packsaddle

"Then we go bankrupt and leave our grandchildren and their children with... Greece." Hey, that's supposed to be MY line. But yep, I see it as inevitable. We'll be lucky for it only to be like Greece.

Looks like our plans for a December outing are about to be canceled now. Looks like most of the families are traveling over the holiday and re-scheduling the event might move it to January. Most of the families are traveling to the North, go figure. I guess I'm as guilty, another Christmas in NY. I'll be driving right by OGE, let's see, 4 times this season, and flying over NJ twice. Gad! edit for typo(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I feel the need to defend Iowa Farmers. Given what I know about them, they're quite sophisticated in business, big business, and at least a while back, Iowa had a great reputation for education. Seems like I remember them considering putting 'State of Mind' on their license plates or something like that. If you want to pick a group to use in a stereotypical manner, I could suggest some better alternatives a little farther south. Proxmire was an example of rather transparent use of demagoguery. I wonder if there's a similarity along those lines in this recent development?

If a group of boy scouts (a patrol) decides on their own to organize a trip out into the wilderness for that group to go camping, and then takes charge of the entire thing on their own, why on earth would anyone want to impose an adult leader on them? BSA doesn't require it. I someone argues to the contrary, I ask where the line is to be drawn? If the group wanted to meet for a day-hike in the same area? If the group wanted to camp in the vacant area on the church property? If the group wanted to go out there for a couple of hours in order to check out the terrain? If the group wanted to go for an afternoon to practice their knots? I say that if a group of boys wants to take on this kind of responsibility, a leader might provide advice if their plan seems to have problems, but by all means let them give it a try. This is sure what we did when I was growing up, even before I was old enough for boy scouts.

Vol_scouter, I agree that everything should be 'on the table'. The question I'm asking is if Congress or the public should try to 'micro-manage' NSF or other agencies? As for teaching, as the cowardly lion said, "Shucks, folks, I'm speechless".

Yeah, around here we don't appreciate how cold it gets in other parts of the country - or what 40 below really means. The boys in this unit think it's really something to have even a little snow or a frozen water bottle. Our cold weather campout (once a year) is usually at a higher elevation in the Appalachians near a ski resort so we can double up on the outing. But it's hard to justify the expense of gearing up for serious cold weather camping in this region.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I think I agree with the reasoning of William F. Buckley on this subject. He was hardly either a liberal or a Neo-con.

