packsaddle

KDD, that is pure, wild speculation. Safeway is merely the trough to which the cattle come for food. Cattle are unconscious of the actual source of the food but we don't have to 'be' cattle in this case. Therefore if it scares you that much, bake your own. Better yet, take the opportunity to start your own bakery and take control of the situation and make some profit to boot. Enough entrepreneurs like you will decrease the incentive for people to exercise their 2nd amendment right to kill their fellow citizens over bread.

I agree with jblake47. Lions were in the program when I was a cub back in the 50s but in our pack, somehow I think I bypassed that and went directly to the troop. I have no good recollection of how that happened. Or else Lion was so forgettable that I, well, forgot it. Entirely possible, lol. Change the oath if it works for the boys. Seems to me that at that age, I had no trouble memorizing TV commercials on the first viewing. The boys are probably up to it if they want to be.

DigitalScout, yes there are wretched places in the world. I LIVE in the South! But I'd point out that Tijuana is a city, not a country. And the phrase 'federal assistance' seems to have become a euphemism for the 'tooth fairy' or 'money tree' from which services are free and without further obligation. They are not. Someone IS paying for all that. Horizon, the way to break the cycle you describe is to take those 'games' away from the politicians and put personal responsibility back into society. Give people full freedom to make their own personal choices and stop taking from them to create political interest groups using 'government benefits'. Do that and there will be extra income for individuals and THEN the market and competitive forces will correct the outrageous costs you quote. Yes, some people will make bad choices. And they will suffer the consequences. Why shouldn't they?

Horizon, I hear you. As I have written in the past, we can abolish those programs with a realistic means test and then use the regular ol' welfare system to take care of the indigent...if that is what society wants to do. Fact is, we are all going to die. There's nothing particularly good or noble about prolonging it in misery...especially if that action takes resources away from the young. And yes, if welfare isn't good enough, let their families fill out their lifestyle. Why should society compensate for persons who failed to save adequately or else just couldn't earn the resources to cover their 'retirement'? I'd rather devote those resources to education and health for children because THAT is where the future is for this country. Also with respect to the Fair Tax, you wrote, " It will also reduce consumption". And your point is? This is one reason I like the Fair Tax so much. It will make most of us much more conservative than we are and we'll use fewer resources, have less environmental impact, etc. as a result. All good.

I'm with you, jblake. Abolish Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and the deficit would vaporize. The national debt would shrink rapidly. Remove ALL tax deductions and ALL subsidies, abolish the IRS, and embrace the Fair Tax. Things would be interesting for a while but we'd get back into good shape quickly.

In my area, there are all sorts of 'rednecks', to use the current vernacular term. Yes, I can show you some of the people whom you just described. I can also show you some tobacco-spitting, beer guzzling, flaming liberals and feminists. Some gay. Some who are artists, and some fiddlers who make their money on bluegrass but have chairs in the symphony playing the 'classics'. I think it is difficult to attach a label to prejudice other than to call it what it is. Simpler that way too.

Twocub, that was most likely a contractor. If so, the amount of the contract has already been incumbered and they will continue to empty trash cans and remove leaves until the contract is out.

.....sputtering....sputtering.. ...how many times do I have to correct you guys? Flavor Aid! It was Flavor Aid that Jim Jones and his cult drank to commit suicide at Jonestown. Flavor Aid!

"Hey Moderators...." It might surprise you to learn that moderators have little more influence over something like that than do the other members. If enough of you write to Terry, he might consider it. I've tried to figure out how to start a sub-forum and either I'm too stupid to figure it out or else it can't be done by me. Either way, I'm going to toss the task back to you guys.

Basement, In the process of working on one of the topics I teach, I traveled through Ky and WV interviewing coal miners who still had memories of the strikes and conflicts from decades ago. One of the things I learned was that according to them, the term 'redneck' also was applied to mine union members who were in conflict with the coal operators. They wore red bandanas around their necks so they would know not to shoot a fellow 'redneck'. At least that is what I was told: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck Check out the reference to the UMW. It doesn't just refer to white socks and PBR.

Thing about references to 'founding fathers'....it's entirely possible that THEY were just as confused about all this stuff as we are.

A quick correction: it's Loch Ness.

I've always been partial to Bene Gesserit.

Religious emblem 'approval' only applies to whether it can be worn 'legally' on the uniform. The emblems themselves are not BSA awards.

married? C'mon Basement, do you really like Country Western that much?

I had a friend who was told by his other (Baptist) friend that because he was friends with me, he "walked with Satan". When he told me about this, my response was ...."Is that way cool or what!"

