packsaddle

Welcome to the forums, Gutterbird. Interesting moniker, by the way. Thrifty means a lot more than participating in fundraisers and the boy can demonstrate thrifty in many other ways in his life. I think Bob White has the best approach and it is pretty much how we handle it in this unit. The committee chair is trying to be realistic. There really is a limit to your leverage on this. We are merely thankful that we can afford such 'problems'.

Gonzo1, that's why the Sons of the American Revolution exist. Join away!

Acco40, you noted: "Now, if I don't believe in God or gods can I have a duty to God? Well, I can easily state that no I do not have a duty and therefore easily pass this requirement. I know that is semantics but ..." I made a very similar argument a long time ago in a thread on religious views. It is not simply semantics, it is perfectly logical. Kind of like having zero in the numerator, it doesn't matter what you write in the denominator, the result is the same. Let's face reality here: we already HAVE local option. BSA already allows it - it just isn't official. As I see and learn more and more about units around the country, I am astounded how much local option is being exercised. BSA seems more interested in quietly collecting numbers and donations than in actively policing the units (emphasis on quiet).

Gern, impeccable logic. Gold Winger noted, "To you I say, "Go and form a club for your son and his buddies and protect them from harm."" The problem is that for this to happen there must already have been harm in the previous 'club'. Forming a new one in no way mitigates that, once the harm has occurred. I think it is better to work for a change in policy while retaining membership, find the new club in addition, and teach ALL the boys a lesson in civics. I note that in real life I have also seen religious, heterosexual families leave or refuse to join BSAbecause of BSA policies on gays and atheists. This adds a bit to Gern's argument. Gonzo1, to follow up on your comment: "I disagree that any harm has been "inflicted" because membership is completely VOLUNTARY." I would like someone to explain that logic to the boy and his familywho have just been handed this rejection and use that explanation to make him feel good about the situation. I suspect that approach will do little or nothing to mitigate the harm he feels. And it is so unnecessary...switching channels now to the spun thread...bye.

Gonzo1, I'm not certain that the supposition that Merlyn actually wants to join is correct. In fact although in effect he's advocating for the right to join, I think his main point is one that I agree with...also to answer vol_scouter's comment about harm. There are two forms of harm. The first, I think, addresses Merlyn's primary objection and that is that none of his (nor anyone else's) taxes can be used by the government to promote any particular religious view or organization. He (and many others of us) are very protective of that wall. This first harm to me occurs when my tax dollars are misused by government and if the misuse is unconstitutional, there is a clear legal remedy that has been applied, now, in the case of public schools chartering BSA units. The second harm is one that Merlyn may not be concerned with but I am. The second harm is the one that my son suffered when he was a member of an organization that excluded some of his buddies, not to mention some really great potential leaders, on the basis of a belief system. BSA has a perfect right to inflict this harm, although I think it is lamentable. All boys should be able to join. But when the government, through public schools or some other agency, supports this with MY taxes I join Merlyn in objection. My tax dollars must not be used to unconstitutionally and illegally promote something that inflicts even small harm to my child, as well as, I think, to the rest of the community. Edited part: pesky typos(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

OK, please explain what 'control' means in the context of that statement and how do you arrive at the figure of 40+%? Also, if you think that atheists are the only people who demand that wall of separation, you are sadly mistaken.

"In 20 years, the boys will be looking back and saying, I can't believe we wore those goofy long shorts and pants with our underwear showing (we can only hope)." No hope for me (as my wife often says), you can count me out completely...my underwear has never shown and I have never been seen in that idiotic style. As a matter of fact, I almost never wear shorts - too many unsightly circular scars where girls used to dare each other to touch me with a 10-foot pole.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Unless someone sets me on fire and I have to replace the ones I have, I won't be buying one either. That polyester fabric will last forever. But notice the two comparison photos. Left side, old uniform. Nice clean-cut boy with big smile in well fitted uniform, looking, well, nice. He could be petting a baby rabbit. Right side, new uniform. Unsmiling, 'means-business' look, with sleeves rolled up. At least he isn't holding an axe. A fair comparison would be to put a tenderfoot, preferably a really pudgy, geeky-looking kid with lots of zits, the same kid, in both uniforms, timidly holding a frog. I bet the reactions to the two uniforms would be similar. But if people like the new one, that's ok by me if it's ok...bayou.

Foot-in-mouth disease here...In my previous post, I had no intention of leaving the impression that my frustration was with my agreement with OGE. Thanks, OGE for pointing that out. My frustration was intended to be aimed at the situation described by Eagle309. I'll try to be more careful in the future, sorry OGE. I also agree with Lisabob's comment about safety and numbers. Seems like, assuming this boy really did slip one past the instructor, the instructor might have too many boys to watch at the same time.

