math those kids take as a college freshman, and not sure I want to know because it wouldn't mean anything to me anyway. When I was in High School the sequence was the same, except that what is now called Precalc was, as I recall, named "Trigonometry and Mathematical Analysis", which we students called "Triganalysis." It had a lot of sines and cosines and a lot of other things that I really don't remember, and I assume that's what "Precalc" is now. I have also seen it called "Senior Math", based on the fact that that "normal" sequence was Algebra 1 in the 9th grade, Geometry in 10th, Algebra 2 in 11th grade and "Senior Math" (i.e. trigonometry etc.) in 12th. Probably about 75 percent of my high school class was on that level, but I don't think very many of them actually took "Senior Math."

Here in New Jersey we have a relatively new Governor, Chris Christie. I disagree with most of what he has done since taking office, but that's beside the point of this post. He has spent the 10 months since he took office gaining a reputation (apparently nationwide) as a "budget-cutting conservative", and he has indeed cut the state budget, not necessarily in any rational way, and influenced heavily by who he sees as his political friends and enemies, and with a lot of detrimental results that could have been avoided, but he definitely has cut the budget. He also has undercut the federal stimulus program, by telling school districts who received federal funding this year (intended mostly to reverse teacher layoffs) that they'd better keep the money in the bank because their state aid is going to be reduced by whatever the federal government sent them. Quite a guy. In light of Tuesday's election results, he is suddenly being talked about as a Republican presidential candidate -- probably because he is "ahead of the curve" by a year, following the "Tea Party" platform before there was even a Tea Party. Now this is a guy whose only elected office prior to governor was as a county governing body member (we call them freeholders here, for obscure historical reasons), and that was for one term, and he couldn't even get his own party to renominate him for re-election. Then his political cronies got him an appointment from the last President to be U.S. attorney, now he's Governor, and being discussed for president. Go figure. But I do have to give him credit for what he did yesterday. Since Tuesday he had been besieged by reporters and others asking him over and over whether he will, might or could run for president in 2012. Here is what he finally said: I've said I don't want to. I'm not going to. There is zero chance I will. I don't feel like I'm ready to be president. I don't want to run for president. I don't have the fire in the belly to run for president. But, yet, everyone seems to think that I've left the door open a little bit. Short of suicide, I don't really know what I'd have to do to convince you people that I'm not running. I'm not running! So I guess he's not all bad -- just all bad when it comes to policy, finance, etc.

Sounds like a modest proposal to me, Packsaddle.