'openly known.....' If that's the case, the problem started long before the EBOR. And it's the failure of the program as much as the boy. If he has all the requirements signed off and if he 'passes' the review (remember, it is a review, not a test) then he's going to advance. The time to address all this was years ago. Use this as a 'wake up call' for the leaders...the boy is done.

National Forest offices are closed but the trails are still available. Put away the tent shelters, dutch ovens, and Winnebagos. Pick up a backpack and do some real outdoor adventure. As for the closed parks, nice - the wildlife can use a 'breather'.

NeverAnEagle, In this thread I am acting as an advocate for the boy. Is this not obvious? Yes, BSA could reject the application. BSA successfully defended their right to reject memberships for any reason they wish, in front of the Supreme Court. I'm a volunteer and I don't have the ability to 'override' the geniuses in the professional ranks. So I'll defend the boys against other volunteers who DO think they have the responsibility and are qualified to judge boys in matters of faith.

dcsimmons, I don't know how I would react to those cockamamie situations. Both of them are about advancement, not membership. Anyway, if I confront one of them I'll let you know. But the situation in this thread is real and has happened. In some sense I've already confronted it, just not with a Jehovah's Witness. To me the question is who has responsibility for 'policing' the membership policy. With respect to matters of beliefs, I am neither interested nor competent to judge others. No place in the training or in those 'rules' does it mandate that I 'police' the faith of scouts or their families. They either sign the application or they don't. The CO can decide to reject them for whatever reason they want and so can BSA. But all I do is make sure they put the needed information on the application and sign it. If they don't sign I don't send it up the line. If they do, I do. Really, is this THAT complicated? We've been wringing our hands in this thread when all that was needed was to let the professionals demonstrate the genius of their vision and make that membership decision. After the application leaves the CO, it's really up to them anyway. And after reading this thread, it's obvious that WE are not up to making that decision. So let our intellectual and moral masters at the council, whose clarity of thought is incomprehensible to the rest of us, make that decision. It actually IS in their job responsibilities.

'...playing with fire...' I disagree. We have no idea what decision-making process they engaged in to make this decision and really, it's not for us to 'second guess' what some third party might or might not do. If this boy and his family made a choice, then so be it. It isn't my job to restrict their choice just because I 'think' something might happen. They probably know these things far better than I do. I'd respect their choice and let them bear the consequences if there are any. That's the nature of personal initiative and personal responsibility.

NJ, if it were me and the parents objected to 'The Pledge' on religious reasons, I'd defer to them and just shrug it off. I wouldn't say anything to them about it. If I were in their position I would consider it 'presumptive' on my part. Edit: I'll note that if I DID feel the need to say something to them, I'd also feel that need on behalf of Buddhist scouts who also do not say the pledge because of the 1954 'under God' addition. BSA seems just fine with those boys. Heck they are Atheists! and BSA is fine with it. As for 'The Pledge' being part of 'patriotism'....I'd rather rely on what a person 'does' than what he 'says'. I guess there weren't any patriots before 1892 when it was composed. This all seems so superficial and hollow. It hardly indicates anything about 'character' as far as I can tell, I've heard the pledge given by plenty of people who have openly advocated the overthrow of the government and similar nonsense. Mindlessly reciting the pledge is, well, mindless. I'd say there is far more character in standing up for one's principles in the face of opposition. Like I said, I'd shrug and then get on with scouting. Let someone else be the 'pledge police'.

Same here. It seems like there is a 'timer' on the composition of posts. Better keep this one short.

I could try to come up with a better example but it would be difficult to beat this one....to demonstrate the mess we get into when people and organizations try to poke their noses into the private beliefs (or worse, try to control the beliefs) of others. If the CO for the unit I serve wants to exercise some kind of control over the beliefs of the scouts in this unit, they are free to knock themselves out trying. But it's not in my job description. If BSA wants to continue to wallow in this quagmire, they are free to do that as well but there's nothing that says I have to do the wallowing for them. It's THEIR mess of THEIR making and they can lie in it. If a boy or a leader fills out an application and signs it and if the CO has no objection, I'm sending it up the line. And if the council and BSA want to create controversy and strife by enforcing their 'rules', I'll be glad to step aside and let them take the heat. It's not part of my job to question the beliefs of others and act as an 'enforcer' for BSA.

Egad!!!! Bretley, I think you now understand the concept of 'unintended consequences'. Even WORSE, right after the first post and before I saw the following ones, I was thinking along the same lines....photos to follow? (jpstodwftexas, don't even think about it)