packsaddle

GWD, I feel your pain. (I just love writing that ) Anyway, back during the Carter years my wife and I were graduate students. Our combined income was about $8,000. We were naive and idealistic enough to actually start a family. Sometimes I look back and just shake my head in wonder. After Reagan I and the shenanigans pulled by the Republicans, I idealistically volunteered to become a deputy registrar and I spent hundreds of hours registering people to vote. I registered nearly half of the population of our mill village as well as others in the area. I registered people who were illiterate and people who proudly stated they wanted to make sure the n-words didn't take over. On the Reagan II election day, I was in the voting booth when some of my new registrants came in, elderly husband and wife. The poll manager was explaining to them how it worked. He showed them a sample ballot and told them how to mark it. He explained that if they wanted to vote straight Republican or straight Democrat, all they had to do was mark that one little spot. BUT if they wanted to vote for Strom Thurmond but the rest Democrats, they would have to mark each separately. As I exited from the booth he was explaining to them that they needed to go to separate booths. The woman objected. She said, "If he's not with me, how am I going to know who to vote for?" That election, our community had the largest voter turnout in history but after the moment of that woman's remark, I was no longer quite so idealistic.

"Why not instead of assigning some arbitrary person, hypothetically, just for fun...-> let the boy take the lead and pick who he feels is best qualified to answer his questions?" This assumes the boy actually KNOWS who is best qualified. The fact that this discussion is happening is evidence that a boy may have plenty of unqualified adults to choose. I agree with Bob White. "And I surely do understand the desire on the part of the adults to make sure the boy gets his Eagle, and that statement alone is the sum total of the problem." Then DON'T do this. That would be the sum total of the solution. I tell the scouts in this unit that no one should be ashamed of ending with the rank of Life. I tell them that while I want them all to have every opportunity to make it to Eagle, such advancement is on THEM. Their parents are free to do whatever they want but I make sure that they boys have the opportunity to succeed on their own, or to fail to earn the rank...ON THEIR OWN. Either way, the experience could be a valuable life lesson, perhaps one of the last, before adulthood.

This was an interesting case. It has implications much broader than just UC. http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/08/uc-and-the-crea.html and http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/13/BAQT129NMG.DTL&type=science "Hallelujah, say the academics and scientists. The University of California has prevailed over a lawsuit that sought to force the university to accept creationist science classes from two private Christian high schools as college-prep courses." I had wondered how long something like this would take to show up at the college level. Now I know. Good for UC for standing firm. And the court ruled correctly. Be advised.

I'm glad someone mentioned the 'fair tax'. I too think it is a very intriguing idea. There are few things I dislike more than having to waste time wading through a tax return. Just tell me how much I owe and let me write the d*** check. I haven't read the book, though, so maybe someone can tell me how we do the switch. In my way of thinking, there's just no way to have anything but a clean break from one system to the other. And THAT would be a huge upheaval in our economic system, I think. If something like a transition was attempted it would adulterate the 'fair tax' mechanism during the transition and leave the door open to mischief by politicians. Your thoughts? Beavah, I can really feel your pain. The Republican party I supported back in the Goldwater days is only alive in the minds of a minority of its current ranks, most of them old enough to remember those days. I invite you to join me in the Caribbean. Anyone else for that matter.

thus demonstrating again the power of religion to bring us all together....NOT! I guess this may actually be a lesson on the similarity between political ideology and religious ideology. Substitute 'sect' or 'denomination' for 'party' and it seems to work about the same.

Eagledad, As long as there is a signature needed in the workbook by the "Council or district advancement committee member", the potential will exist for problems like the one you mention. Ed, Of course the responsibility for the project is the scout's. The only difference between a boy asking an ASM rather than the SM and subsequently being passed on from busy leader to busy leader is that when someone has been delegated that task, the boy doesn't merely get passed around. There is no difference between this and the boy going to the SM who ISN'T too busy to answer. In both situations the boy has a need and he asks for guidance. He gets it. I'm thinking some in this forum don't.

