vol_scouter

So the European problem is the same as the US - to little in revenue compared to expenditures. Europe is just a little farther down that road than the US. European countries spend their money mainly on social programs with relatively small military spending. they already have high income and ad valorum taxes so there is little to be gained on the revenue end. So over spending on social programs is the crux of the European problem. Let's see social programs, hmmm, that would seem to me to be socialist in nature. What else would you call it? Seems to me that the countires have too rich social programs and that is why they are cutting benefits to correct their problems. I know that the left does not consider Europe to be socialist but it is socialist programs that are bankrupting the countries. That means that in very well educated and progressive countries, socialism is failing as an economic system. People want more and more to be provided for them and to work less and less to have it. That system will always collapse. Obama clearly wants to go down the same path and we will end up in the same mess.

People should not join organizations that have tenets that they do not believe.

It needs to be pointed out that many folks have said that members of the BSA are NOT the only ones that do not follow rules. However, for the most part, they are: Identifiable as a group and Are the largest identifiable group in the backcountry. If everyone going into the backcountry had to belong to a group to do so, the BSA might actually come out not so bad. That is not to excuse any bad behavior but just to point out that being a recognizable group makes it more likely to be blamed rather than someone who is not related to any group. Also, some folks who complain about the BSA dislike the BSA to begin with and are looking for any reason to bash the BSA. Once again, this is not to be an apologist for bad behavior but to put things in a little different perspective.

The problem is that national did not understand the data correctly. So they found that Scouts who got to First Class in one year stayed in Scouts longer. They thought that achieving the rank was the reason for hte retention. That is not the likely reason. the more likely correct interpretation is that the boys who achieved First Class in one year were the most interested and self moivated boys. They were going to stay in the program because their goal was to become an Eagle Scout. The boys who were taking a long time achieving first Class were more likely to be less interested. Cheapening the requirements by not requiring some degree of mastery of the skills has gotten boys to First Class faster but did not improve retention rates because earning the rank was not the reason those boys were staying in the program. I favor going back to earning the ranks sequentially, i.e. working only on the requirements of a single rank at a time. We should expect some mastery of the requirements and make the ranks mean more. Pride in what the boys are doing will more affect the retention rate in a positive way than moving boys through the ranks quickly.

Basementdweller, So the incident that you described was due to the adults and you only described a single unit. In fact, you described several units being very helpful, courteous, and kind. So provide us more information. Was the issue that the units were too big and that one set of leaders were not living by the Oath and Law? Are there other issues? Please provide the breadth and depth of your concerns.

A nice tribute to a hero. Eisley, thank you for your service.

acco, Thanks for the response. We have signed up ~20 young men and women (~50/50) but there was no meeting. So this will be the very first real meeting. The young men and women will be there with their parents.

This week, a colleague and myself will be standing up a brand new Venture Crew. This will be the first meeting and we will have both parents and youth there. We have laid out an agenda but having never done this before, I would like to elicit wisdom from those wwho have done so before. What worked and what did not. Did you keep parents and youth separate the entire meeting, together the entire meeting, or a combination? Did you try to have Crew elections or put that off until the next meeting? What worked and what did not? What were the topics that you covered. Thanks in advance for assistance.

Packsaddle, Interesting article. On the one hand, it makes sense to try to make the curriculum more exciting so the Universities are doing the right thing. On the other hand, those basic courses are fun! The freshman and sophomore physics, chemistry, and mathematics courses are fun!!!! If youth do not like them, perhaps they are not in the right field. Also, why work hard when you can be an investment banker and make tens to hundreds of millions of dollars when folks in STEM careers are in the $100k to $200k range. They are smart enough to do the math. This society denigrates intellectuals and makes fun of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. Carrying or throwing a prolate spheroid is much more valued than Nobel Prizes.

Packsaddle, Just saw the article this morning on a physics site. I look forward to reading his planned papers and see this as potentially significant research. Though still skeptical, this would to me be an important person to have changed their opinion. The article that I read said that he was mute about the cause of the GW which is keeping with available information. So while skeptical, my skepticism is a little less today.

