packsaddle

I can only go by what parents tell me, deciding not to join or deciding to leave. But we are growing by approximately 20% per year (or more) and no end in sight. So #20 is lurking out there. 1. top pick by a large margin, including skateboarding and videogames. 2. weak second place, related to #1 7. tied for second sometimes slipping to third, surprising concern among some parents 6. distant fourth, specifically mentioned by some families as a reason for leaving

Not me, for sure. I have sometimes surmised that at least some of them were space aliens.

I don't mind admitting that I've learned quite a few things from reading your posts, Bob White. Agreement is always a pleasant alternative.

But I'll bet you'll never see many of THEM sitting on Trent Lott's porch. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I guess that it was my remark that got Kahuna started on this thread. So my first action is to apologize if my remark seemed intemperate. I had just witnessed what I thought had been the death of a young girl crushed under the wheel of a vehicle (she's going to recover, thankfully) and I was powerless to prevent it. I was in a bad mood. Sorry. First, New Orleans will be rebuilt but it will never be the same. This is partly because we MUST have some kind of base for control of shipping and transportation near the mouth of the Mississippi. Also because the marketplace will demand it. However, (and knottyfox already knows my feelings on this) I am quite sensitive to the fact that many thousands of good people have suffered and died from Katrina and more deaths are likely to follow. I have some private advice for anyone who thinks they somehow asked for or deserved this fate. Suffice it to say that if you hold that view, you join the others that slither out of holes at times like this: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/22005b.asp http://www.godhatesfags.com/featured/20050831_thank-god-for-katrina.html http://www.alternet.org/story/24878/ http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3338642 My sentiment is increasingly shared by other conservative persons: "Almost every Republican I have spoken with is disappointed..." "He is a strong president . . . but he has never really focused on the importance of good execution. I think that is true in many parts of his presidency." This from William Kristol, a conservative columnist with close ties to the White House and the Bush administration. "...never really focused on the importance of good execution." Really! Iraq hardly offers evidence to the contrary. But what about the response to Katrina? Part of the answer to this question depends on what happened prior to the storm. We know that long before this storm, FEMA had studied potential disasters and listed three really big ones as the worst - terrorism in NY, San Francisco, and a hurricane hitting New Orleans. The local and state officials had long known about the danger lurking behind the levees and had worked to secure improvements. Projects were proposed but funding was either denied or decreased by an administration bent on tax cuts and the war in Iraq. I know this personally because I have worked on projects that have stalled or ended because funding promised has been terminated. That trail leads to Iraq as well. At the same time, the administration has populated itself with political cronies and contributors some of whom have little, if any, qualifications. FEMA director Michael Brown, of all persons, is the poster child for this cronyism. All of us have watched him claim to be the last to know about thousands of stranded persons here and there, as if to excuse his lack of leadership. His previous experience to direct FEMA? Managing horse shows. Prior to FEMA he spent 11 years as the commissioner of judges and stewards for the International Arabian Horse Association, a breeders' and horse-show organization based in Colorado. He was asked to resign because of alleged supervision failures. But previous FEMA director Joseph Allbaugh (Bush's former national campaign manager) came to the rescue and recommended Brown for the FEMA job. Allbaugh was Brown's old college roommate. "He's a good ole boy, you know what I mean?" The result was not a crisp demonstration of efficient emergency response, it was rather an extended exercise of fingerpointing and arguments over division of authority. While people died. It continues. While these good people were dying: The USS Bataan sat off the Gulf coast, well-supplied with water, other supplies and well-equipped medical facilities. It sat there waiting for orders. While these good people were dying: WalMart tried to deliver truckloads of water to Jefferson Parrish. FEMA turned them away. No wonder Aaron Broussard's passion on 'Meet the Press' a few days ago! My heart goes out to him and all those people. Bush's response? See the website: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101329,00.html He didn't think anyone expected the problems with the levees. He praised Brown, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." And most importantly, Bush promised to rebuild Trent Lott's house. "Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house--he's lost his entire house...there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch." OK, perhaps incompetence is not the correct term. Thinking...maybe some of the thousands of survivors could supply a better one. At least they were lucky enough to survive.

