The CNN link: Doh! Too many Does spark scouts probe

The AP story: FBI probing Alabama Boy Scout organization

A Scout is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean & Reverent

You don’t see Clever in that list.

Apparently some people associated with the Boy Scouts in Alabama are being investigated because of seemingly inflated membership numbers.

I don’t want to prejudge the case. Just because there are Boy Scout troops that no one can locate, or activities where all of the scouts seem to be named Doe, isn’t proof. I mean the troops could be on an extended camp out for a year or two, and some families are extended, often by marrying cousins, this is Alabama after all.

The reason the FBI is involved is because of the way the Boy Scouts are funded, with some of the funding coming from the government. Much of the funding is based on the number of people an organization serves.

On the other hand, you can be sure that no gays or atheists were involved in the problem, just straight, G-d fearing Republican supporters of Judge Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments [well, most of them].

Disclaimer: I was a Cub Scout, Boy Scout, and Explorer. I had a lot of fun because the leaders I had taught skills and accepted that most of us were savages.

All Things Considered on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 actually had a couple of worthwhile segments.

In a Study Plumbs Brain Responses to Anger:

Robert Siegel talks with David Sander, Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Geneva and one of the lead authors of an article in Nature Neuroscience about the brain’s anger response mechanism.

Professor Sander was looking at the possible benefits this study may hold for understanding autistic and schizophrenic patients, a worthy goal.

What occurred to me is that the study also explains the success of Rightwing Radio. The human brain pays attention to angry words, whether or not the individual wants to listen. This is probably a survival trait: “anger = threat” so it gets attention.

Seniors Weigh In on Social Security Reform by John Ydstie

Kent Smetters, an Associate Professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania who worked on President Bush’s Social Security commission, says “private accounts won’t deliver higher total earnings for participants, but they will raise benefits for the lowest-income workers.”

What I found interesting was Professor Smetters’ thinking concerning the reason there is a problem: the President and Congress have spent the Social Security trust fund on tax cuts and spending, and will have to raise taxes and cut spending to pay it back when the bill comes due. He thinks that Private/Personal Accounts are necessary to keep the money away from Congress and the President.

So, according to a Republican economist the problem with Social Security is President Bush and the Republicans in control of Congress.

I seem to remember someone talking about a Social Security “lockbox” during the 2000 election. Too bad not enough voters paid attention.