packsaddle

SR540Beaver, I understand what you say. I try (but sometimes fail, sorry) to respond to these things as if the person is being sincere and not engaging in a deception. Rooster7, I think my statement mentioned "doubt", not certainty. I try (as I have done with all presidents) to ascribe characteristics of sincerity and honesty to them and their teams. Nixon surely failed, spectacularly. And therefore I doubt other aspects of him. But you are correct. I clearly didn't know what was in his mind, nor can I possibly understand his motives. I lived through Nixon and now I merely remember him and read his tape transcripts (and now Kissinger's). And in his words and actions, I see deceptions. Don't you? Ditto (sorry NJ) Bush. It has occured to me, though, that applying your standard to others, including 'the likes of' Al Gore, that you also have little means of judging them with the certainty with which you seem to speak.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Adrianvs, I must have missed something during your statements about 'idealists'. I have been called this many times (usually in the pejorative). But since I walk the walk, I have to side with firstpusk in that I think I am and that many of my colleagues are idealists. Some of them also hold a variety of religious beliefs (and yes, some are atheists). However, science is not a religion in spite of scientists' occasional fervent approach to ideas. To me the difference is exemplified by the experiment. The experiment is designed, more than anything else, to attempt to discredit an idea that otherwise seems plausible. The success of the experiment, in fact, is measured by how critically it performs that test. In this sense we strengthen our ideas by attempting to disprove them, and we (usually) accept opposing evidence especially if we can reproduce the evidence through repetitive experiments. I have tried to think of a religion that subjects its creeds and beliefs to such tests, willing to admit their falsehood if they fail. And I have been unable to name one. If anyone else can, I'd be interested to learn.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Hops_scout, in the original post, wrote something that has bothered me since then. He wrote, "John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us." Vietnam had been in conflict many times over the centuries and most recently with the French. The treaty in 1954 specified an agreement in which the south would provisionally remain separate from the north until an election would be held in 1956, at which time a unified government would be elected. The Vietnamese agreed to this, the French agreed, and all parties to the effort (including the USA who had largely funded the French) agreed. But prior to 1956, Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam rejected the Geneva accord which called for unification and elections in 1956 and as a result no election was held. The USA supported his decision. In 1959 North Vietnam declared war on South Vietnam with the aim of achieving the unification that was supposed to have happened in 1956. This, I could argue, would be a more accurate beginning of the Vietnam War although the USA only had advisors there at the time. But our 'formal' entry did not occur until the Johnson administration asked for and was given the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964. This, too, would be an arguable beginning of the war for it was the beginning of large-scale American bombing of North Vietnam. I suppose that Hops_scout could argue that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was merely a hoax to get Congress on board the war effort. His statement that Vietnam never attacked the USA indicates such (and many other people also assert this is the case). But if he supports the legitimacy of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, he must then agree that in 1964 we WERE attacked by North Vietnam, legitimizing our subsequent decisions and actions. Later in these posts it was mentioned that Nixon (a crook) begat Carter (an honest president who was, nevertheless, ineffective). I would also mention that Ford was, I believe, an honest president. I would also argue that Johnson begat Nixon. But where Johnson was guilty of deception, he was also the victim of his own arrogance and honestly suffered with the loss of so many lives. I sincerely doubt that Nixon had any such feelings or concerns for what he wrought. And although Bush and his administration has blood on their hands, I give them the benefit of my doubt and reserve judgement for the time being as to their feelings and concerns. But they are building my doubts as these days go by and it is becoming more and more difficult not to view them in Nixonian terms.

What was that line from 'Pirates of the Caribbean'?...not so much a rule as it is a 'guideline'? We seek parental permission. If not given in written form, no mention or photos of the boy. This is the way it works for the church and the university as well, and before I left industry - there too.

I still like the old plastic tarp method. Depending on the size of the tarp (they need to be 20 feet in at least one dimension) several whole sections of PVC pipe, perhaps conduit with one end expanded to join with the opposite end, and rebar stakes are all you need. The assembly is cheap, quick, and effective. And they don't have to be blue, the material is your choice depending on how durable it needs to be. Each whole stick of PVC (I think it's 1 inch diameter or so) is cut in half for easy storage, transport, and assembly. One whole stick is used for each end and each set of grommets across the 20 feet width of the plastic tarp. At the campsite, we put two rows of rebar stakes in the ground to act as anchors for the ends of the 'ribs' of the shelter. Then each rib is assembled by inserting a standard end into a flared end. This joint makes the rib approximately 20 feet in length again, approximately its original length. Then these are bowed into a half-circle and the ends slipped over the vertical stakes. If done correctly they stand by themselves. Then the tarp is slipped over the ribs and secured at the grommets. Lines tied through the ribs and down to end stakes stabilize the whole assembly. Works well for us and take about 20 minutes to erect.

Trail Pounder, c'mon don't sugar coat it, tell us what you really think.