Calico, he percentages that I quoted can from prior CDC studies found by my self on the CDC site and cited here in the past. Those are 2011 numbers and should be considered accurate. However, in looking into those studies before, the CDC made a distinction between the incidence of people having homosexual sex (which is what you cited) and the prevalence of life-long homosexuals. I noted that in my earlier posts. The idea is that many late teens and early twenties males experiment with homosexuality. However, many of those will end up in heterosexual relationships for essentially he rest of their lives. Therefore, the number of MSM will be higher than the long term prevalence. The studies that I cited were not fact sheets but the actual studies which delineated the statistical basis, the assumptions made, etc. So I stand by those prior studies unless the CDC has new data saying that the long term prevalence (that is not exactly how it was termed but it is the gist of it) has increased. If the 'long term prevalence' has actually increased, then the studies that I had cited in the past bound 4% which would make homosexuals no more likely than heterosexuals to molest children. If you can provide a link to the paper describing such a statistical on the CDC website, I will be happy to say that the risk according to those poor studies is not elevated. However, since most of you trashed me and the studies, it would be vacuous to now cite them to support your case. Moose, If a church allows you to join and never asks you to agree to certain principles does not seem like a church to me since there are no shared beliefs. Each to their own. In my area, that is not the case - you would be asked when you join if you will support the church and believe the basic tenets. Pack, I agree. The term intelligentsia and its common use had implied to me that intellectuals were a part of the intelligentsia but I found from the fount of all knowledge , Wikipedia, that acco was right. So I learned something. Having a BS in Engineering, an MD, and a PhD in physics seemed enough credentials for the intelligentsia but clearly I can only be an intellectual. Thanks for the clarification acco even if you had to insult me in a most un-scout like way.

Calico, he percentages that I quoted can from prior CDC studies found by my self on the CDC site and cited here in the past. Those are 2011 numbers and should be considered accurate. However, in looking into those studies before, the CDC made a distinction between the incidence of people having homosexual sex (which is what you cited) and the prevalence of life-long homosexuals. I noted that in my earlier posts. The idea is that many late teens and early twenties males experiment with homosexuality. However, many of those will end up in heterosexual relationships for essentially he rest of their lives. Therefore, the number of MSM will be higher than the long term prevalence. The studies that I cited were not fact sheets but the actual studies which delineated the statistical basis, the assumptions made, etc. So I stand by those prior studies unless the CDC has new data saying that the long term prevalence (that is not exactly how it was termed but it is the gist of it) has increased. If the 'long term prevalence' has actually increased, then the studies that I had cited in the past bound 4% which would make homosexuals no more likely than heterosexuals to molest children. If you can provide a link to the paper describing such a statistical on the CDC website, I will be happy to say that the risk according to those poor studies is not elevated. However, since most of you trashed me and the studies, it would be vacuous to now cite them to support your case. Moose, If a church allows you to join and never asks you to agree to certain principles does not seem like a church to me since there are no shared beliefs. Each to their own. In my area, that is not the case - you would be asked when you join if you will support the church and believe the basic tenets. Pack, I agree. The term intelligentsia and its common use had implied to me that intellectuals were a part of the intelligentsia but I found from the fount of all knowledge , Wikipedia, that acco was right. So I learned something. Having a BS in Engineering, an MD, and a PhD in physics seemed enough credentials for the intelligentsia but clearly I can only be an intellectual. Thanks for the clarification acco even if you had to insult me in a most un-scout like way.

