packsaddle

Things are moving right along but I'm still stuck on the comments about Philmont Scout Ranch and Phillips Petroleum.... Let's see now, Waite Phillips bought this property from George Webster and used it as his summer home. Waite Phillips later decided to let BSA use part of it and after some negotiations BSA ended up with a large spread, initially called 'Philturn Rocky Mountain Scout Camp' - later 'Philmont'. It has been implied that because BSA benefitted from big oil, it would be ironic for BSA to oppose environmental impacts by big oil. I wonder how Waite Phillips would respond to this issue. Would he drill at his summer home? Hmmmm, could be. But where I am uncertain as to the sentiments of dead persons, I am absolutely certain that methane is the same regardless of how it is produced. One carbon atom to which are attached four hydrogens. The process of biological methanogenesis is outlined here: http://faculty.washington.edu/leighj/mmmethanogenesis.html This process occurs naturally in our intestines, the rumen of cows (and, I suppose, ilk ), in termites, and in lake sediments. Alessandro Volta (as in the electrical unit) in the late 1800s performed an experiment called the 'Volta Experiment' where he collected gas from sediments and demonstrated that it was combustible. Our boys sometimes repeat this experiment at summer camp although sediments are not involved. But wait, there's more. Worldwide, methane is one of the 'greenhouse gases' and interestingly, sediments are the greatest source of naturally-produced methane, termites are in a distant second place. In the U.S., the largest single source of methane released to the atmosphere is landfills. But if all fossil fuel activities are combined, they would be the largest source of release to the atmosphere in the U.S. Source: http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html

I'd like to welcome the new guys to the forum. As you can see, it is fertile ground for discussion of issues like this. While Buffalo Guard is on the right track, and the conservative ethic is expressed in some (but not all) others, there are essential questions that I have not seen answered. Some of the questions are contained in the petition. Here are a few more: What was the basis for past decisions by the Forest Service to deny the coalbed methane (CBM)development? What is the value of the present use of this resource (the land) and how is this likely to change in the future? How much CBM can realistically be expected from this development? How long will it take to extract it? What will it be worth during that time? How much of the present value will be eliminated by that development? What are all the costs associated with CBM production? Assuming that it IS possible to return the land to its present state afterwards, how long will this take and how much will that cost? These are some of the questions that will probably be addressed during the two years of study leading to a final decision. I suggest that those who are interested in conservation follow this issue carefully and provide comments quickly. And demand good answers.

Merlyn, One of my old department heads enjoyed reminding us that there is no such thing as a committee that is creative. He maintained, I think correctly, that creativity occurs at the individual level and that a group with which the individual associates can only encourage or discourage that creativity. Transferring that idea to BSA or any corporation, it is difficult to conclude that the organization could have ANY philosophy outside that held by its leaders, expressed as some sort of consensus. In that vein, it is easy to accept that Greg Shields is ignorant of religion or any number of other subjects. But what Greg says is not necessarily the final say unless he is the BSA equivalent of a dictator. What I find particularly frustrating is the lack of clarity in how this corporation called BSA formulates its policies and regulations. It is difficult for a newcomer to understand the chain of command or organizational structure - I've never seen it in the form of a chart, and I've looked. Therefore it is difficult to understand who makes them... or how policies are made. And even more difficult to understand how to make effective changes. I sometimes wonder if this situation is intentional (remembering my administrative training in which underlings are supposed to be controlled by witholding information). Finally, although I understand your point, I want to clarify that UU boys have not been kicked out of scouting, nor the adults. BSA simply has decided not to recognize the UU religious awards, for whatever harm that has done, especially to the boys.

Here's the petition if anyone is interested: http://www.petitiononline.com/vallevid/petition.html It seems very reasonable to me.

OGE, Hey I'm just reporting my test scores. I got a 100% and a 99%. Not bad. Take a look at the site, Liberal Quaker is one of the alternatives. I have no idea what I did to get that rating but it makes me proud. And all this time I was wondering why my Presbyterianism made me a little nervous. Destiny, I suppose. BadenP, One of the problems with reading written words is that we don't have the benefit of hearing tone or inflection or cadence. When our minds supply those things during the reading, it may be as much a reflection of our mood as anything. And these forums are often so sloppily written that they exacerbate the problem. Of course, as you point out, some words are clear in their intent. But sometimes we need to cut the other guy a little slack and look with a larger view. Rooster7 seems a little harsh at times. I've been the recipient as well. But I know he is sincere and I know he really has the best interest of the boys at heart. So what if he disagrees strongly. Remember, he may be looking at the other side of the exchange and reacting similarly.