I confront this situation occasionally. And...hold onto your hats...I am in complete agreement with Bob White's response. Those simple statements are the key to avoiding some problems with making unnecessary subjective judgements (not to mention adding to the requirements).

I can't speak for Ed, but I think he made a good observation just then. I get these questions ever so often but never specifically about a certain event (as in this case). Rather it is a nebulous question that indicates a vague impression formed over time, possibly from multiple sources. When this has happened in a group setting, such as a parents' meeting, the followup from the rest indicates to me that a lot of them are wondering these things and are just too polite to ask. Problem is, as Ed mentions, I'm only slightly better informed than they are. But now, at least, I have the perfect response - I can dismiss the parents' questions by informing them that it is egocentric to think that any of us have any authority in BSA's personnel department. Yep, that should just about do it.

I think I see Merlyn's point though. They are short easy steps that connect the various levels of isolation. Level 1. We: believe X, They believe Y. OR are white, they are not. OR are straight, they are gay. Level 2. We disagree with Them. More importantly, They disagree with Us. Level 3. Our ideas are correct, Theirs must be wrong. Worse, They think Their ideas are correct and therefore They must think Ours are wrong. Somewhere along this progression, jokes are made at various degrees of insult. Level 4. Our ideas are better (superior, more moral), Theirs must be (are) flawed (inferior, immoral). They must think Their ideas are superior to Ours. Anywhere along here, discrimination may be applied. Level 5. We are superior. They are inferior. But They must think They are superior to Us. Level 6. They must not like (respect) Us so We can't like (respect) Them. Level 7. They are bad, We are good. They must think the opposite. Level 8. They must be Our enemy and They must think We are Their enemy. Level 9. They must be sick (and possibly have criminal tendencies) and must be healed or isolated somehow. Their resistance to this must be evidence of a conspiracy to subvert Us. Level 10. Kill them. Facilitated by our freedoms and some of our associations, perhaps, but at every step we make the choice and we bear the responsibility.

OGE, Just to clarify,...you're....talking about football, right?

There ARE atheists buried in Arlington National Cemetary.

Scoutingagain, Yep!

Here's a suggestion, let's try on some other possibilities. How about: William Westmoreland? Richard Nixon? Any other suggestions?

OK Trevorum, it's you and me...meadow muffins at 20 paces I offer the following from GW's biography: "From 1759 to the outbreak of the American Revolution, Washington managed his lands around Mount Vernon and served in the Virginia House of Burgesses. Married to a widow, Martha Dandridge Custis, he devoted himself to a busy and happy life." I'm thinking about that part connecting the "busy and happy life" to being married to a widow. H'mmm. The important differences are that GW was living life in quite a different capacity just prior to 1776 than Lee was. Lee WAS an officer in the Army and was therefore subject to the military code. And GW was not asked by a superior officer to take a command whereas Lee WAS asked and he refused. GW was elected to command and was not forced to abandon any previous command (except over his crops and, perhaps, his love muffin..it does make you think, though, doesn't it). I agree with you though, he would have been hanged and I do appreciate the point about history being written by the winners. Isn't it interesting then, that the winners in this case seem to apologize for one of those persons primarily responsible for the waste and destruction of that war?

Ignoring Prairie Scouter's jab at Chicago politics, and assuming he's correct about CAC, my take on this and jkhny's frustration is that CAC has taken liberties with "Trustworthy" and if the higher levels of BSA ignore this, they are silently condoning it. Is this about right or have I oversimplified it?

Looking at the deeds, not the creeds: General Winfield Scott persuaded Lincoln to offer Lee the position of Field Commander for the Union just before Virginia seceded. Lee not only rejected the offer, he abandoned his post and took his military genius to command the rebellion, thus ensuring a long, devastating conflict. A betrayal that deserves infamy.