The Scout, you seem to be an anachronism. Sorry, just like the rest of us after the rapture of 1996, you've been left behind.

your procrastination doesnt make it my emergency Ooooooo, I'm going to just LOVE saying that again and again!

I think the term is often used as a pejorative to cover for lack of ideas, perhaps knowledge. For some it is a way to link, conceptually, the target of the term to a famous socialist experiment, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I hear the same kind of thing on the radio talk shows..."Obama (Clinton, etc. fillintheblank) is a Communist"..with no further elaboration - nothing further is needed. My neighbor down the street, the one with the Confederate flag flown above the American flag, calls Obama a Communist. What he REALLY means is that Obama is a n-word but he's ashamed to say it openly, go figure. I heard one of my neighbor's sermons. His description of Jesus was as a perfect Communist. So...maybe he is an Obama supporter???? Naaaaahhhh. OGE, are you opposed to the social programs you listed?

Ed, if the SM is snowed under with duties, he is allowed to delegate some of them to the ASM, right? It's little more than a division of labor. Or does the bank president do EVERYTHING in your bank? Better yet, does your wife do EVERYTHING around the house? (you don't have to answer that ) For example, if the SM can't attend summer camp the ASM can fill that need, right? What is the difference between delegating one type of responsibility as opposed to another, if the SM needs the help? What difference does it make if the boy asks the SM compared to asking someone else to whom those duties were delegated?

Ed, I'm trying to figure out who you are disagreeing with. Help me out here.

Interesting discussions but, ahem, .....switching political parties? Helllloooo!

Numerically, Christianity is the dominant religion for the entire planet. It's just the way things are. This is one reason I snicker when I read about Christianity being under attack or something along those lines. Hard to play the victim stance when you're in the majority. As for switching, I'm like Gern. I was too young to vote for Goldwater but I campaigned for him. And I voted for Nixon...and was (along with the entire country) betrayed by him, bitterly. The experience made me give up any party affiliation whatsoever. I don't seem to fit any of them anyway. So for me the question is one that was the source of worry at the time of the founding of this country, why do we have political parties at all? They're kind of like religion - they seem to divide us rather than bring us together.

gwd, the Obama campaign knew well what the McCain camp would do with this selection for VP. It was a calculated decision and the game is afoot. I think you're right about Clinton in 2012, though. And Biden is never going to be POTUS. I had hoped he would be Secretary of State though. He would have been a great one. I'm not sure about VP. McCain is faced with all sorts of Faustian bargains in his choice. He faces interesting times no matter what. I don't envy whoever gets elected. The mess left behind by this debacle of an administration is going to hamstring the next guy no matter what. At least it will be an easy act to follow. At least McCain's not in the early stages of Alzheimer's and I think he's a decent, honest guy. So too, Lieberman, Obama, and of course, Biden. Maybe I'll just sit this one out and watch from the Caribbean, maybe from a boat, maybe from a little bungalow in Laudat. H'mm, not a bad thought at all. H'mmm.

"What is the best fix for that problem?" If the board decision was overturned on appeal, there's technically no problem. They boy was correctly awarded the rank. Now if you are interested in educating the board, this is an opportunity to do so. Kind of like counseling one of the boys.... Some rhetorical questions might be appropriate, for example: Why do you think your decision was overturned on appeal? Do you think it is possible that you made some mistakes? What do you think they were? What do you think you need to do to correct this situation? First they must recognize there is a problem and be willing to admit mistakes. Then they are ready to correct the situation. Some training might help.

Biden was my man during the primaries. And then recently I was taking a shine to McCain. Now I am so....conflicted.

Nailbone, welcome to the forums! I agree with you - it doesn't have to be that way and isn't anywhere around these parts. Scoutldr, just a note: as I remember, during at least part of the 1960s, a project wasn't required for Eagle. As a matter of fact, it wasn't required for mine. I think evmori may be correct in his criticism IF the mentor or coordinator (whatever) DOES micromanage the process. In the case of this unit, I accepted the responsibility to PREVENT any adult from micromanaging what the boy does. I have seen some very sad situations in the past when a leader thought he knew better some aspect of the boy's project and basically took over - leaving the boy watching resentfully from a corner that was not of his choosing. As long as I have this duty I will prevent that from EVER happening. For that matter Ed's criticism could just as well be applied to every adult leadership position there is, and for every other rank and merit badge. It is only a fair criticism if applied just as broadly.

