packsaddle

I hate to break it to you, fella, but the rapture happened back in 1996. You've been 'left behind' along with the rest of us slimes.

An alternative view: Perhaps our various criticisms of National as being all about the money are correct after all. Perhaps as businessmen they've 'run the numbers' and are now convinced that, market forces being what they are, there is more to gain from making this change than from the status quo. Perhaps all this is 'just good business'? All else is hand-wringing.

MomToEli, OK, I will revise my questions. Here's what you wrote: "To those who believe this will have little effect you are dead wrong. Perhaps not on either coast, or perhaps the large metro areas, but it certainly will in the heartland. As a parent and as a leader this is weighing very heavy on my heart." You seem to support the current policy as opposed to the new policy. Am I wrong about that? Next, assuming you do support the current policy, you seem to be unhappy about this change in policy. Am I wrong about that? Next, you inform us that there will be a great effect. This is my interpretation of your emphasis that those who believe this will have 'little effect' are 'dead wrong'. If little effect is dead wrong, then you must think the effect will be great. Have I misinterpreted what you wrote? And then you write that this is weighing heavily on your heart. If I put these things together I get that you disagree about the new policy, think there will be great effect, and it all weighs heavily on your heart. Since this is about a new policy which shifts the membership policy decisions to the charter organization, I simply don't understand what the basis is for your opposition to the change. Moreover if the charter organization you claim to have a good relationship with is free to make its own membership policy, how does that weigh heavily on your heart? Or is the answer in your next statement: "It will be just as I predicted to a friend of mine this morning - it will be Conservatives like myself and my family who will become targets of intolerance and ridicule." What is the basis for that prediction? Please explain how the new policy in which your CO can follow its own membership policy will cause you and your family to become targets of intolerance and ridicule? I don't understand.

MomToEli, if your unit and the charter organization remain free to set your own membership requirements any way you feel is best, what is the problem? Please explain. How is it somehow wrong or harmful for other units and their charter organizations to enjoy that same freedom?

"My son, brought up Unitarian Universalist, accepting and respectful of other's beliefs, may never pass muster if judgement in a Board of Review is coming from someone with a Fundamentalist Christian perspective." I saw this happen to a UU a few years ago. Fortunately there was only ONE fundamentalist Christian attempting to catch the boy in some kind of argument about his faith - his FAITH, not his views of BSA membership policy. Beavah, drmbear wrote NOTHING about a boy's views being 'ridiculous'. He wrote that the BSA discrimination policy was ridiculous, in HIS view. Drmbear, this policy change will not alter the outcome if your son ever DOES face a review by fundamentalist Christians (which, let's admit, is about as likely to happen as my car tires are to be eaten by roaches tonight). This is not to say that such an unlikely review would end up good or bad but rather that this policy change is irrelevant to prejudice based on religious faith. Prejudice is still going to be around. It's not going to take a bow just because membership was just opened up.

"Wow!! I don't ever remember a thread going to ten pages as fast as this!" It also helps to have a whole bunch of duplicate posts.

The headline in the local paper noted that the 'local' decision would be left to THE COUNCIL. Good luck with that. Once the CO's smell freedom they'll TAKE it. There was half an entire page on this later on page 2 (is today a really slow news day?). Anyway, about half of that was devoted to discussion of the response by the Southern Baptist Convention, predictably and strongly opposed to this policy change. They predict that this will be "nothing less than disastrous for the Boy Scouts of America." While I remain skeptical, I agree with Trevorum...the inertia of this news is going to make it nearly impossible to stop. But I guess I wouldn't put it past them to at least try to stop it. For now I'll just hope for the best.

Terry, Thank you for all you've done. As for the article, well-written, well-reasoned, and persuasive.

Another unintended consequence will be that poor RichardB won't benefit from having his detractors distracted by this issue. NOW they'll be able to focus their critical view even more intensely. You hearin' this, RichardB? Edit: Trevorum, I'd wait until 6 Feb if I were you. As it is your post is more like a premature congratulation (or something like that)(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Open your eyes, man! What are you talkin' about? The real impact is that the I&P forum will practically shut down. Only thing left to argue about will be guns and that's become boring already!

IF this happens (and I'll still believe it when I see it), anyone curious about what the REAL impact will be?

Brewmeister, "So will there be a supplemental app for sexual orientation? Part of the CO's leader interview process?" That might be an option for your CO. Others might decide that sexual orientation isn't important. cmccain183, If you get to set your own standards, how is it that they've been dropped? bnelon44, how do you think Buddhists answer that question at present? CricketEagle, "Sounds like a participate award to me. Not like something earn and that speaks of character". That would be how it sounds to you. I have heard similar doubts about the award as it is now.

Did you guys not get the message a few posts back?