Pack, I do not have the time to delve into this now (I work a full-time and part-time job). I will try to find the time in the future but will withdraw my claim that the intelligentsia of the time said that blacks were another species. Many did believe in polygenism which has been definitely proven wrong by mitochondrial DNA. From their belief in polygenism, they concluded that some races were inferior. The gist of my point is that just because the learned folks have a particular view (consensus) does not make it correct. If I find my evidence (I read some article about it many years ago which makes me concerned about the validity of the article), you will hear from me about it. Until that time, consider my claim as very overstated and withdrawn Moose, As I recall in previous discussions, I found 3 or 4 papers that had been published in peer reviewed journals. Articles that were not peer reviewed were ignored. Those papers were consistent in their findings. To try to explain it to you, if a group makes up X percent of the population, then, if they are the same risk for some behavior, they will be found to account for the same percent of the population exhibiting those characteristics. If they are found to be 3X instead of X, then they are three times as likely than the rest of the population to exhibit that behavior. So in the present discussion, if the percentage of homosexuals in the population is 2% according to the CDC and the studies show that they make up 2-6% of the prison population for hebephilia, then they are 1-3 times as likely to commit the crime as the rest of the population. Obviously, if that number is 2%, then they are no risk but if they are 6% then they are 3 times as likely to commit the crime. The studies are flawed and no scientific conclusions can be drawn although those studies indicate that there could be an increased risk. Many more and better studies would have to be done to determine the truth. It is not likely that high quality, non-biased studies will be performed because of the political ramifications for all concerned. It would be best that the studies be carried out, I just don't believe that they will. You keep saying things about pedophiles which I cannot understand. Pedophiles have sex with only pre-pubertal children and are not what we are discussing. Your point about adults who were abused as children being more likely to be a pedophile. If the BSA required a thorough psychological profile, then maybe we could screen out those folks who would a risk to our children. Pedophiles are fortunately not very prevalent in society so the screening would be very expensive to find very few people. The screening would likely drive away volunteers and could have significant legal issues for false positives. So while a good idea, it does not seem to me to be workable. You must have odd churches in New Hampshire that allow you to believe anything that you wish and be a member. I am not familiar with churches that do not recite creeds or ask new members if that believe in the basic tenets of the church. If you say that is the case, since you are a Scouter, I do not doubt your word.

Pack, I never said Southern intelligentsia or even implied it. You said: "Most of them do not support a difference at the species level. Of the ones who do support that idea, most of those are strictly European, ..." which would be the intelligentsia of the time. Moose, Argue with the many studies of the CDC which have showed the percentage of homosexuals to be

Moose, I have worked in the Girl Scouts in the past but not recently. There is not right for me to join the Girl Scouts or any other group. You must be too young to understand that pedophiles/hebephiles are going down the same course as homosexuals did starting in the 1950's. I clearly stated that the intelligentsia of the 1800's considered blacks to be an inferiorspecies which is what they said - I did not say or immply that they were not human. The point is that the left intelligentsia are not right just because they say so. As far as churches, will your church allow someone to join who does not agree with their beliefs? Maybe the UU will but most religions require that you agree to certain fundamental beliefs.

Packsaddle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

Moosetracker said: "But guarentee the South around the civil war would use the passages to uphold the believe that owning slaves was morally justified.." To be clear, they were echoing what was being said by the intelligentsia of their day who claimed that blacks were a different species. He also said: "In 1970's a poll was conducted and 75% felt homosexuals were more likely to be pedophiles.. In 1995 a similar poll showed only 18% had the belief.. Fifteen years later? Bet if conducted again, it will now be that much lower.. Until soon **poof**!! All gone!" Other polls have shown that older folks in the public believe that homosexuals are 10% of the population. That figure increases as age decreases so that late teens and early 20's think that they make up 30% of the population. They are simply wrong. Public opinion does not make something right or wrong. So where does the left want this to end? The APA now says that folks who view child pornography but do not molest children should be considered a normal variant. So we need to open our Scouting doors to them as well, that way we can have even more diversity. Why would we 'discriminate' against them because they are different? Why that would be wrong. They need rights too. The fact that all (from what I have read) pedophiles begin with viewing child pornography should not deter us from accepting their lifestyle as acceptable. Well, then why discriminate against the normal variant pedophile who was just overly tempted at the elementary school? You think that this scenario is crazy, well it the one used by homosexuals to become accepted. Check out the statistical definiton of abnormal. On principle, Girl Scouts discriminate against males, all churches discriminate against those who do not share their beliefs, the ABA discriminates against non-attorneys (their organization certainly has an enormous impact on one of my careers and it would be help if physicians could join), the list is endless. I cannot wear a Masters Green jacket because they discriminate us less than perfect golfers or be in the ABA because I am not 7 feet tall (which is something that I was born with and cannot control). The Scouts are exercising their rights of free association. They are not discriminating because not being a Scout will not prevent them from being successful in life. Scouting is not the government and ought to have criteria to join. In my area and many others, Scouting is seen as borderline to too liberal. The policies are sound and should not be altered.