As frustrating as it feels, I tend to agree with OGE on this. I have confronted a similar thing a couple of times in the distant past. In addition to the example it sets for the other boys, it is also a terrible thing for a boy to successfully 'get away' with something like this. In a case where I know with absolute certainty that one of the requirements was not completed, I merely let the boy know that I know and after the deceptions are removed, we discuss what it all means for life in general. Sometimes they continue on as a scam artist, sometimes they change for the better. But either way they know they didn't really earn the badge, and the way they live with that is also an important thing.

"...where's the dividing line?" Answer: It's the same place for all central authorities with absolute power - wherever they feel like it at the time.

FScouter, I agree. But then, I'm ok with noise.

Yes. Edited part: OK, that looks weird at the top of the page all by itself. OGE, I heard similar concerns regarding racial integration. The loudmouths who were strongly opposed, often claimed opposition on the basis of their religious beliefs. Some of the ones I knew, anyway, did choose to leave. Was it therefore wrong to integrate the units? My point is, we already have units with gay leaders. No big deal. The noise is being made by people who think it IS a big deal. Moreover, the undertone of your question implies a G2SS concern, rather than some religious-based moral objection. Is that your point? Is that really where you want to take this discussion...again? Is the BSA denial of membership based on G2SS concerns? Or on oath and law interpretations? I thought it was based on the oath and law, not G2SS. Am I wrong?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

RememberSchiff, the DRP issue relates to atheists directly because of the denial of membership to them on the basis of religion. Indeed, this may be the reason for the very existence of the DRP. The DRP also relates indirectly to the denial of membership to gays because for many of us, there seems to be a deeply religious component to our prejudices (or worse) toward gays. Therefore, it is difficult to discuss the DRP without opening discussion to the subsidiary issues resulting from it, including membership poliicies regarding atheists and gays. OGE, I note that from first-hand observation, your suspicion regarding gay leaders is not supported. If you were to suggest, however, that homophobia is stronger elsewhere (PA and perhaps UT, maybe ID or TX and other areas of the Deep South), I could accept that possibility.

I'm thinking the point he's trying to make is that all those creation myths have equal evidential validity. Some of us just laugh more at some than at others.

Hey, that's easy, just put water on it. Sorry, couldn't resist. Just a note...the Methodists are very likely not going to revolt if gays are allowed to be members. There are already gay Methodists (and have been for quite a while) and the idea that only SOME of their church members are allowed to join a unit that they sponsor really causes a conflict. I have yet to meet a Methodist who would quit if gays were allowed to join. As for atheists, the Methodists I know couldn't care less. LDS, ahem, is evidently some other universe of existence...but they seem to be calling all the shots in BSA.

"Good grief!" I hope everyone's mind is playing those words with Charlie Brown's voice. "Is too a secret! Is not! Is too! Nya, nya, nya!" The boys in this unit don't even do this to this degree! The solution to this snit is for BSA to go ahead and make it all openly explicit up front and written plainly enough so that anyone will understand that BSA does not welcome them as a member if they are gay or if they are an atheist. Don't bury it on the back page or in some oblique reference. Instead, proudly proclaim these facts openly and loudly at the very beginning so that no potential member can miss them. Then BSA can find some place online where they can put a copy of all of their policies and rules and regulations (whatever) in that one place - one stop shopping, so-to-speak. BSA can still have their separate documents as they have now. But all these questions will be laid to rest and maybe we can focus on content rather than snit.

Gonzo1, yeah I remember the neckerchief being quite different when I was a boy. I'm thinking I may have put on weight or something since then.

