SeattlePioneer

Hello rkfrance, Yes, it's tough. I have a good e-mail list of pack leaders, and I usually send out two e-mails promoting our program for the month. As a unit leader myself, I know I have to be choosy about promoting things to pack families. You can easily inundate families with e-mails and they will just quit reading the stuff you send. We do our best. Yesterday our council had its council wide training event for the year with 700+ people attending. One of the sessions I attended was a Meet & Chat session with the council executive, council president and council commissioner --- the top brass. Two people repeatedly complained about not being informed of changing council policies. One person complained that they hadn't heard about the changes in the outing permit system, but did hear that the changes had been abandonned or heavily modified again. It was perfectly obvious that these people didn't attend Roundtable, or bothering to read the council monthly e-newsletter and were depending upon gossip for their news. They were uninformed and out of the loop, and willfully so. Of course, people are busy, and lots of people just don't want to attend more meetings. But if you don't want to use the channels of communication that are available, don't be surprised if you don't know what's going on and that the things you do know often may be wrong.

> Sorry, this is entirely inaccurate in my experience as a district membership chair doing MANY recruiting nights over the past seven years. There is a small minority of mostly liberal white Democrats who care about the homosexual issue. That's about it. The portion of the population where Scouting programs have the GREATEST penetration is white middle and upper middle income families. Units in these demographic areas may get some pushback from white liberal Democrats, but that comes while boys are flooding in to these units, swamping out the noisy minority as a rule. The real issue for BSA membership is penetrating the ranks of the rapidly growing Haspanic, Asian and other immigrant minority communities. They are the ones with little or no experience or familiarity with Scouting. They also generally don't care a fig about homosexuals, except ( I expect) that they don't want homosexuals as unit leaders providing role models for their children. Similar problems recruiting African Americans. In my opinion and experience, the homosexual issue is trivial as far as parents and families are concerned as a practical matter. The only area it has a degree of seriousness is the efforts of educated liberal Democratic elites to actively undermine BSA in schools and community organizations. Mostly that's ineffective if local BSA leaders are paying attention and countering this kind of political campaigning. In my view, it's up to the BSA to decide for itself the morality of homosexcual participation in Scouting. Permitting homosexual participation would be a likely net negative, since most parents aren't going to be attracted to having avowed homosexuals as unit leaders. But if BSA decides that is morally the right thing to do, then I expect they will change the statements of values and take the membership hit that might cause to occur. But in my view, BSA needn't feel pressured by the mostly ineffective political campaign being waged against it by liberal white Democratic political groups. The result of that is mostly trivial and of little consequence. Often they make themselves look silly by carrying on hate campaigns against Scouting. Besides, feeding the vanities of liberal groups by modifying policies on homosexuals will just cause them to change their focus to other aspects of Scouting they don't like. It's really pointless to try to appease them. In short--- BSA should change it's policies on homosexuals only if it's decided that it's the right thing to do. (This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

Heh, heh! No backpedaling now, Scoutfish! "Always forward, NEVER back, be prepared for a Tiger Cub/Wolf/Bear/WEBELOS attack!

Hello Scoutfish--- I agree completely with your values and practices. Some packs may have enough wealthy or self sacrificing parents for everyone to buy complete uniforms, and God Bless 'Em! But for packs serving lower income areas like mine, I think your value scheme is more appropriate. Different units adapt the same program to the needs of their participants and communities. That's the way Scouting works and the way it's supposed to work as far as I'm concerned.

All we know for sure is that Beavah brand liberalism was a loser at the polls last year and Obamaism is lagging significantly. His vaunted "jobs" package is DOA in the Congress. It's reasonably possible that Obama will prove to be another Jimmy Carter and the Republican nominee, whoever that might be, might occupy the White House. If that happens all Beavah's hopes will be dashed.