Yeah, this came up possibly before Beavah joined the forums but I remember at least one situation where something similar happened with regard to a thread that focused on another outspoken member who no longer posts here, at least not that I have noticed for quite a while. It's a judgment call but if the thread title can stand better without a personal reference, it might be viewed as less of a 'stick-in-the-eye'. But I have heard the 'Eponymous Thread' rule before. My 0.02 Edit: I should add that I asked OGE about this when I first saw the thread title. I wasn't sure what to think about it at the time and I wasn't sure about my memory of the 'rules' but I am the one who called his attention to it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Good thoughts. My interest in this is to expand on the underlying question that was raised in the parent thread, as it applies in this very real case. As Calico and Vol_scouter just noted with regard to Proxmire's 'Golden Fleece Award', a lack of scientific literacy, combined with political agenda, is a potent way to do damage to work that might provide public benefit. To me this is merely an example that affects what I do. It has elements that are reminiscent of the rise of T.D. Lysenko in the Soviet Union, a troubling comparison. Why NSF was targeted first is also a question in my mind...but the anti-intellectual spirit of it has not escaped my notice. I thought about this in a peripheral way while proctoring one of my final exams yesterday. I watched my students, some excellent, some struggling, a few trying to 'game' the system, but most honestly and sincerely entrusting their minds and money to a person in an academy, who entered as a stranger into their lives and in whom they made an implicit assumption that I was also sincere, competent, and honestly communicating the field in the best way I could. I am humbled by this responsibility and I salute these young people, about to take the reins of all our futures. In this way there is an assumption of complete and ingenuous honesty in the relationship between student and mentor. I consider it to be THE most important duty I have - to live up to it. ANY betrayal of that does damage to the student, to me, to the academy, to society...in profound and lasting ways (Biblically, I think of this in terms of 'visiting iniquities'). The remnants of such a betrayal are still ravaging the remnants of the Soviet Union. But if my students were wrong about that assumption...If the system was, for example, strictly for profit. What then? If I had the underlying, perhaps primary, interest in, for example, making sure I bring in revenue to support the institution...if the institution was run by trustees or leaders of the academy whose business backgrounds led them to institute a strategy to 'optimize' tuition revenues, then the result could be tragic. For example, if I was told to achieve certain targets for grade distribution, say, if I was told to manipulate the exams to produce a certain percentage of 'D's and 'F's, in order to keep the students purchasing the product (repeating courses, for example) [this might be analogous to 'planned obsolescence' in the automobile industry] or to make sure that most of them get 'A's in order to attract a growing enrollment [inherently cheap, worthless goods], such strategies would 'put the lie' to the academy. But the students, indoctrinated through these experiences, might also learn that this is an effective way (and ethic) for advancement. This could manifest itself throughout society. I could argue that some of our current plight is already a result of this kind of thing. But if I was given such a set of goals, this would have a direct and an indirect effect. First, and directly, I would have to betray their trust. (I first confronted this kind of thing when I was working in industry. I resigned rather than to compromise my professional integrity) Second, and indirectly, if I complied with the strategy I would now devote significant time to structuring the course and exams to meet the goals and this added bureaucratic (and dishonest) burden would take time away from the academic process. I see the risk for the first kind of consequence if funding for science is influenced even more strongly by political agendas (I'm not kidding myself that it isn't already influenced by politics) That risk is added to a certainty that even more pointless paperwork will be required throughout the system in order to address criticisms that may have no actual basis in reality - but may be the result of a scientifically illiterate public. So back to the question in the parent thread, that Beavah used to wake me from my nap...How much time must a scientist take away from science, to attempt to communicate to an illiterate public? I'll add to that question...if there is an added political agenda, would the scientist also be wasting his or her time in the attempt? (as was Vavilov, who eventually lost his life in the attempt) As for me, the bureaucracy already imposes itself on the process enough without adding things like this. If I was currently one of the rotating program officers for NSF and the director flopped another set of forms to be filed by me or the applicants, it would provide one more incentive for me to return to my 'day job' instead of providing this service to the public. Short of that it would slow the process, perhaps pointlessly. In the worst case, it might further betray the trust that the American people should have in the process, just as I would betray the trust of those students. This most certainly is a statement of lack of trust by Cantor or Smith. probably many others. Their political success might be a statement of similar lack of trust by the American people. And to me, it might also reflect the inevitable outcome of scientific illiteracy. I have no idea how this predictable outcome of the mid-term election will proceed. To the implied question about how to educate an illiterate public, my answer is that it is NOT the responsibility of the teacher to educate the student, only to provide the structure, resources, opportunity, and support for the students to educate themselves (that's what really happens with good students anyway)...and it is NOT the responsibility of the scientist to educate the public, but only to provide opportunities for the public that are similar to those for the students. It is the responsibility of individuals to LEARN for themselves. In as much as they do this honestly, or not, that will determine the ultimate outcome. To me the risk is incalculable damage to all of society. Like I said, the similarities to the Lysenko affair are sobering. Augering in.

