BS-87

End the jointly filed tax returns! I'm serious about that, it's prejudiced against cohabiting adults who may have an open relationship yet enjoy the benefits of stable companionship and economic benefits of pooling resources. No special treatment for anyone. We can end it for this reason, or we can end it because there's a good case to be made for ending income taxes. Something tells me people skew extreme libertarian in social issues more than economic though...

Merlyn, there's definitely a way to separate a legal contract between two people and a spiritual institution. Let's just put it this way, the state should recognize all contracts made by consenting parties of the age of majority. Religions should recognize what they want to recognize. People who have a spiritual bond should celebrate however they want to, so long as their celebration doesn't infringe on the rights of others. I'm perfectly fine with all of the above because same-sex couples can call themselves married all they want. I never have to actually believe they are, because it doesn't hurt me if they believe they are. Plus, I just want to see the the family in Sister Wives finally be able to live together again and live happily.

Whoa... I might have to reconsider my position entirely if both packsaddle AND Beavah agree with me. That's easier said than done though when you've reached a conclusion that's not fettered by ideology because just about nobody gets their own way and more power is given to private entities. Nobody getting special treatment or recognition period sounds like Liberty to me.

Pandering to your base to diminish a shellacking reminiscent of Nov. 2010 is not taking a plunge, and it is not gutsy. It is a distraction. His position is pure for the statist mind. What I think is funny is the social conservatives strinking back saying first we should have less government and then in the next sentence say the government should tell us who we can marry. Same-sex marriages should not be recognized by the Federal Government. But that's because no marriages should be recognized by any government. Any two adults of the age of majority should be able to enter a contract recognizing a partnership or civil union that would be legally recognized. When it comes to marriage, marriage is spiritual and appointing some legal status to it bastardizes the institution. So in short, the President shouldn't be out there clamoring for gay marriage because it's not the government's place to tell any religious institution how they should be carrying out business. The first amendment protects a church from what BHO said yesterday. BHO is being unconstitutional and wrong. The social conservative stance on this wrong and philosophically impure. The Libertarian answer to this is constitutional and right. The Federal government should have no role in marriage because no marriage should be recognized at all.

From what I've seen, you'll be much happier as a DE if you can accept it's not the same Scouting you've grown up with. You've grown up enjoying the program, and to be a professional you have to enjoy making it happen and making it available/accessible. It's probably like really loving hot dogs and thinking that making hot dogs would be just as fun. Making hot dogs is only just as much fun if you keep in mind that there's someone like you out there who really loves eating hot dogs. That rationale would be why I think your explanation was a shot in the foot for you. This is because you're trying to say that your experience as a hot dog eater has led you to believe the hot dog makers don't appreciate hot dog eaters. That makes it more difficult for you to learn that paid Scouters really do care about Scouts and Scouting, they just have a different role sometimes than actually enjoying Scouts and Scouting directly. Suggesting you bring that uniquely, which I know you didn't do intentionally but is a way it can be interpreted, is an attack on the interviewers' personal motivations, and I think it works against you.

It's also not completely reasonable to compare the tactics of the two, since from the beginnin' the Tea Party movement was organized and financed by fairly savvy media and political folks. So you don't consider the SEIU or the Tides Foundation to be politically savvy? You don't consider the media that was fawning over Occupy (TIME Magazine anyone?) to be savvy? I can accept that the many local and national leaders that sprouted up in the Tea Party were experienced in the political arena, but I won't accept that Occupy wasn't well funded and organized by politically savvy organizations.

Sounds like the difference between an adult and a child managing a problem. The Tea Party identified a problem, advocated the cause, identified a workable solution, and now they're implementing their plan to affect change by utilizing an existing structure that functions in the way they want to function. Occupy identified a complaint, tried to assess blame, rioted for the cause, made unrealistic demands, and is now having trouble regaining traction because nobody takes them seriously. I guess that's probably the difference.