Moosetracker, Interesting results. The last time that I did a literature review on the subject, I found few papers that were published in peer reviewed journals and I posted them on this forum. Were the studies that you referred to from peer reviewed journals? If they have not been peer reviewed, then the results are even more suspect than the admittedly poor ones that I identified. By the way, their hypothesis was that homosexuals were not more likely than heterosexuals to molest pubertal and post-pubertal children. So if there was a bias, it was toward a null effect so to speak. You hit upon the real problems in the studies. These are folks who were incarcerated for their crimes which means at least they most likely did the crime. However, as you note, the designation of what these folks are is difficult and fraught with error because it is basically self reporting. One would think that would under report homosexuals but that might not be the case.

Scoutfish, If the studies had shown that the likelihood of a homosexual molesting a child in the studies ranged from less likely to more likely than the general public, then the comment would be fair. The studies did not show that and were scewed toward the more likely by up to a factor of 3. So the actual odds ratio is likely to be increased rather than the same risks. My statement was also clear that because of this, the possibility of increasing the number of molestations was not worth the risk due to the lifelong suffering that it causes the innocent victims. That was stated as opinion and was presented in a reasoned manner. You and Moose do not like the conclusions of the studies and I do not either. If several large well done studies showed error bars on centered around 2%, I would feel more comfortable if Scouting ever changes its' policies. Unless that can be shown, I would rather protect our children as much as possible. and will oppose changing the policy. Additionally, in this region the effect on the number of youth will be large and negative if the policy changes. Most Scouters, parents, and church COR's that I know consider even the discussion of changing the policy to be unconscionable. Other areas of the country are different.

Moosetracker, Several things that you did not understand and sorry if I did no make it clear. The studies that I looked up were for homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals abusing pubertal and post-pubertal youth. Most pedophiles, who have sex with pre-pubertal children, usually have heterosexual sex. As to the likelihood of sexual abuse, the studies would indicate that at best the risk of a homosexual molesting pubertal and post-pubertal youth is the same as that of the general population and at worse they are 3 times more likely to molest. The problem is that the uncertainties do not allow one enough certainty to draw firm conclusions. Cambridgeskipper, Please get your definitions and facts right.

jrush, There are papers that studied sexual molestation of youth. The percentage that considered themselves homosexual or bisexual was 2-6%. It did not distinguish Scouts but clearly some homosexuals molest children. The studies are too difficult to do and fraught with errors to draw definitive conclusions. That said, since homosexuals, according to the CDC, make up

Also, pedophiles do not molest pubertal or post-pubertal youth - homosexuals do (hebephiles to be precise). Pedophiles molest pre-pubertal youth and is typically heterosexual.

Lisabob, The Constitution is rather clear, only Congress can declare war. The rub is over deploying troops which clearly could trigger a war. The War Powers Act, which may or may not be Constitutional sought to develop a strategy to deal with the issue. Congress wanted to be certain that the President would not be limited to take actions when needed but if there was to be a prolonged commitment of troops, Congressional approval. The law has been generally followed by Presidents but they have sometimes notified Congress rather than sought approval. I believe that the war powers act is a good idea and would like to see a Supreme Court ruling that considers it Constitutional though neither side is willing to go to the Supreme Court for fear of losing. The issue here is where is the outcry from the left about this use of force? Where was the outcry about acting a sovereign country without provocation (Libya) though there were a few critics such as Dennis Kucinich. The deafening silence and the a tacit or outright approval just tells everyone that if a liberal does it, it is OK but it is always wrong for a Conservative to use force. It just makes the left disingenuous. Beavah, myself, and others have criticized President Bush but the left on this list are mute when it comes to criticizing Obama. Do you all not see how self righteous this is? Be fair and criticize Obama as you would have it Bush had been president.

Pack, I think that you have hit on only a part of the anti-intellectual direction of our society. The other parts come from society worshipping celebrities who often do not even possess a high school education and athletes who possess cheapened college educations. How many times will we see some idiot celebrity talking about science on a so called news show? The society worships these two groups and spends most of their time talking about them. How often do the new Nobel Prize winners get asked to be on the news shows?

On this list, we all are Scouters and despite political differences we are all about helping our youth. Some coffee and a campfire would be a good time for all here. So we have much in common.