I too find it difficult to disagree with FuzzyBear. And I think Roberts will be confirmed as Chief Justice quickly unless something big and unexpected crawls out of the woodwork. Bush needs this to bolster himself politically - to blunt the edge of his Iraq-come-Katrina incompetence.

I spun this one from the fuel price thread that is still active. I just learned that a couple of days ago, in response to the gouging that has been taking place here and there, the owner of a nearby regional chain (who has NOT been gouging) promised to donate all profit for the next few weeks to the Katrina hurricane relief efforts. The man's name is Stewart Spinks. He even promised to open his books to an independent audit in case anyone doubted his convictions. I thought this was a great gesture and I wonder if anyone has heard of something similar? I also learned that because Spinks nailed his margin at what it had been prior to Katrina, his action has not only kept his prices lower than most other stations, the others have been forced to keep theirs competitive, and gouging is almost impossible. Nice. Good news for this region, anyone else know of something similar?

I believe the answer to your question is one area where 'local option' applies. This unit has a loose policy in which round-trip distances greater than 100 miles warrants fuel as a line item in the budget for that outing. We've had enough trips to be able to estimate the fuel usage for the vehicles most likely to drive. We then use the estimated distances for the budget figures. If the costs go much higher, the committee may reconsider the current policy though. Another observation, I just heard that a regional oil company (service station chain) had pledged all its profit to the emergency and recovery efforts on the Gulf coast. The owner, Stewart Spinks, has also promised to open his books to an independent auditor in case anyone questions his gesture. I wonder if anyone else out there has heard of something similar?

Thanks for the good advice JD. There is a comment that is sometimes stated in these forums regarding the freedom of association. The first amendment does not specifically articulate a freedom of association. This extension of the first amendment, as I understand it, is an interpretation by an activist judiciary . But given that it has become the law of the land through that activism, there is something about its application by BSA that merits further examination. The adult membership application contains the requirements to which applicants must agree. If there is disagreement among the members about other aspects of BSA, that disagreement should not affect membership. An honest adherence to the terms of membership demand this. However, if 'freedom of association' is interpreted to extend to elements beyond the requirements as simply articulated in the application, say, to include 'values', it is incumbent on the organization to clearly specify those as part of the requirements. Otherwise that would constitute additions to the requirements that are not officially listed. And failing such clear specification in the requirements on the application, those values should be open for discussion by members.

I have set this up for numerous years in an area that is a large expanse of open space surrounded by forest. I vary the course each time and if more than one boy is doing it, I make several courses over the same area. The largest single straight-line distance is approximately 1/4 mile. This setting is good for this because I can keep all of the boys in sight throughout the whole course (safety consideration) and by keeping track of which boys have what course, I can tell how well they're doing. I design the sequence so that I will know very quickly if they know what they're doing. If they make an obvious error, I stop them and go over the skills with them. Then we restart with a different course. The boys often start this thinking it is going to be easy. Then after 2 or 3 restarts they begin to take it seriously. It takes most of a morning to lay it out and the rest of the day for 6 or so of the boys to complete it satisfactorily. At the end of each course, I hide a token that earns them a reward (drinks or cookies or something) for their success. If I didn't have access to this particular property, I would resort to a local golf course that is friendly to this activity.

Actually, I think every last one of the rest of us, regardless of background, is free to think otherwise. Rooster7 is free to change his mind as well. Perhaps in a free society, we're all heretics. Am I missing something?