Even Massachusetts. http://www.therightperspective.org/2012/04/30/ron-paul-scores-massachusetts-delegates/ Beavah's right, the insurgency is fun to watch. Watching Romney's camp flounder with nothing to do but watch projected Romney delegates slide over to confirmed Paul delegates with their internal counts starting to shrink far short of what the press is projecting for him. Paul's showing what it means to not need a majority, just a 10% that's very ticked off, to have a revolution. If 2012 isn't critical mass, the next real GOP Primary may very well be, whether that's 2016 or 2020.

I've been told that in order to be eligible to be nominated at the Republican National Convention, a candidate must have won a minimum of five states. Paul has won none. You've been given a half-truth. In order to be eligible to be nominated at the Republican National Convention, a candidate must be nominated by a plurality of delegates to the National Convention from at least 5 State Delegations. Delegates bound to vote for a candidate may act as they wish at any point in the process other than the first X ballots when voting for a Presidential Candidate, with X being the number of ballots they're bound to voting for a particular nominee. This means that if the plurality of delegates from at least five states want to nominate Ron Paul, they can even if they're bound to vote for Romney. You can expect MN, MA, ME, IA, and NV to nominate Paul from the results coming in so far. Other likely Paul nominators will include LA, WA, ND, AK, and CO. There may even be more. While this by no means ensures victory for Paul, it will definitely be embarrassing for Romney.

After noticing how the thread of how to keep youth more interested in the OA went off the Active Topics page after being inactive for 24 hours, and then noticing this thread about keeping adults interested going into multiple pages, we should all be mindful of what our purpose is as advisers. Even when we're complaining about advisers not advising, it shows our primary concern is with adult things, not youth things. I don't have an answer, just an observation.

It's cases like these that our national organization is pointing to as a reason the Area Project in Michigan is going to be necessary for all Councils. I strongly suspect that the real answer is smaller councils, not larger. The real answer probably includes more direct service personnel than middle management. It probably takes more decentralization to fix a crisis like this, not less. I'm not one to gang up on professionals usually, but it seems like there's some serious underhandedness going on with the projects this council is involved in. This is evidenced by how little regard this council seems to have for keeping the board well informed. Putting a past Governor on the board is probably a great way to make sure your board won't care about what you're doing. I wouldn't be surprised if their board let these professionals get away with murder...

I hear the same thing is happening in North Dakota, Iowa, Maine, and Missouri. The one that seems to benefit most from that is Paul, with Santorum and Romney losing their projected shares of delegates.

dfolson - While I understand what you're saying and why you'd feel that way, I don't think it's appropriate. A Crew Adviser is the President's mentor as approved by CO. To have an adult advising a youth that is not approved by the CO does not seem appropriate though I'm sure many here would disagree. Commissioners are the liaison to the Unit Leadership and sort of like Quality Control managers. That's not a role that has an appropriate function advising youth leadership.

I think it doesn't matter if it's Bush, Obama, or Romney, you're going to get basically the same President except for a few "red-meat" projects for their own side like tax breaks, socializing medicine, accelerating/decelerating drilling permits, etc... That and a Dem will always appoint a liberal to the court whereas a GOP'er will appoint a right-leaner sometimes but usually a moderate. There's been very little difference between the champions of the progressive agenda that have come since Reagan. As a result, there's been a lot of "managing the decline" of America instead of restoring liberties from economic to personal. I'd like to see Romney run with Rand Paul as VP for that reason...

One would think that National is just controlling who becomes leadership in the organization to preserve the organizational culture and norms. Putting outsiders in powerful roles probably has the potential to shake up local councils more than National would like. There's a role for talented business professionals in the community on the Council's board. The professional staff probably requires a bit more indoctrination.

I think for Obama to win, growth has to be more than anemic. Reagan won re-election despite recession in his first term by recovering from recession at a 6% growth rate. Obama's 2.4% growth rate keeps us lagging behind the 3% trend and therefore causing our economy to continue effectively shrinking by global comparison, whereas Reagan's enormous growth rates returned the economy to the trend line. In this case, growth is being viewed from a static angle when it should really be compared to the trend line. That may be enough to fool the masses and allow Obama to say he's "growing" the economy without lying, but it just isn't true as a share of the world market and in a comparison to the growth trend of the American economy. With inflation outpacing economic growth, most Americans do not feel the American economy improving, and are less gullible in that sense to the malarkey coming from 1600 Penn. You've got to like Romney's odds so long as his campaign can keep the Economy as the central issue.

