packsaddle

Yeah, I'm still trying to remember where I heard there was a boycott of Chick-fil-A? I did hear Huckabee's call for a show of support...is that really a boycott? Around these parts, the news of the NOT-boycott (huge turnouts) was all over the news. NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, and yes, FOX. Anyway, JoeBob writes, "With boycotts like this, who needs to buy advertising?!?!" And THAT I agree with. It was a brilliant marketing move. I wonder what's next?

Eagledad, I think the answer is what Rush Limbaugh has said on many occasions, it's all about money. You said it yourself in the other thread, "the bottom line (dollars) is the primary motivator of the change." I couldn't agree more. Whether it's Disney attractions and films or Chick-fil-A fast food, it's simple economics: products and customers. I think the vast majority of us want to purchase a product we like for a good price and we're ready to let that override many other factors. This is why I don't eat at Chick-fil-A and why lots of others do. I don't like the product and evidently a lot of other people do. Most of us don't really care what the blowhard CEO says, or at least not enough to change what really matters, which is the economics of the choice. Yes, we will protest loudly and make all kinds of empty statements designed to show how pious we are and how faithful we are to our religions, brands, local economies, etc. But in the end, just as with the textile industry and so many other aspects of the economy, people will complain about jobs going to China, for example, while they purchase clothes made in China at WalMart (or the scout shop). We are NOT hypocritical, really. We really would like to think we are faithful to our principles but the only REAL principle and the only REAL faith we have is based in money. It's who we are. And it explains nearly everything. And to THAT we are perfectly faithful.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

BSA24, that is the reason I hope that the post in question which was Posted: Sunday, 7/29/2012: 8:21:57 AM, will not be removed by a moderator. Take a look and you'll see the words in question.

"Anti gay marriage is not anti-gay." JoeBob, you're missing something and it ain't subtle.

Fred, my FIL, a really nice guy who I can only hope to be as good as, was one of the soldiers who captured some of those really costly Pacific islands. Tarawa was his first action. He would not discuss the war. He would say that he would never, NEVER support the Red Cross. I hope it wasn't because of the rumors: http://www.snopes.com/medical/emergent/redcross.asp

If you want to grok humans all you need to do is watch monkeys. That said, I have never liked the Chic-fil-a fast food. I couldn't care less about what's-his-name's stupid opinion, I detest the food anyway. The biscuits are indescribably bad and the chicken, likewise. I far prefer KFC (which has a central place in my concept of heaven), and yes, I do know that is mostly because of all the MSG...I don't care. If I tossed a Chic-fil-A sandwich onto the ground someplace I would expect some stray cat to dutifully cover it with dirt. >>>WARNING>>>small hijack now, since this about chicken>>> there's a place in the forest not too far from here and the local lore is that it is the site of 'Devil Worship'. There is a fire ring of carefully cut and fitted stone and several stone benches surrounding it in a circular pattern. It's on a hilltop. Locals are (I'm not kidding) convinced there is Devil Worship going on because after most weekends you can find the remains of dead chickens scattered around this site. Animal sacrifices! Some of the locals even know the identity of the leader: he is an elderly gentleman with a goatee and spectacles. His name is Colonel somebody. This is serious. I've had individuals get angry with me for laughing at them when they talk about that Devil Worship. One guy wanted to start a fight..but I was laughing too hard to play the part. Interestingly, you can't convince these same people that Obama is actually an American

Thanks, NJ. I credit that to a Hebrew ancestor a few generations back, so I can't be ALL bad. Moreover he must have been a great guy. All of my ancestors since then were Presbyterians. Edit to add: I'm not blaming the Presbyterians for the fact that women don't like me. That's because of something very different.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Basementdweller, Those words from the GS leader touched a nerve in me. It's almost the same reaction I've gotten from nearly all women. Women just don't like me and I've become accustomed to that, sigh. Not too many men either (that's easier to take). But it's situations like you described that remind me of how much I appreciate my wife who is exceptional, at least in this respect.

SeattlePioneer, your reaction needs to be examined as well. Another adult leader might have calmly waited while the boy's ceremony continued and then taken the opportunity to talk with him about how people react to situations like that. Another adult leader might have used the event as one more opportunity to teach the young man about communication, tact, discretion, etc. But you didn't describe such a lesson. You described an outraged, perhaps angry adult who uses his position of power to shut the ceremony down...simply because HE didn't like it and he had the power to shut it down. THAT is a much different lesson taught not only to the young man but to everyone in attendance. It is a lesson that if you have the power you can control everything by denying access or ending events if necessary. It teaches that if you have that power, it is YOUR thoughts that count, YOUR feelings that count, and others are secondary. It teaches that POWER over others is good and desirable, perhaps as a career or life goal. It speaks volumes about the 'character' of the adult leader.