I'll PM you with my schedule...I'll be coming from the Columbia direction, working my way up the various water bodies.

You'll all have a blast! While you're up there enjoying the cool cave air, guess where I'll be.... Greenwood, SC! - Slogging around habitats collecting a new invasive species. Sorry I'll miss you.

That is entirely possible.

Fgoodwin, In my view, there simiply is no way to decide one way or the other. In this respect I'm sort of in agreement with your desire to understand the Canada situation. But what I'm really saying is that neither situation, Canada or the USA, amounts to a controlled experiment. There are so many other factors, different between the two countries, that a comparison may be great fun, but such comparison is unlikely to yield a clear answer to the fundamental question of what controls enrollment in either country, or a subsidiary (and more difficult) question of how either country's enrollment is influenced by changes in policy. I simply observe that the marketplace will make its decision and in my view, regardless of how the market responds, we'll still be able to argue the mechanism. Think of it as the gift that keeps on giving.

Gern, while I agree with your thoughts and while I have observed similar things in this area, I also observe that another way to view this is through market interactions. Scouting's decline, regardless of where, is due to failure to compete in the marketplace for youth programs. There are two ways to approach this problem: to change the nature of the product or to spend more resources on trying to 'sell' an uncompetitive product. Both ways can be potentially successful, we just don't know which would be more effective. The first way is essentially a redesign of the product or, perhaps, the way it's produced. In scouting this amounts to an attempt to make the product desirable to a broader market (inclusiveness). The second way retains the old design but resorts to more aggressive marketing. The question for the first way is whether or not opening to a broader market will, at the same time, cause a decline in the current 'niche' market. The question for the second way is whether or not aggressive marketing will cause the 'niche' to buy more...or if sufficient evangelical effort will cause the broader market to 'see' things differently. There is no way to sort out the explanation for questions like the one Fgoodwin asked. We will argue them at length and never come to agreed answers. But the one thing that is for certain is that the marketplace WILL make its decision regardless of what we do. So strap on your seat belt and enjoy the ride.

I know this unit is not typical because it draws from a community that is strongly influenced by the university. But we have, let's see, four nationalities, and currently three 'races'. Only one of the boys belongs to the CO and the rest are scattered across the religious rainbow. We have modified the menus to conform to one religious restriction and two dietary restrictions. So far. If anything, diversity is increasing...largely because of the growing presence of international students and faculty around here. Some great eating establishments too! I also like the 'Large Tent' metaphor (or whatever it was that Trevorum called it). I look forward to the day when inclusiveness overcomes religious bigotry and homophobia. OGE, they're just labels. The only thing that really matters is the ideas and how willing you are to put them to the test.

I agree with Gern's instincts on the labels, 'liberal' and 'conservative'. Such labels are often employed in a dismissive manner to avoid meaningful discussion. It usually works and has succeeded in polarizing many of us. Categories work best if they mean the same thing to everyone who uses them. This is the goal of taxonomy, typology, etc. It is not useful to apply a label if it either connotes a wrong characteristic or if people think the label has different meanings. Personally, I consider myself to be extremely conservative - in the sense of conserving natural resources, financial resources, and personal freedoms. It has always struck me as odd that on this basis, I am often labeled 'liberal' by people whose politics support exploitation of natural resources, deficit spending, and also support restriction of personal freedoms by a central authority. And then call themselves, 'conservative'. Go figure. But that's OK, people can call me any name they want except 'late for dinner'. I recognize the tactic as compensation for weakness in their arguments. Oops, dinner happens to be calling right now. TTFN

Which factions do you think are the ones that aren't prejudicial from the start?