So this just came across my eDesk. It is related to the comments by me and Vol_scouter and Gwd-scouter in the parent thread. I haven't gone very deeply into this website but the gist of it is that anyone who thinks an NSF project is a waste of money can note their opinion for further action. What do you think? http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/Review.htm Check out the suggested list of keywords...interesting. Edit: Come to think of it, Beavah should get the credit since he was the one who initiated the topic in the parent thread. Thanks, Beavah.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

...waking up...what? Huh? Did someone mention science? I can't speak for vol_scouter but my experience is that in order to understand issues that affect society and are based in new scientific breakthroughs, it REQUIRES at least some medium-duty lifting, so-to-speak. Heck, in my own field I have to work to stay on top of it...no way to expect the public to be there with me. I try to do my part by writing articles for local civic groups on topics in my field. I try to dispel myths and misconceptions and so far, knock on formica, I've been successful. One thing I've learned NOT to do is to try to 'inform' a politician. Or a lawyer (sorry Beav). They seem to hear what they want to hear and once that misconception is established, it's almost impossible to tear it down and get it right. Moreover, the politicians at least are prone to shooting their mouths off about things they actually barely grasp. I avoid the frustration by avoiding THEM. But as for the media, if you look at the front end of Science, you'll notice something quite different from years ago. The journal has summaries of articles written so that the gist and the relevance of the real deal can be understood without needing to understand 'ATCCAGGATTCGA...'. Then there's American Scientist. That has decent articles as well. All in all, I agree with Beavah. The science that's reported in the newspapers or on television is 'sketchy' at best and while that's bad, the worst thing is that people are likely to read or watch that stuff and think they actually 'know' something. They probably won't. Back to the nap....zzzzzzzz

This is actually an opportunity to build a closer relationship with the CO. Instead of going for a separate bank account, try to build a sub-feature of the CO budget for the Pack. Then the CO can write the checks for Pack expenses and have complete oversight over Pack finances. This would have been a wonderful improvement over what the Pack had back when I was CM. In this way, checks to the Pack are actually written to the CO but earmarked for the Pack. This could mean that donations that benefit the pack would be tax-deductible if the CO is a 501c3 organization. It also means that the Pack treasurer can be easily replaced without having to worry about signing rights, etc. Moreover, the Pack treasurer merely needs to keep a 'shadow' spreadsheet of finances in order to help the CO people keep track of everything. Just a thought.

"While the project helps the scouting community it does not help the community at large." This is the basis for my view. By analogy, I think most of us we agree that projects that improve the meeting place for the troop itself do not qualify as community service. What is the difference between that and projects at summer camp, other than the scale of the meeting place? As Basementdweller noted, while it helps other scouters, it does not help the community at large.

I'm not sure about the rules but this unit only counts service work at the camp as 'fun', not service, for all advancement levels. Community service, as far as I'm concerned, means something other than maintenance or improvements at summer camp.

Gern, Gern....we drove the bus off the cliff during the Bush administration. It's as if, somewhere in free-fall, you've suddenly become aware of the situation. It doesn't matter who's at the steering wheel. We're going to auger in anyway. Have a nice day.

As you already know, I've subscribed to 'The Economist' for decades. I've tried US News, Time, National Review, but I really like The Economist - not just for the content but also for the snotty writing style. I doubt I'd have time for a daily with that kind of detail. So I also subscribe to the local (and here I mean really local) newspaper. The kind that actually reports on local community news with a nod here and there to national or international news. How else am I to learn which commissioner is being paid off by which contractor? Or what cat fight is going on at the local school board? (Hi, Vicki) I use the internet for 'The Times', WSJ, etc. About 80% of my reading time, however, is spent on student papers, manuscript reviews, book reviews, or just reading the journals. H'mm that reminds me...bye.

The SM in this unit used to bring a battery-powered version. He did no backpacking at all though, only car-camping (if you call that 'camping'). This meant that I rarely ever camped with him. The few times I did, the Darth Vader noises were almost as soothing as the wind through tree branches. But I didn't tent with him. I'd throw my bag out onto the leaves somewhere about 30 ft away from the tent and let him have the whole thing to himself. Edit: Try to find a battery version. The last thing I'd want the boys to experience is a leader who died in the middle of the night. H'mmm, on the other hand, it would be one heck of a bonfire! (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Egad! I feel oddly responsible for this thread and I didn't even start it. Anyway, Sherm, if it's objective information who cares what the source is?

