packsaddle

"...until the budget is balanced to show a surplus to allow for the start on the shrinking path immediately." How come you weren't there to support this approach in 2000?

During a deep South summer, a turd, unless it's in a place where it will dessicate, will be attacked by fly larvae in minutes, penetrating and moving all through it almost randomly. Dung beetles will dive in shortly after. A passing dog will have to be quick in order to make a meal of that tasty tidbit. In the right locale, it will be unrecognizable in a day, almost undetectable in two. In the winter, however, it could persist quite a while, maybe melt in the dreary rain like the wicked witch. Almost like a dead carcass. The carrion beetles will be on it along with the flies in minutes. They go for the eyes and anus and ears and nose and mouth. By the end of a good sweltering day the carcass could be undulating like it was alive...and in some sense it is. I remind myself every day to make sure I die with all orifices clenched as tightly as possible.

I can hardly wait to hear from LisaBob or some of the other women on this subject. That book by Meyer is just priceless! Beavah, I guess this kind of experience has gone the way of learning that you want to make sure the corn cob is dried before you reuse it. On the other hand (so-to-speak), if dumping in the shower seems so common, doing it in the woods ought to be second nature.

Southern Region doesn't necessarily make it The South.

I sliced the heck out of my hand once on a roadside cleanup. So I turned it into a contest. The boys who collected the most garbage could each pull a stitch in a week or so. They pounced on this! They filled a couple of pickups. And I was good to my word, I cut the stitches and they got to pull them. You could hear a pin drop. We've fortunately been spared the kinds of awful messes described in this thread. I guess Southerners are more fastidious. Or more skilled with corn cobs....

I sent him a PM a while back to ask how he was doing and he said all is well, he's just taking a break.

Ironies, yes...delicious.

I think Beavah is on to something with the coed idea. When I was doing some work in a remote part of Russia a while back, a building housing the ministry I was working with had one 'bathroom'. It was referred to as 'the dungeon'. A single small incandescent bulb shone in the disgusting area for hand washing. The darker 'pit' was beyond disgusting but after your eyes became accustomed to the darkness, you could see that at least the wretched hole in the floor had two carefully inlaid brass 'footprints' so it was a bit easier to line up for perfect aim while squatting. At the side, also on the floor, was a small pile of shards of pages from some Russian magazine. If you stayed for a while, you might even make out other squatting forms in even darker parts of the room. ...you didn't want to know.... There were new facilities under construction, though. Women had been hired into high positions in the ministry and they had nearly revolted....so I think Beavah's right about this. The women had a long way to go, though, because the head of the ministry still thought it was hilarious to talk about smacking them around if they got out of line. He'd say things like this in front of what was quickly becoming a female majority. I suspected that someday soon he'd never even know what hit him.... Doing business in 'the dungeon' was quite an experience. I sure wish I'd gotten a photo. But I loved that trip and I'd do it again if I had the chance. And the women...wow. Breathtakingly beautiful. Mmmmmm. Hi Vicki!

You guys'll have to forgive me, I guess I need new glasses. I've been puzzling over this thread thinking it was titled "Passing the lame duck". Headed out to the optometrist now.....

Thank you Joe Bob, I accept this and I admit that I'm sensitive to things having to do with racial prejudice even after all these decades, partly because where I live, I get nasty reminders every few days. But I do understand that your words were perhaps not carefully chosen, as was not your reference just now, referring to Obama's racial status (it has only been two days since I've heard persons in this area refer to him as 'a half-breed'). Or should I add you to their numbers? On the other hand I'm glad to see you are sensitive to civil liberties, in this case, on behalf of Awlaki. I am also troubled by the manner in which Awlaki was killed. I am fairly certain that I don't know all the reasons for the manner of that action, but as I was initially with the Bush actions, I accept this one tentatively and will wait until I am convinced one way or the other. That said, when an American citizen leaves this country in order to actively work in support of terrorism against Americans, it is difficult for me to find sympathy for that terrorist, American citizenship not withstanding.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"...your boy in the Whitehouse." JoeBob, I find these words to be a repugnant reminder of what I often heard while I grew up in the South. I'm astonished to see them expressed openly in a scouting forum.

Scoutfish, I'm not certain but it's possible his view is clouded by a certain photo of a certain person wearing a tutu. Edit to add: Heh, heh, I wonder...doth he protest too much????(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Vicki, where the heck are you anyway!!!??? Normally I would indulge in gratuitous "sexist claptrap", as Vicki calls it. But I guess I've missed her too much so I'm going to change my stripes for a moment and note that Basementdweller just committed a terrible transgression of equating women with motorcycles, whiskey, and cigars. Wow. Stripes changed back again, I almost wish I'd said it myself. I've even named my cycle with a female name (Sheila). I like the sound she makes when we're together...the feeling...well, you know.... (except that cigar part...for plenty of reasons) Interesting, if Leviticus DOESN'T prohibit something, I guess it's OK! EeeeHaaaaa! You GO, Old Testament!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Skeptic, take a look at this: http://www.uua.org/statements/statements/14228.shtml The statement was written in 1999 but last updated this August so it seems not much has changed since that time. And it makes no mention whatsoever of UUSO but rather asks for support of Scouting for All in opposition to the BSA policy. I think whoever you spoke to may have understated things a bit.