Such irony. From the book, 'A World Transformed' (1998) by G.H.W. Bush and B. Scowcroft regarding their Gulf War: "While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state." and, "We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

I must comment that although Bush has earned my contempt, I consider Nixon to have employed many more levels of deception, most of which we probably will never understand (as if we'd want to). In the annals of deception, I think Nixon stands out as a master of the art without peer. Bush doesn't have the intellectual tools even to come close. As a Wielder of Mass Deception, his arts are crafted more with a sledge hammer than with the artist's eye. Shocking...and...Awful!

I sincerely hope no-one decides to give us a comprehensive list of Nixon quotes. While Clinton obviously engaged in a deception, the primary victims were his own family, not thousands of families of dead and maimed soldiers (and not to mention many thousands of Iraqi lives taken). Long ago I detected a pattern in politics. It seems that the political world is a realm where deception is just another tool. However, the Democrats seem to lie to their wives whereas Republicans seem to lie to the people. The Bush team has blood on its hands and it has put some of that blood on all our hands - for a lie, one of many. At one time I thought the most effective way to demean Bush was to quote him accurately. Then, after the election, it became clear that he could do much worse and take our great country down with him.

Before this thread goes into oblivion, one comment continued to nag at me, I think it was made by Scootcraft. The comment was that numerous slaves fought for the Confederacy. I have encountered this puzzlingly inaccurate belief throughout the South and have always wondered if the persons promoting it were really trying to further discredit the South by remaining here. But to address the question the following is helpful: "In January, 1864, General Patrick Cleburne and several other Confederate officers in the Army of the Tennessee proposed using slaves as soldiers since the Union was using black troops. Cleburne recommended offering slaves their freedom if they fought and survived. Confederate President Jefferson Davis refused to consider Cleburne's proposal and forbade further discussion of the idea. The concept, however, did not die. By the fall of 1864, the South was losing more and more ground, and some believed that only by arming the slaves could defeat be averted. On March 13, the Confederate Congress passed General Order 14, and President Davis signed the order into law. The order was issued March 23, 1865, but only a few African American companies were raised, and the war ended before they could be used in battle. In actual numbers, African American soldiers comprised 10% of the entire Union Army. Losses among African Americans were high, and from all reported casualties, approximately one-third of all African Americans enrolled in the military lost their lives during the Civil War." For a good source on the tremendous number of men of color and freed slaves who fought for the Union there is: http://www.archives.gov/digital_classroom/lessons/blacks_in_civil_war/blacks_in_civil_war.html This memorial day, I will also remember them.

If I were Osama and I wanted to inflict the most profound, lasting damage possible to the American people and to our constitution, I would wait until September and then allow myself to be taken by American forces - thereby guaranteeing a Bush re-election. Mere bombs couldn't possibly do as much damage.

Whew! Just back from a long, really great trip with the troop and what have I discovered in the forums? Eamonn, I think "have it in" is a poor choice of words for your view. I wonder how many persons, actively excluded from a club, exercise the restraint and clarity toward that club as displayed by Merlyn. He weathers some withering diatribes in this forum and usually responds clearly and succinctly. My view of FOG (aside from that 'rough as a cob' comment awhile back) is to substitute "cantankerous" for the "F" part of his moniker. Gotta love 'im. And I guess I should feel besmirched by Rooster in that I am a scientist, but no offence taken. I still occasionally encounter similar absolutist views in the classroom. Most of them see things differently as they mature intellectually. I think Merlyn has good points to make and he has been consistent in his arguments. If it is illegal for government to support or fund one or any religion, then I agree with him that such criminal activity should be identified and stopped. It would have no effect whatsoever on this troop or its future if BSA allowed 'avowed' atheists to be members. And I don't understand how there could possibly be any bad effect. Ditto (sorry NJ) the homosexual issue. The avowed atheists who respond to this forum confirm my view that they develop their thoughts through careful deliberation. Compare their approach to ideas, if you will, with that employed by Trail Pounder. As for a moral code, I disagree that such must be decreed to us from a supreme being, or read from a book (or a stone inscription, gold plate, etc.) I believe that a code nearly identical to that which most of us share can be derived from scientific principles and a simple assumption or set of assumptions. I further believe that, for those of us who question such things a pronouncement alone is not good enough...it must also make rational sense in order for us to accept and practice it (or to follow up on another thread, "just following orders" isn't sufficient justification for doing something). This is another way of saying that I believe that people are inherently good and that most share an innate (dare I say 'instinctive'?) moral sense. Worshipping a rock (or anything else) is fine but it isn't required.

The award has been made. It was made long ago under a different advancement guy who may already have cleared this up. You are sure the requirements were met. I don't see that you need to do anything at all. If I were you I would merely try to make sure no discrepancies like this happened on my watch.

VH_50, a quick note about Lee - I would say he is not immune but that he has benefitted from time...and the ignorance of later generations. He did not support secession but nevertheless joined the Confederacy and indeed foresaw the carnage about to be wrought. After the war he applied for but did not receive the amnesty that most of his surviving soldiers did. His colleague, Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs (who was born in Augusta, GA) did not join the Confederacy. Instead Brigadier General Meigs took over as Quartermaster General and responsibility for Lee's estate (which had been taken by the Federal Government for non-payment of taxes). Meigs's hatred for the Confederacy predated the death of his son during the war and it was his idea to use the former Lee estate as the site of a cemetary for Union soldiers. He began in August 1864 by ordering 26 Union soldiers to be moved from the morgue to the doorstep of the former Lee mansion (actually Mrs. Lee's rose garden). By the end of the war more than 16,000 Union dead had been buried there, including his own son. It has been written that Meigs looked on with "grim satisfaction" as the soldiers were buried on Lee's former estate. This was the beginning of Arlington National Cemetary, a fitting tribute to the war and to Lee.