A lot of people seem to be unhappy with their district Roundtables. That's unfortunate, especially if it's because the program is unappealing or boring. I've been our district Cub Scout Roundtable Commissione since August, 2010, and recently I've been helped by having a co-leader who is a lot more experienced with Cub Scouts them I am. Last night, we each did about half the program. The first half which I did was a demonstration on how to make den flags. I had examples of four den flags made by boys in my pack to use as examples. This was a real "hands on" program! There were three parts to that, and we did each. First we made a stand for the flag using pieces of wood cut with a saw and nailed. Boys LOVE sawing, hammering and nailing, and the adults got a "bang" out of it too. I had a bunch of moms swinging hammers for the first time in years! A hole was drilled in the middle using an 1.25" spade bit and power drill. I had an axe and showed people how the timber base could be trimmed to fit in the hole in the base. But that's probably not a task for Cub Scouts, so I didn't do that. Then we made the skeleton to support the flag. While you can use lumber for this, I favor cutting branches out of trees. Roundtable participants decided how long they wanted their flag staff, and cut it to length. Then they decided how they wanted to support the flag, and we used a square lashing to hold a cross support on the flag staff. The we designed our flag. Since we don't have a den, we decided to make a Cub Scout Roundtable flag. Adults decided on what fabric and materials they wanted to use in our flag, including using a paper plate as a "roundtable" which will be surrounded by Tiger, Cub, Wolf, Bear and Webelos stickers. We didn't get everything completed. Just like when making real den flags, we can finish at our next meeting. The second half of the meeting was led by my co-leader, and she started out with everyone introducing themselves. Her program was identifying and recruiting new adult leaders, a great follow up to last months recruiting program and the beginning of the rechartering season. Our last segment was an opportunity for people to raise questions they have on Cub Scout issues they don't know how to deal with. Roundtable should be a place people can come to get ideas on how they can solve problems they see in their pack. We had three people raise questions like that, and had a good discussion about them. My usual plan is that Roundtable should last no more than an hour. This one went on for 75 minutes. Despite that, I think we did well. We had about a dozen people attending.

Hello Beavah, We go hog wild selling debt EVERY month just rolling over existing bonds that are maturing. Our debt loads preclude us from yet more spending for economic pump priming, as far as I'm concerned. And we've already done a trillion dollars in economic pump priming. You want what--- another billion? Two billion? Enough is enough. You are welcome to promote your program of greatly expanded spending. It has no appeal to me.

Sounds like Al Capone duking it out with competing mobs for "turf" in Chicago.

I agree the the children of atheists and lesbians labor under distinct handicaps in their moral educations.

Hello Beavah, It sounds like we can agree that the student loan business is a bubble waiting to burst. It also illustrates why no one intervenes when bubbles develop. Bubbles like the home real estate bubble make money for a variety of interest groups as long as they last. They tend to develop momentum and years of growth make it hard to imagine and argue successfully for retrenchment and restraint. So you usually have to wait until the bubble bursts. After that, it's easy to see the weaknesses that were being ignored. The real estate bubble has now been exposed for the rotten foundation that was ignored for years. The student loan bubble is on its way to failure and bailouts on a massive scale. Now for an added comment you will not agree with--- Federal spending and borrowing is also an unsustainable bubble. In theory we could cut back on that and avoid disaster, and I suggest that is what the Tea Party has tried to do (certainly imperfectly). But as with most bubbles, arguments for restraint are ignored. People can't give up making money off a system that still works, so more of the same is the usual agenda. In your case you are arguing that this is a splendid time to expand our borrowing and spending. In the light of the bubble theory I have outlined here, perhaps you can understand why I might view this as unsound. Your idea of the attractions of more borrowing and spending reminds me of the people who observe the sea go way out before a tsunami, and run out on the exposed ocean bottom to gather up the fish that have been beached. Yes, the fish are there for the taking. But the smart thing to do is to be running for high ground.

Looks like you have a fine depth of leadership for your pack. Who is on the lookout for new talent and what methods of recruiting new adult leaders do you use?

The real estate bubble has already burst. Abuses fueled the bubble for years before it burst. The student loan bubble is another bubble that is being abused, but just hasn't burst yet. But it will. We are reducing college graduates to peonage with student loans, and schools are funding unrealistic spending by charging ever higher fees and tuition. That's even more true for the large number of people who enter college and never complete a degree. The burden of student loans is already a political issue, and anyone who cares to look will see massive defaults and public bailouts down the road a few years.(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

This really seems> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016486612_westlakeprotest13m.html like spoiled, sniveling behavior:

> Sorry, that line of reasoning makes no sense to me.

> Heh, heh! I'm sure you will find many Democrats willing to support your plan of more spending now. Shucks --- we spent trillions on bail out and stimulus bills. That's not enough? We are in the midst of rapidly inflating commodity prices because of all the money we've added -- you want MORE? In my view, it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that 1) we need to cut spending to reduce inflation rates and prevent inflation from spiraling out of control 2) we need to reduce government spending because we are so loaded with debt and the world is so flooded with dollars that we have a real risk of financial crisis if the world no longer buys our debt. Yes, unemployment is bad. Financial collapse due to runaway inflation and the collapse of the dollar would be a lot worse. In my judgment, cutting spending is a much higher priority than more spending. The world knows we can spend, it has very limited confidence that we can cut spending. Taking risks to cut spending, such as by delaying the debt increase bill, are chances worth taking in my opinion. In short --- I think the Tea Party has reasonable ideas, and is taking political chances in order to turn them into public policy. By contrast, you support the very conventional idea of more government spending. While you may carefully parse what you'd like to spend on, as a practical matter more spending is going to be more spending on everything. Business as usual. For all you protest, you appear to be in the "D" category AS A PRACTICAL MATTER to me. Not that there's anything wrong with THAT! Are you inclined to support Obama's re election, or perhaps Mitt Romney? (This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

Them's the breaks. Go on to the next house and street.