Moosetracker, it is possible that the UUA or certainly members of the UUA did engage in words that could be called 'BSA bashing', I'm not sure. What I am sure of is what I read in the pamphlet and in the letters written to BSA. Disagreement yes, bashing? I didn't see it. At least, as you say, nothing like I've read in these forums (which I remind you, are private property and not under control of the BSA). But then, I didn't look for anything outside the direct communications. So in my ignorance of the broader environment back then, I'm OK with Beavah's claim. Maybe he can provide an example of it.

Moosetracker, the best rendition of all this was in a series of threads long ago leading up to an exemplary exchange between Trevorum (who is involved with a UU scouter group) and Kudu. It was a cordial exchange absolutely filled with well-reasoned positions. When I first heard about all this from an op ed piece in a newspaper, I decided to find out what REALLY happened. I met with some of the UUA people who were very 'up front' with copies of all the correspondence...and got as much as I could from the council execs (who didn't seem very comfortable with either the facts or the issue in general - they were only slightly more informed than the op ed piece.) But I did read the literature for the religious award, before, during, and after the action by BSA. UUA in the original pamphlet did nothing more than to inform the boy of the disagreement between UUA and BSA regarding the UU acceptance of gays. BSA objected to the wording. UUA, as I remember, took the wording out. BSA approved. My memory here is not good but I seem to remember that UUA printed the notification as a separate page which was distributed with the pamphlet. BSA responded by no longer recognizing the UUA religious award. The issue, as related by UUA was a 'freedom of expression' issue. They felt that BSA was, in effect, attempting to limit their expression in one of their own publications (which, in fact, it was). BSA has never made it completely clear why they took the action they did. This issue has long bothered me. I agree, to some extent, with Beavah's sentiment about working within the system. On the other hand, UU members tend to be fiercely loyal to their beliefs (are there any other religions like this, I wonder?). And I suppose it would have been too much to relax their acceptance of gays, allowing gays full membership for all aspects EXCEPT as adult leaders in their chartered scout units. To me, to expect them to make that exception in order to work within the system is an unreasonable expectation. Others are free to disagree - at the same time I'd like them to describe a similar 'compromise' within their own faith. BSA had an opportunity to let UUA print whatever they wanted in their own literature. BSA didn't HAVE to do anything. BSA could have ignored it and that would have been the 'bigger' way to respond. BSA really had no way to prevent UUA from printing whatever UUA wanted in their literature because it was UUA literature. The only action BSA had available to them was to do something to the boys who earned the award. So BSA did that. In my view it was needless, petty, 'small', and cowardly. And shameful. Much later I received a response from someone higher up in BSA. He said that he would charter a BSA unit with UUA 'in a heartbeat'...IF the UUA would essentially renounce their belief regarding the "worth and dignity of every person". I guess UUA considers this to be too high a price. I do wonder, sometimes, with the way things are changing for other denominations, how those denominations reconcile the conflict.

Jeffrey H, I singled out the UUA because they have a sad history with scouting...sad, because BSA singled them out. You may not be aware of the BSA action to disallow wearing the UUA religious award. But aside from that shameful action, while probing this issue years ago when it was still happening, I was informed by the professional staff at the national level, that UUA churches and fellowships would be welcome to charter BSA units ONLY if they ignored certain of their beliefs. You may not be aware of this. And as far as I can tell, the status has not changed.

I'll go along with Basementdweller on this. And I agree with the sentiment of le Voyageur as well. Qwazse, there are plenty of marriages that fall into that category as well.

Jeffrey H, so if I interpret what you say correctly, it is local option and UUA fellowships CAN charter units which follow THEIR beliefs.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Eamonn, if you actually connected to that web site, you might want to scan your computer for all kinds of malware...your computer might have become infected.

Let him try it if he wants to. The difficulty of the bike thing depends a lot on terrain and traffic, I don't know where you are. Otherwise he can start work on requirements for other ranks which don't involve that kind of physical action. One activity which might work well is for him to work to perfect his cooking skills. This has the added advantage of providing instant gustatory gratification...he gets to eat the product.

Thanks. I was REALLY hoping it was going to be something like that.

DON'T ANYONE LOOK AT THAT LINK!!!! You might go blind.

Eamonn, I know a camp where the same song-hat policy is also applied. After I make the suggestion to the boys, we might possibly begin a movement in which we ALL intentionally wear our hats into the dining hall IN ORDER TO be allowed to sing the stupidest, most-annoying songs we can think of. So...how long do you think the tradition will last? I bet not even one session. What a great, harmless lesson in the constructive power of civil disobedience!

I think Merlyn's idea has merit. Wilberforce of course was almost perfectly coincidental with the Industrial Revolution so we'll probably never be able to sort out all the factors which led to his opposition to slavery. But going back through known history, every empire that we know of employed slavery right through all of the Bible stories and then ended, as Merlyn noted, when we acquired technologies that allowed a competitive edge of mechanization over serfdom. (Except for the USA, which uniquely fought a war to end slavery) It would be just as reasonable to argue that banal economic forces were just as influential, perhaps more influential even, than a sudden change in our moral compass. It is just possible that our moral compass was also the result of those new technologies allowing our greed to seize an opportunity to claim moral victory as well as economic. But we'll probably never know for sure.