Enough already! It's clear you guys don't like each other. No need to encumber the rest of us with all that stuff! Brewmeister, this move toward local option doesn't alter in the least the standards your CO might want to apply for membership. It means that BSA is giving you and your CO the freedom to choose, just like everyone else. I can't see the down side to that. Clue me in. Edit: Merlyn, I guess we were typing at the same time. I'm not so sure this still excludes atheists if the CO gets to determine membership standards. If this is real (and I'll still believe it when I see it) it looks like a serious reversal by BSA.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

If this is true (I'll believe it when I see it) we'll likely pick up a few more boys once it filters through the community for a while. I know we've lost a few families in the past because of this idiotic membership policy. And the Unitarian Universalists might give BSA a try if this policy change happens. Probably won't have much effect on leadership - "don't ask, don't tell" pretty much already gives us local option anyway.

Calico, I can say with great confidence that most, if not all, of those families still live in the abyss they were plunged into that day, an abyss that few of us can begin to fathom. And they will remain there for years, perhaps the rest of their lives. The nutters, in response, are obscenely self-serving, the way they are reacting.

I'd like to thank RichardB for giving us something to rally around for a change. With all the divisive things we have (3G's) it's nice to have ol' Darth Vader lurking out there for all of us to rebel against. I'm almost feeling like I'm Presbyterian again!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

From the article: "What Is an Incident? Loosely defined, an incident is any unplanned event that results in harm to an individual, property, or the environment." RichardB, my advice is that those words be replaced by the ones hidden at the bottom: "ANY incident that requires the intervention of medical personnel, involves emergency responders, or results in a response beyond Scout-rendered first aid must be reported." Those make more sense and allow far greater local judgment. And if a woefully unarmed leader slips from the tree and Miss Piggy manages to bite him, you'll know all about it. But ONLY IF it requires something beyond Scout-rendered first aid. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"Look at the money and resources spent on JLTV, EFV, Crusader, FCS, FSCS, A-12 and a myriad of other systems that never got fielded." Yes! And yet we scowl at food stamp recipients, tsk, tsk. Eisenhower was right.

"...they forgot their conservative values?" This is one part for which I can offer a different view. In my mind, they never had conservative values in the first place. They never forgot anything. It's always been all about personal gain. I'm with you on the rest. It is incomprehensible that Hagel is getting this opposition from his own party.

I like the idea GKlose. I wish that had existed when I was a scout. Actually, the only difference would have been some merit badges that didn't exist back then and the NOA awards and medal themselves. I pretty much did the rest anyway. It's one of the reasons I've had great admiration for BPSA and Kudu's approach. So your idea and some of the things Eagle92 suggested look good to me.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I am convinced that there is nothing more professionally gratifying than for an administrator to create a new form for others to complete. Reasoning optional. High fives all around Irving.

I spun this from one of Beavah's posts but it could have come from others I think. In that post Beavah made statements about our sense of- and the need for- communities: "In the real world, we specialize, eh? Most folks can't set up their own phone system, repair their own computer or refrigerator, etc. So we pay professionals to do those things. That's one of da things that makes communities stronger, and advances civilization - relying on each other. Same with contributing to a common, professional police force, and a common, professional military. That way we don't have to all spend one day a week in militia drills. We get both a more effective common defense, and more personal freedom." I could just as well have picked any number of related statements because community is a theme that has been emphasized many times in our discussions, and not just in Issues&Politics. As Trevorum and others, I think, will confirm, this specialization that Beavah mentions began about 10,000 years ago with the shift to agriculture and the resulting increase in human population size. There are all kinds of efficiencies that rapidly developed, especially after the industrial revolution. But there seems to be some lack of agreement about what 'community' is or should be. In this thread, I'd like to ask what everyone thinks about 'community'. Are there contradictions that affect what we would recognize as social issues of the day: gay marriage/mambership, immigration, religious freedom, taxes, etc. Is there a 'rugged individualism' in society that is in conflict with an 'interdependent community'? To me there seems to be. I can even detect this conflict within my own thoughts. My love of solitary travel and outdoor experiences is perhaps an expression of my illusion of rugged individualism, for example. It obviously doesn't fit with the strong sense of community that I engage in when, for example, I engage in my daily ritual of early morning good deeds for several elderly neighbors, most of whom strongly disagree with me on many social issues. It is a sense of community that holds our 'mini-society' together and keeps us all caring for each other - a stark contrast with my desire to have absolutely no one care about my fate when I'm in the backcountry. Anyway, whether you get my idea or not, I'm interested in your thoughts.

jblake47, helllllooooooo....universal background checks....

That would be 'flat panel' tv. I have a flat screen tv. It still uses the old video tube technology. It's really big (gift from a neighbor who bought a flat panel to replace it) and it weighs about 200 pounds (tremendous amount of leaded glass). I say, if they can lift it, they can have it. Incidentally, it's already outlived that flat panel the neighbor bought to replace it, lol.