100% Liberal Quaker, 99% UU. So what I observe is that we are isolated from each other by strongly held beliefs, with the certainty of faith and no objective evidence for any of them. And where some of us are ready to fight to the death for doctrine, others of us are ready to accomodate and fully support their right to fight to the death. Why can't we just love one another and get along? I guess I'm for sure going to hell.

Ed, Huh? Am I missing something here? BSA does discriminate. Merlyn did say that. But you just did too. It is a simple fact. You and Merlyn may disagree about whether this is the way things ought to be but you are in agreement that BSA discriminates.

Ed, You said that he looks for the bad and when he finds something bad, he posts it here. Are you saying he found something bad about BSA this time? I thought that, given Merlyn's interest in the topic, an article like this would be viewed by him as positive. At least that's the way I understood his post.

Menorah? Menorah? Holy Toledo, folks in this region have been hoodwinked. All this time we thought those were just candelabras.

Acco40, I agree with your response, nice post. In defence of Merlyn (as if he needs it), who among us does not have a slant on these issues?

I have a CCP (CWP). This required enough training to teach safe handling, maintenance, and use. And an FBI background check. It required enough training to inform the carrier of how legally responsible they are for any action they take. Each state has their own carry limits but these usually exclude schools, most government buildings, bars, churches,...you get the idea? As I see it, BSA can set their own limits and enforce them through removal, if necessary (as in other controversial issues). I think safe scouting requires firearms to be confined to the range and under control of the rangemaster. My interpretation of the spirit of the law is that anytime there are chidren present, or if the venue provides a safety risk, or risk of needless confrontation, carry is not advised, or in many cases not legal. I don't carry at any scouting event. I don't carry at any time when I am working with children. There is no need and if I did, it would add unnecessary risk. I don't carry while hiking or backpacking, even if out West. So far, I don't carry if travelling on an airline, it's just too much trouble and there is really no need. A quick note about the bear comment: black bears sometimes associate people with food because of a learned behavior. It can be a sight response. They don't have to smell anything to be attracted to a person or group. However, the best evidence is that they usually go into a tent because food is present. In my experience, a raccoon or skunk is a much greater problem. I agree with the first response by NJ. My advice is to let the Ranger address the problem and save the gun-slinging for some other time and place - preferably never, and away from me, my family, and my troop.

Or to put it a little differently, a person can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. But, I tested this concept once with an experiment and the vinegar did pretty well. It may depend on whether it is made from apple cider or wine. But one thing, concentrated acetic acid doesn't work as well, at least not in my trial. The honey attracted more bees than anything else and, of course, they are a different order from the flies. The very best is something entirely different. When my mother cooked cabbage late in the summer or early fall, we had to open the doors to our house it smelled so bad. The screen doors accumulated so many flies that it looked like one of Moses' plagues. Oops, I've probably said too much. Just a little more blathering: Boleta, who else besides Jason was banished? Or are we counting him more than once in his multiple personalities? Whew, this stuff is getting confusing.

Ed, some of the churches in this area have loudspeakers that broadcast hymns or carols (depending on season). One is Catholic and others are Baptist and Episcopal (not sure about that last one). The local Temple plays Hava Nagila until sundown on Friday (just kidding, I made that last one up - but hey, it's a great idea). I am guessing that thousands hear these and to my knowledge, they haven't been shut down (except for the odd power outage). The university has a bell tower from which occasional really bad players toll their attempts to additional thousands of ears. OK, some grumbling but these players seem to be like the pink bunny. So you'd be safe here. I think you need to go for it. Discover the exciting world of civil disobedience if you feel it necessary. Push the envelope, hang ten, walk on the cutting edge. You might want to look up the number for your local ACLU affiliate first, though. Edited part: NWscouter, I have always wondered how the Wobblies got that name. Do you know?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Rooster7, It is my observation that we continue to have that right. The guy I wrote about wasn't there Friday. But there are also other persons in my town who walk the streets saying strange, irrational things to passersby. We just smile and wave and go on about our business, no harm done. If you feel the need but are not allowed in your town, please come here and join the society that gives John Grisham the material for his novels. You might be surprised at how well you fit in. Merlyn, take a gander at this one I just found today: http://greenvilleonline.com/news/2004/08/07/2004080736612.htm I'll see what else I can find on it. Edited part: Yep, here's another: http://greenvilleonline.com/news/2004/08/07/2004080736614.htm(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

FOG, I got it at least, and had a good laugh too!