ehcalum, because it was. Without slavery as an issue, the war would never have happened. The roots of the conflict extend to the times of the earliest colonization of the South and the manner in which it was settled and from where - and then the issue of slavery was revisited at nearly every major decision leading to the formation of our country. John-in-KC, good post. No one knows for sure the rationale that led to Lee's treatment. The use of the term 'treason' is mine and I know it is a minority opinion. Lincoln's first innaugural ended with: "My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well, upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you, in hot haste, to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied, hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty. In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." http://federalistpatriot.us/histdocs/lincoln_first_inaugural.asp The "sensitive point" to which Lincoln referred was clearly slavery. But the South was itching for a fight that they arrogantly thought they would win in a short time and they did not have the benefit of "the better angels of our nature". Lincoln delivered these conciliatory words on 4 March 1861, AFTER South Carolina had already issued a declaration of secession (24 Dec 1860) having tried to instigate secession perhaps twice before (and failed). In answer to Lincoln's words of 4 March, on 12 April the South fired the first shot to seal the deal. Lee was an officer in the U.S. Army. He left that post to fight with an enemy that had initiated a conflict against the country that Lee had previously sworn to serve. If Lee had not betrayed his country, the war probably would have been much less costly to both sides. In a way, he is partly and knowingly responsible for the horrible destruction of the South and the many thousands of families on both sides. General Meigs placed Arlington Cemetary at the back door of Lee's former home so Lee could view the fruit of his life. It was indeed a fitting gesture but it was also nearly the least that could be done. Trevorum, I understand your point and had they won, you probably are right. It would not diminish the immorality of the South's cause. My grandmother kept a portrait of Lee and one of Davis on the wall of our house during my youth. I sometimes think she sincerely thought that the South had won...her self-deceit was, at least, obvious to all.

Do not take the life of another - unless you can catch them absconding with an armload of soggy t-shirts from a souvenir shop in New Orleans. Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his country who received far better treatment for his crime than he deserved. I am a Southerner, born and raised. But I am amazed at the apologists I am reading here. There is no excuse for cowardly acts by people defending an immoral cause. Have a nice day

In this area, the Colonial Pipeline was severely curtailed because of power outages and yesterday, due to lack of supply, prices went above $4 at some stations. Others had empty tanks and had to close, and there were 1974-style lines at the pumps of those stations that still had fuel - at $3.50 - $4 per gallon. Tempers were short and as I paid $3.50 per gallon to fill my vehicle today, talking with the attendant, she was relieved to have survived the madness yesterday. As far as I am concerned, the price can go to $7 or $10, I'll just ride the cycle more. Might even be interesting to watch. It would be kind of nice, though, if some of that windfall profit would go to help truly needy people, say, in the New Orleans/Gulf coast areas. But, after all, that's the marketplace! I'm sure something will trickle down to them eventually.

As Rush Limbaugh says, "Words have meaning.." Duh! But before I read jeers from one side and dittos from the other, my view is that 'criticism' should rarely be criticized (returning to Department of Redundancy Department all over again, hee, hee ) for its fairness - because such 'fairness' (but not 'accuracy') is often a matter of perception. I have leveled my share of criticisms and weathered my share of them as well. As far as I am concerned...Fair Enough! I have been criticized for criticizing BSA while being a member ("...go start your own organization...or...let me show you the curb..."). At the same time, if someone offers similar criticism and they AREN'T a member, (whining voice, now) "....it's soooo unfairrrrr!". Big deal! Tough luck! They are only words. Sometimes truth hurts, especially if the recipient is unwilling to admit the truth. I have often observed that the recipients of criticism rarely feel they have been treated fairly. Grow Up! Words don't do much more than communicate ideas and even if the ideas are confused, wrong, miscommunicated, or mean-spirited - until they are associated with .45 Corbons, I don't worry too much about them. If Merlyn or anyone else wants to criticize me, my work, my ideas, BSA, the Pope, or anyone else of adult age, go ahead and knock yourself out! Everyone in this country is free to offer criticism of BSA or any other organization. And if 'fairness' is the only whining response anyone can come up with to that criticism, it is possible that such response is the only one available to defend an otherwise weak or flawed idea. The criticism may be right on target. Good! (NJ, I know what you're thinking right now, you're thinking 'ditto'. Yuk, yuk. ) Sorry couldn't resist. Edited part: I must add that I also recognize that each of us has the right to whine all we want to. Therefore, carry on. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)