Hello Beavah, Heh, heh! Where did I say government should be regulating such things? Usually schools limit access to engineering, computer science business, nursing medicine and other such schools. Usually no limits on art history majors and such. My nephew had the voucher from mom and dad. Despite that, he's unemployed as a recent grad with a music degree. He chose just what he wanted to study. Now he's stuck with it. If such free choice for young college students is as good an idea as you suggest, why do you suppose he's unemployed? Incidentally, I had a high school friend who was a music major in college and has been a performing musician. I asked him about what his career had been like --- he said, "Forty years of struggle." I encountered a guy who had a number of years under his belt as a musician. He wanted ideas on how he could get into a plumber's union apprentice program. Unfortunately, a good many young college students may not be especially wise in imagining a career and profession for themselves. (This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

> Hello Horizon, Once people have a year of college calculus, they are well positioned to study mathematical statistics, a course based on regular calculus. I agree with you though --- one of the most valuable classes I took as an undergrad was an algebra based statistics class.

Hello Baden P, Politics is often not a straight ahead kind of game. It's not unusual for either party to do power plays on the other. If this one over the debt limit increase offended you --- you are entitled to your resentment. Looked at another way, it gave notice that there was a serious new issue in town that wasn't going to be sidelined by conventional politics. I think it's reasonable to argue that "more of the same" politics is more dangerous to our future than this kind of line drawing in the sand. But no doubt opinions will differ.

I had a friend in school who was an electrical engineering major. He LIKED the idea of having added arts and sciences requirement to obtain a degree. For openers, he suggested that everyone receiving a degree be required to complete a minimum of a year of regular college calculus.

> And I believe that, too --- which is perfectly clear from any and all of your posts. In all practical ways you are making the arguments of liberals and Democrats. I'm not interested in what you may label yourself. > Right. You don't make cuts during recessions when you don't have the tax revenue, and you don't make cuts in good economic times because additional spending is popular and you can afford it then. That's why we are in trouble. Politics often involves difficult choices --- and spending levels are an example of that. The Tea Party has made the point that spending needs to be cut now, regardless of counter arguments. You don't agree with that, and choose to vote for Democrats ---fine. > Ahh yes --- anti-intellectualism. That means that Republicans are attracting a lower middle class and working class base that doesn't appeal to your intellectual biases. Your vote has been replaced by someone elses. Well --- you are certainly entitled to find a new political home. Personally I moved from Dem to R in 1984. If I found good reason, I'd move back to the Dems. And it may be that current Tea Party politics will prove to be a loser, and Republicans will look for different ideas that will work at the ballot box. Time will tell. For good or ill, the Republican Party is experimenting with Tea Party politics. We will see how that pans out.

When my nephew was a high school senior, he receive admission to the Computer Science program of a good, nearby university plus a tuition scholarship. He would have been abkle to live at home and attend school. However, he also got admission to a fine liberal arts college, where he would be living at school and his parents paying full freight and top dollar for everything. He choose the liberal arts college. Hey --- why not? I pointed out to him at the time that Computer Science degree grads probably had ten job offers for every grad, while there were probably ten liberal arts grads for every job --- a difference of 100-1 in terms of job opportunities. He chose the lieral arts school, and graduated this year with a BA in the Arts --- music. He actually had a gig for two months this summer, teaching in a children theater program and playing in the orchestra for their theater production. Nothing since then. His parents paid $50,000/year for tuition alone, plus living costs and other expenses. The "anti intellectual" charge is bogus, used by those who think young adults can afford to ignore the realities of economics and the labor markets. The fact is we crank out far too many of those folks, and dump them into an economic system which makes it tough for them to find a job and may doom them to unemployment or low wage jobs unless they abandon the field they have been trained in. Of course SOME will find their dream job and dream career. But too many are going to be profoundly disappointed in their career hopes.(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

> Democrats like Beavah have been spouting this line since 1980, when they confidentally predicted Regan could never win. Since that time, Republicans have won 5 Presidential elections and lost three. The fact is that the huge boomer generation is moving into that older demographic while the Baby Bust generation is filling in behind. But keep it up! Nothing is better for Republicans than over confident Democrats.

> I'm pretty sure Beavah would be too tough and gristly for my taste. Now Michael Moore would probably be great roasting on a spit over a fire.

> Heh, heh! Beavah, you are the most reliably liberal person posting on the board. Do you ever listen to yourself? > If a fire district charges a flat tax rate on the property value of a house and a $100 million factory, I imagine each is receiving reasonable value. I imagine the homeowner is actually being subsidized by the factory owner, but that's life. Similarly, if Bill Gates and a welfare case were each to pay a flat tax on their income, I'd say that would be entirely fair. (This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)