Muddy Waters was a pretty fair blues singer. (Just testing that thing about music references and censorship ) Oops, I see that Gern has gone way beyond my meager attempt. Talk about rapid-fire posts.... Gonzo1, PM acknowledged, thanks. Yes rules are rules. There is no rule against dissent, at least so far there isn't. I'm just trying to point to reality while some of us are preoccupied with some fantasy world that will never exist. Bob White, Every year or so, usually during some larger meeting like a COH or something, I hear someone among the parents mention one of the controversies. I listen carefully. Almost NONE of the new parents and families who have joined since the last year EVER know about these membership requirements. They just sign the paper and don't even read it. There are two ways to approach this: 1) let the process remain as is, or 2) make sure that the membership rules are clearly explained during the signing process. I'm not sure which is the better way. The first option keeps these things more in the closet and I'm getting the idea that BSA would like it remain that way. The second option gives them the full monty (so-to-speak). But it seems to be a secret to them prior to those meetings. Edited part: all sorts of things this time.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I tend to agree with Acco40 on the DRP. There was a time when the DRP didn't exist and everything was fine. In fact, unless I've missed something along the way, I have not yet signed it because I joined prior to its wording being placed in the application. If it was removed, I see no evidence that things would not be just as fine as they were before. No big deal. At least I know for a fact that THIS Methodist church would not care in the least. Nor likely would any of the others in this community. The problem of trying to repress thought is that, in reality, only its expression can be repressed. So while BSA policy excludes gays and atheists, I know that gays and atheists ARE members of BSA and that BSA will do nothing about it as long as those members do not express their thoughts openly (that thing about 'avowing', I suppose). This is, for the umpteenth time, an unavoidable outcome of BSA policy. Anyone who thinks BSA policy is achieving some kind of status of 'purity' among the membership is engaging in fantasy. On the other hand, fantasy seems good enough for many and I suppose the repression of honest and open expression could be the key to maintaining the community. Edited part: pesky typos(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

As sympathetic as I am to some of those changes (for example, the metric system...but not the roundabout), but in the spirit of the day, I must, with all due respect, advise Her Majesty to go take a flying 'jump' at a rolling Krispy Kreme doughnut. She can take her snooty, failed-empire attitude and return to her palace, thankful that the Yanks decided to allow her to enjoy the feel of placing her amply-cushioned behind on a warm, soft place, after saving both during a couple of world wars. That said, I do think she had a rather good point about beer - and M*crosoft.

"this living together in a community is a real bite" OGE, while I'm not very sure what that is supposed to mean, I do understand what you wrote prior to that...I've seen it many places around the country. My frustration is aimed at those who build in places that we already KNOW to be flood-prone. Actually, I'm ok with their decisions to build, but not with having to bail them out as a result. But what you described is a situation where regional planning and regulation can actually protect the community. In my region, such has been almost completely absent in the past, witness the obscene growth and sprawl of Atlanta. And now the problem is, again, water - specifically lack of it. Closer to home, I am struck by the irony of communities in which no such regulation exists because of past desire to do anything individuals see fit to their property - but which now scream for regulation of others in the watershed because of rising water. I wonder if they understand the choice they've made, or the responsibility for the consequences.

The pleasure was mine, gwd-scouter. Buster is a hoot, isn't he? Perhaps next summer if I'm not teaching that week... And I will now reveal another secret...my towel is Winnie-the-Pooh. I just really enjoy the nervous glances from the boys... Edited part: about the camp - This unit also had a great week. Steered 'em away from the 'classroom' MBs, one boy was the only scout in the whole camp doing Rowing, he loved the attention! My most memorable moments: 1) the pleasure of meeting (and surprising) gwd-scouter and 2) having a scout from another troop blow breakfast all over the floor in front of me in the dining hall on the first morning. The expressions on faces around me were priceless. I love the smell of vomit in the morning, it smells like....summer camp. On second thought that might have been lunch - anyway, the thing that kept running through my mind was a mass-balance problem, how can all that come out of a boy that small? (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"BTW, what were the ramifications of the 1993 flood? Upstream flooded town built higher and stronger levee's which concentrated the flow of water in a more narrow channel that then places communties farther downstream at risk." OGE, in 1852 the federal government commissioned a study which reported in great detail, precisely what you suggest above. Unfortunately, Charles Ellet's conclusions were largely ignored and the system of levees and 'control' structures was begun. No, actually the levees had been begun long before in 1717 by the French. And the Corps assumed management of all of the lower Mississippi. What a mess! There are many reasons to build levees. But most of the time, we don't invest the resources until an event has already demonstrated the need (a flood in this case). So I am in sympathy with those who would deny insurance to people who build in flood plains (to which I would add beach developments). Beavah calls them 'morons' but I suggest an alternative....they know that whatever they build will be covered by our tax dollars so they have no incentive to exercise good sense. At the same time, I also sympathize with Calico's observations of media bias and the rest for the Katrina disaster. If anyone was covered with glory as a result, I would like to know who it was. (yes, I know there are those Bush toadies out there who think "his shxx don't stink", I'm trying to stay away from fantasy land) But in fairness, New Orleans should not realistically expect to return to its former status, and it won't. Yes, for a variety of good reasons, the port should exist. But much of the rest of the city should be returned to nature because no matter what measures we take today, nature IS going to claim it eventually. And the same lessons apply upstream. Build in a low area, expect to lose property...eventually. Edited part: interesting case in point - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/us/05cajun.html?th&emc=th (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

We've been moving away from this fundraiser over the years. Our secret is that there are far more efficient ways to raise these funds - without involving popcorn.