Interesting. The pack and CO do all the leg work of selling door-to-door. They take all the risk of loss in this case. And the council will probably still expect a cut of what profit would have been made. Interesting. Do you still have the popcorn? If so, try to sell it elsewhere. For whatever reason, this is a deadbeat family. When I doubled as CM and popcorn chair I grew to hate popcorn, partly because of stuff like this. I don't see a solution other than the CO doing whatever it has to or else the pack takes the hit on pack profit, or she pays up. Legal action is going to be fruitless and will just spread even more damage. In the future, accept payment ONLY as checks made to the CO, earmarked for the popcorn fundraiser, or to the pack if the pack has its own account. No cash. I really hate popcorn.

"The nation is cryin' for real statesmanship." As much as I agree with the need for real statesmanship, I don't see the nation cryin' for it. We've needed it for decades but we repeatedly went the other way. Obama looked like he had statesman qualities but his actions...what can I say? Let's face it, he was elected partly because he was NOT Bush and to many seemed to be the farthest from Bush. But his embrace and continuation of so many Bush policies has put him into some other category. He came in with strong criticism of - and pledge to end - the Bush tax cuts. Now, with the compromise, he's likely to elect to keep all of them through his entire first (and possibly only) term. We're not 'out' of Iraq and there are more troops in Afghanistan than there were under the Bush administration. Gitmo still is, and likely will remain, open. There's not much, if anything, different under the Patriot Act. The response to the economic crisis can hardly be called 'bold' or 'decisive'. In foreign policy he wouldn't even qualify as a dilettante. Even something as peripheral as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is likely to whimper into the next administration as is. It's like a smart person entered the room but was infected by a 'stupid virus' from the former occupant of the desk. Still, I wonder - given the magnitude of the train wreck that Bush left behind - if ANY statesman could do better? As it is, I suspect we still haven't seen the worst of it...it could get much, much worse yet. But look around...does anyone see a statesman or stateswoman out there anywhere? Not within my line of sight anyway. Could it be that they've looked, considered the situation for a few seconds, and then carefully hidden themselves from view?

What a bunch of crybabies! When Reagan moved the world toward a global market and talked about the unseen hand and the "magic of the free market" you people swooned! What the heck did you think was going to happen?!! This is the system we as a people voted for. It's the system we said we wanted...by a landslide. It's the American Economic System that we chose to have. To paraphrase a slogan I heard often during the Vietnam days, "The American Economic System, Love It Or Leave It".

I wonder if there are any politicians among forum members who can add to this conversation? I have noticed what seems to be their total absence over the years while there seems to be a smattering of nearly every other avocation. As to Beavah's topic question, I wonder if it's really any different today than it has been in the past at different times? Perhaps we think the exceptions (Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhour, etc.) were the norm for the past. Maybe the others were forgettable or maybe we just try to forget them.

As I understand it, the religious award is an individual endeavor that involves the scout and his own church or faith, not something that is done as a unit. Each award is for each faith and the faith decides the requirements and makes the award. BSA merely recognizes this award so that it can be worn on the uniform. If this has changed I'd like to hear about it.

Sexuality aside, if a woman in her minstrel cycle approached me, I'd probably sing along (or maybe just hum quietly) without much thought to anything else. "A wandering minstrel I, a thing of threads and patches, of stories songs and snatches, of dreamy lullabies..."(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Trev, in biology at least (probably everything else) form and function are closely linked. But we can debate that another time. I'm commenting on the 'point' of sexuality. Yes, I understand all of the social 'glue' stuff that you're describing. But those are the details. The 'point' of sexuality is simple: reproduction. If that can't happen, all the social glue in the universe is going to vanish in a generation. We're not really at odds here. You're trying to bring to light the details of the role that the complex system we call 'sexuality' plays in social interactions and systems. I'm just saying that without the function of reproduction, all of that other stuff eventually comes to an end. In the long run, if it's all coming to an end because the system lacks a critical element, what's the point of the rest of it? And to the extent that a individual is also a discrete system, what's the point of flirtation if there's no chance of anything more? To me such a flirtation would constitute a lie.