Ed, No problem with what you just described. You and a group of individuals may indeed gather in a public place and pray. In this region they gather, for example, at a local river that was filmed in 'Deliverance' - and such groups perform public baptisms. I have occasionally stood among them for a while. So have other persons, some of whom were carrying kayaks. The problem arises if that group gains exclusive access to public property, outside of renting a picnic shelter or something similar. As for my knowledge of what you think, I apologize. Perhaps I was in error. [withdrawn for civility] Edited part: Oops, sorry Scoutingagain, lunch was tasty. Missed the cinnamon you-know-whats but the pi was good. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I was into a lengthy answer to Ed when the huge, engorged, bloatware running my computer decided to do what it does every day and restart. (Why haven't the conspiracy types picked on Microsoft?) Now Rooster7 has made that reply unnecessary, thanks. Anyway, I will repeat one comment: Ed, you're killin' me, man! I can't think of anything but cinnamon you-know-whats now. So off to lunch. If I'm lucky, it being Friday and all, there will be a guy in a dark suit on the sidewalk near the place where I'll get a cinnamon you-know-what. And as usual, he'll be standing on a milk crate, waving his Bible and yelling at passersby. At midday...in a dark suit...in the summer...in the South. Not very smart. A few of the passersby will yell back at him. As long as that guy doesn't harm anyone (the stores think he's hurting business) he's free to do this, or if he choses, kneel in silent prayer (better for business, I suppose). There is nothing stopping private or public prayer. Ed does understand the answer to his rhetorical question. The reason for his discomfort is that for a long time much of society DID allow government to effectively endorse whatever dominant religion that happened to occur locally. Specific prayers (and other things) WERE forced on the public and individuals WERE discriminated against if they didn't participate or if they objected. To a lesser extent this still occurs here and there. However, government now has been forced to remain neutral by the rulings of the Supreme Court. This neutrality is fair and it simply embodies the golden rule. No one is denied the right to practice their faith. Anyone is still free to pray if they choose. Or not. BUT, to persons longing for those 'good ole days', this seems like a loss of freedom. And if they conclude this because they no longer can force their faith on others, then I suppose they are correct. They no longer have the freedom to do that. And of that I am glad.

There are also some established mileage rates that include depreciation, fuel, insurance, etc. as factors. For federal travel it's around $0.37 per mile. The IRS and the states have additional figures. There are others. Our troop just reimburses for fuel and tries to rotate the trailer hauling.

Gad!

Welcome to the seniors, Squirt!

Cool!

BPwannabe, "Wilderness Survival can be completed year round but for some reason, it was always cooler to do at summmer camp." Aren't you getting your seasons a little mixed up? Sorry, couldn't resist.

I tend to agree with Fuzzy Bear. Stealing candy at age 14 is one thing. This is quite another, and I would say they are off lightly. Charges should have been brought against the boys. The circumstances are irrelevant, there is no circumstance that justifies such a betrayal. The court has mechanisms to address this, one of which is pre-trial intervention. I've dealt with this before and it works well with youth who just need the incentive it provides. If they have no previous record, the experience of feeling some adult heat would do them some good. It might be the last second chance they ever get but it also might make them use their brains for a change. Edited part: Fuzzy, I'm not sure revoking a rank is worth the effort. If they truly valued it they probably wouldn't have done the deed (as you implied), if they didn't then taking it away is a hollow punishment. I would let them keep their rank, in the certain knowledge that they dishonored it and that the world knows it. That might have provide a more lasting reminder - that may cause them to be more thoughtful in the rest of their lives.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I've seen similar things. It is better to make those mistakes and address the problems as a juvenile than as an adult. Actually, sometimes it is a really good lesson that nails it down permanently. Depending on the specific infraction, but regardless of venue, we always get the parents involved asap. We inform the boys of this fact immediately after getting caught or whatever. The suspense is terrible and it usually makes them think hard. I agree with you hotdesk. With parental approval, I took one boy who swiped some candy, after he confessed, to the store with all the candy he had, including the loot. The store owner and the boy then determined how much had been stolen and the owner explained how he feeds his family. Then I paid for all of it, everything. When I later made a gift of it to the boy, at my insistence he took it reluctantly. He never ate it, and in fact, years later, he still has it. I suppose it was my twisted version of the priest who reminded Jean Valjean that he forgot the candlesticks (or however that story went).

uhsammy, welcome to the forums. Perhaps not the identical thoughts that you have expressed, but this topic has been beaten to death in some historic threads. Take a look at the archives...it could take a while. If Bob White hadn't shown himself the curb recently he'd inform you rather flatly that BSA and GSUSA are different entities (which isn't exactly a shocking revelation for most of us) and that BSA has a right to make its own policies, separate from GSUSA, duh! But I think you make a valid argument, nevertheless.