Well, I'm so sensitized to the concept of 'flag etiquette' that when I'm in that wonderful Caribbean country, I'm really careful about their flag and national emblem (they have some weird laws there, I didn't want to discover a new one by accident). But it IS really humid there and hot (though not as hot as it is up here this summer) so I needed a bandana. They were selling bandanas with their flag printed on them. So I noted to a woman shopkeeper that I didn't want to show disrespect and the lady laughed so much that she told her friends and they laughed at me too. She said, no problem mon, (no lie that's what she said), "everyone wears dem dat way, it is way to show pride". So I strapped one on. H'mmmmmm, somehow that doesn't sound exactly the best way to put it....but anyway I started to notice that sure enough, lots of people had flag bandanas. One guy was even using it to wipe grease off his hands. Now THAT is national pride for you. But I wouldn't try that up here although, the thought does bring to mind a few t-shirts that I have seen on some magnificent women.... Hi Vicki!

A quick check on that fountain of knowledge, Wikipedia, brought this response: "Financial services firm Lehman Brothers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on September 15, 2008." and that before bankruptcy "Lehman was the fourth largest investment bank in the USA" Any more questions? So...back to the Mormons taking the Congressional Charter: anyone have a problem with that?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

...rolling eyes...yeah, yeah, we got all that in 5th grade history. I'm FROM the South, you know. But if you ask any of the people who fly the flag what it is, guess what they tell you? Yep. You're swimming against the current. In the guy's defense, it's a lot easier to find and purchase the flag that he flies as opposed to one of the 'national' flags of the Confederacy. I mean, there are stores around here which sell nothing else BUT stuff with that flag design plastered all of it. Amazingly, those people actually get enough business to make a living of it. Plus I suspect that version is cheaper too. (probably made in China) So, if I give you his phone number would you give the guy a call and 'educate' him as to the fine points of the official flags of the Confederacy? Can I listen in? (just in case...I also know this isn't a pure Democracy, etc., etc.)

For this unit at least, the family of the Eagle holds the COH and the scoutmaster has neither the ability to cancel the ceremony nor the authority to revoke the award...no matter how much of a martinet he is. He would be free, however, to simply leave. If you had done what you did at an Eagle COH in this unit, most everyone probably would have just shrugged and some, perhaps, may have asked you for more info at the reception afterward. The worst you could do is to somehow mar your own celebration and perhaps embarrass your parents and family. But it would be your time and your decision under the First Amendment. I wouldn't consider it a violation of Scout Oath or Law. But I would have thought it was one of the more interesting COH's I'd ever attended.

NJ, you left a couple out: CHAPTER 11GENERAL MOTORS, CHRYSLER, BANKS Sorry, couldn't resist. Sherminator, then I guess that means the Mormons get to keep the Charter if they want it. No problem.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"nothing worse than a bunch of man hating catty Type A women" Basementdweller, did you intend for me to snort coffee out my nose just now? Vicki, where the heck are you? I thought I was pretty good at "sexist claptrap" but now I have found a kindred spirit!

All of the above pales in comparison to my neighbor a few houses down the street. That nice teaparty supporter, a good Christian minister who is (thankfully) very open about his racism and bigotry has an American flag in his front yard. He positions it on the same pole and just below his Confederate flag. What a guy! There are a few other examples of this kind of display around the area as well.

It happened already, back in 1996.

So....who gets the trademarks then? If the document which establishes 'ownership' is just "a bit of prestigious trivia", OK...then at least answer the question.

I'm not saying the program doesn't matter. YOU are saying the 'brand' doesn't. Edit: UCEagle72, the issue is that BSA would be splitting. Prior to the split, BSA does indeed 'own' the trademarks, etc. But it seems that both sides of the split will likely want to retain ownership, therefore the contention. So who gets it?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Those aspects of the charter were ones that I was thinking of with my question which stimulated this spinoff. The 'brand' of BSA is well-known and is worth a lot to any organization which wishes for success. So if LDS split away, which fraction of the split could still call itself 'BSA'? The answer to that question might seem inconsequential but my guess is that the decision would be contentious and probably result in some kind of litigation. Unless, of course, the Mormons merely decided to copy the program ideas and call it the 'Mormon Scouts of America' or something along those lines. 'Mormon Scouts of America' just doesn't quite resonate the same as 'Boy Scouts of America', does it? Who wants to be that 'other' scout organization...essentially the same status as BPSA or Spiralscouts (not to mention Royal Ambassadors, etc.)? I don't minimize the consequences of a split like that. It will be contentious on many levels. And it is unlikely that either 'side' will derive much near-term benefit other than being shed of the other fraction. Edit: But even if you minimize the importance of a Congressional Charter as 'fluff', the question remains: Which side gets to retain the name and brand of 'Boy Scouts of America'? It's just a question. If you think it's an easy one then answer it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"Where is the evidence that Americans are too stupid to make it work and Europeans and Canadians can do it with no trouble?" BSA24, the evidence is staring right at you, in front of you. Just read through these threads if you're not convinced.

Fluff? SeattlePioneer says, "I don't see that the Congressional charter is of any practical significance beyond an endorsement of Scouting by a political body." In that case LDS should have no problem just walking away from the charter and starting their own non-congressionally-chartered organization. No problem.

Calico, just to note that I have read that and if anything like that was removed in the past, I didn't do it. I support allowing words like those to remain as a permanent record.

Hal, if the second scout is carrying a pair of the epi pens, why not just use one of them on the first scout?

No reason at all. So stop wasting time talking about it and DO it already. Best of luck to you.