John-in-KC, This is a long-standing problem that we've noticed as well. Mistakes during data entry do occur but, as our annual audits show, council records seem to evolve even after the data have been corrected. Boys' records become transposed, lost completely, birthdates and advancements change. We go through a painstaking audit to reconcile these records well before every eagle BOR or at least once per year. However, I have noticed that the troop, at least, seems to be able to keep these records intact and accurate. This means that approximately each year, we use our records to recreate and correct the council records. We accept this as routine.

My favorite: Flying Monkey Patrol

Been away and trying to catch up, so this is confusing to read. It seems like ScouterPaul started the question and then a similar but separate question started because of something that Dan said. After that it is difficult to follow which question is being addressed. Maybe I'll read through all this a couple more times. But the part that really gums things up is the mental image of FOG dancing a jig. Edited part: OK, I think I've got it now. I and the other ASMs in this troop are on very good terms with the SM. This is partly because we are so grateful that HE is the SM. It is also because we all respect each other. And part of that respect is giving and taking constructive criticism, fairly freely. Sometimes it is even fun to do and we've been able to avoid a lot of the gooey human emotional stuff by maintaining our senses of humor. In fact, this sense of camaraderie is contagious and goes to the boys as well. Good stuff. Bob White, I do understand what you say regarding the sense of propriety toward the troop but when I slip up and refer to 'my' troop it actually is meant in the sense you use. I feel like I belong to it and have a duty to it, not the other way around.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

SR540Beaver, I agree with your statement. Trail Pounder, I did not equate the action of the guards with the scouts. And I think you know that - you ought to be willing to admit it. I noticed your quip about "their trailer park" and asked for some clarification regarding the intent of that statement. The really funny smart guy also noticed this and bluntly stated one possibility. Your response seemed to confirm his assessment. I attempted to explain my reaction to what I understand to be prejudice regarding people who live in mobile homes. I think that was clear to everyone else on this forum. I think it was clear to you as well. I believe that all other respondents to this forum understand clearly the exchanges that I and others have had with you. In that sense most of the readers have not been deceived. SR540Beaver, I hope the scouts reading these exchanges can spot the deceptions and draw good lessons from them.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I guess that's as clear as you can make it. I try to reject prejudice in its various forms because prejudice is destructive and often accompanies and is the result of self-deception. I thought I detected something in your post and unless I have misinterpreted your last responses, you have confirmed my suspicion. Some of the boys in this troop and their families live in mobile homes. They are of modest means and they know it. But scouting is a level field in this aspect. In the uniform they are indistinguishable from the boy whose father owns the property they rent. Every one of them has an equal opportunity to learn, advance, and have fun. I respect any boy that puts forth the effort to succeed and does it honestly. I also respect those families that support his efforts. The house in which they live is not important to me. The home is. If my rejection of prejudice causes you to label me, 'extreme left' then so be it. Dismissing someone by applying a label is a poor substitute for a carefully crafted and articulated idea. But that's your choice.

I was still wondering about that quip, though. And if the really funny smart guy is wrong, please tell us honestly what you did mean. Otherwise the remainder of your response indicates that you think those soldiers are even lower than his interpretation of what you meant.

There is a Michael Moore DVD collection? Actually I saw this in the Financial Times but it originally came from an ICRC (Red Cross) report that 70-90% of detainees were "arrested by mistake". You can find this in a large number of news sources but they all come from the same confidential report that was leaked to the media. In the report the ICRC cited military intelligence officers as the authority for the estimate of 'accidental' arrests. Michael will probably use this but he had nothing to do with its disclosure. Here's a familiar source for your reading pleasure: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/10/red.cross.report/(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Zahnada, I agree with your response. I seem to remember that most (up to 90%) of those prisoners were innocent, many taken by mistake, and that most of the few real terrorists were being held at other facilities. I also wonder what the quip about "their trailer park" meant? Was that also intended to be a pejorative reference?

I sympathize. I was in essentially the same situation back when I was the CM. I gave the parents similar notice and said I would stay to help until the new CM felt comfortable taking over. Two years later one of them stepped forward to take the position. I don't regret a minute of it.

Ed, Since Merlyn didn't address the rest of your post, I still need a little clarification. I thought that the families and the ACLU sued the city, not BSA. Have I missed something here? If my assertion is correct then I think the answer to your question is easy, they sued because they WEREN'T associated with BSA and were therefore denied access. Or am I mistaken? Anyone want to clarify further?

And here I was, thinking those were clown costumes. Edited part: Just a note, the new law doesn't forbid BAGGY pants, just those worn below the waist. Seems like concealment would still be available.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)