I am not one of these volunteers that will just blindly follow or Believe what a pro says....Nor do I believe they have my scouts best interest in mind. Because pros want your kids to suffer while they cover themselves in honey and roll naked in your money? You're probably right to be skeptical of the reasons they give you for things, but they make a conscious decision to work for a lower wage than their skillset usually demands in order to make a difference through a program they believe in. They probably have your scouts best interests in mind. I am not one of these volunteers that inexplicably hates people who spend 40+ hours a week thinking about what I only have to for 10+ DE's are cheap in comparison to a lot of the extraneous sort of people they have to hire. Replace those more expensive people with cheaper people who work more closely with local folks and the program benefits. The Mega councils are still a bad idea in my opinion, but their rationale at least makes sense. I just don't think a Mega council can possibly maintain a level of decentralized power over program that ends up serving Scouts and Scouters best.

It's starting to appear runswithscissors may not be responding as we didn't provide the answer their Pack wanted to hear...

I tell the other commissioners it only takes one thing. Just go once in a while and talk to folks. Every Unit has their own unique challenges, and they will also face some pretty common problems. Having a good repertoire on how to handle those common problems gives you credibility. Having good credibility helps you handle those unique problems. But overall, there's no way you'll be helpful as a Commissioner if you're not present.(This message has been edited by BS-87)

jgood - That approved list can have an unfortunately long wait. I know someone who did what you did and got on the approved list. Our local council had him on hold until a position came open, but one never did so after a few months he told them he'd be willing to move to another council. Worked serving in the meantime, but he was seriously on that list for almost a year before he started getting interviews.

Odds are if your Pack hasn't been putting as much effort into recruiting as this new Pack is, your DE is very unlikely to tell the other Pack that they should let you guys do the primary school recruiting. However, it doesn't sound like you're slacking on recruiting, so the the best thing might be to have a group meeting where it's made clear one of the Packs should focus on recruiting in the community and let someone exclusively recruit in the school to reduce confusion.

Why do I have to discount the story of a teenage black girl? Can't I just discount the story of a teenage girl who's been through an emotionally trying period of time trying to come to terms with the loss of her boyfriend whose personality and character have been under attack? People have manipulate the truth for much much less. Edit: Also, Beavah, I think there's value in reading up on new media of both political persuasions. In this case, the folks on the right seem to be doing a better job of remaining objective than sources like AP, ABC, or HuffPo. There are exceptions like the perpetually disgusting Michelle Malkin, but overall the "conservative" media seems to be calling for more facts and less condemnation.(This message has been edited by BS-87)

The eyewitness accounts corroborate Zimmerman's story better than the accounts of dispatchers or girlfriends on the phone could corroborate some story that Trayvon was hunted down and executed. This is why Zimmerman is still a free man today, which means that the law enforcement at the very least believes there isn't a preponderance of evidence to disprove his story. Start talking about proving he did it maliciously beyond a reasonable doubt, and there's no question that this man could never get anything more than manslaughter if Stand your Ground is found not to apply. If there can be something more tragic than the death of a young man, it's that people are trying to extort this tragedy for political capitol and incite racial tension. The media circus, speculators, and clowns on both sides of the issue are making an awful situation worse by presenting facts in such a way that only inflames their own side. Never have I seen more confirmation bias by obviously prejudiced purveyors of news in any other criminal case. Anybody here who claims to know the facts of this case better than the law enforcement in Florida is quite simply being ridiculous.

moosetracker - You mean a gash in the back of the head like this? http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Zimmerman-ABC-video-enhanced-caption.jpg

So the same people who were pleased when the Emperor said he'd have the most transparent of administrations are recommending he operate with less transparency? Obama has been a Foreign Policy embarrassment for the United States. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/03/15/obama-foreign-policy-blunders-fueled-by-unchecked-ideology And now he's on the record saying he plans to do things once re-elected that he knows is unpopular. If it involves the missile shields and endangering Poland, there's no wonder. Obama deceive and people believe. Obama lie and people die.