skeptic

Well, now they made it to Fox and Hannity; guess the Union will really get verbally abused now. As always, way too much hype for something probably simply misunderstood. Oh well; as long as the scout is not held up on completion of his Eagle.

Ahh yes. The first place we went after 9/11 was Afghanistan. As pointed out by quite a few, this is where we should have put the emphasis period. If we had concentrated the force we wasted, and are wasting still, in Iraq in Afghanistan to start with, we likely not only would have dealt Al Qaida a fatal blow, but very well may have actually caught Bin Laden. And we also likely would have already finished the real job, and be far better off internationally and internally.

Perhaps you can answer the question I sent to him through his website, but which has yet to receive a response. Is this a new book, or an update of the original he wrote with another author in 1992? I have the original in my collection. Thanks.

The truly sad thing is that now that the trail is built, it will likely become overgrown and useless left to the maintenance of whichever government entity might be responsible. I cannot count how many Eagle projects have gone to pot, or even been dismantled because no one bothered to maintain them once they were done. Also have seen stupidity reign where approvals were gotten from one branch of government and then someone else, from an indirectly related agency said it was illegal or not to certain specs. Then they razed it, or threatened to fine someone. Reality is that many things we cherish as outdoor people would never be available if volunteers were not making it happen. Too many restrictions, regulations, and labor issues; and of course, never enough money for things such as this.

While the 50th anniversary was great, the first one was the best. But none of ours hold a candle to some of the ones issued by other countries.

I sub primarily for lower grades, and they always want to know how old I am. So, I put my birth year, or birthday on the board and tell them to figure it out, but don't guess. Of course immediately some yell out guesses, then one will come up with 65. They all look at me strangely, then someone says that's older than my grandma or something like that. Just makes you feel so out of date. Still, they generally are still so curious and malible at that age; much more enjoyable most of the time.

Gern: The governor still is supposed to adhere to the constituents, just through his particular body of representatives, who are supposed to represent the voters. So, not poppy-cock. Part of the problem is that we have had close to a hundred years of professional politicians who have let themselves be swayed more and more by lobbyists and other forms of money. It would not surprise me if less than 20% of our so called "representatives", state or federal, or even local, voted on the wants of their constituents.

Pack; I believe you teach college or at least higher grades. Anyway, I remember seeing how much middle schoolers knew about the wars the U.S. has fought, such as names and when about, and I was shocked at how little they knew. What I did was simply put a list of all the wars names which I could remember, out of order, then asked them to put them in order. Even Vietnam was not understood to be fairly recent. Wonder how the older students might do with something like that. Hopefully better, but if the infamous "Jaywalking" is any measure, probably not.

Well, this was a great experience yesterday afternoon at our council office in Camarillo, Ventura County. Not only was the presentation and intent of the tour interesting and a worthwhile afternoon, but we were fortunate to have the mural artist on site, as he lives in our council area. It is so much better in real life, and a great depiction of historical elements. The original will be presented to National in February, and will be a wonderful addition to the collections. These volunteers going across country like this are truly showing fine examples to the communities in which they visit. Kudos to them all.

Have to wonder how much of this is reflective of the "real" majorities in the country. We all know how few people exercise their right to vote. Most polls tend to not only have very small populations from which the data is drawn, but also tend to be either purposefully or indirectly skewed to a particular viewpoint. But the big question to me is what do the 60% or more who simply do not participate in the conversation feel or think? Do not know if there is even a way to measure that, but it still makes me wonder. In relation to BSA, this forum, or other such things. I think we would find that the majority of participants in these discussions over the entire board choose simply to not get into the controversies. But, I would feel confident that I would win a wager that a "large" majority of the active rank and file families and leaders would fall on the the more conservative side. After all, that is one of the reasons many people continue to participate. And I know a number of people who are very specific about the fact they would no longer support the BSA should they abandon their core principals, especially the "Reverent" part. Really doubt though if an accurate picture will ever be drawn, as the "majority" here too chooses to not participate or be verbally abused about their beliefs. JMHO(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Very good to hear; one more thing to buy though. Oh well, will go well with all the other ones.

Boomerscout: At some point someone may decide to challenge the Y's name; but right now they are too busy worrying about forcing the BSA to change, rather than simply going their own way and finding another outlet. The Y usually only goes by Y now; but technically, it is still YMCA or YWCA. That "awful" Christian thing may get them yet.

I am curious as to how many of the suits filed on the 3 G's were actually directly initiated by the supposedly "harmed" party? It would not surprise me if most were only brought after someone with an "agenda" found someone they could convince to stand in as the "injured" party. Certainly the defendants in the San Diego cases have already been shown to have had no actual injuries, as they never even tried to use the facilities. If most cases have been filed at the urging of outside parties, then that in itself is, or should be a factor in the cases it would seem. Can anyone shed some "truthful" and "accurate" information on this?

Merlyn: Your attempts at comparing apples and oranges still does not work. Packsaddle: No, you are not likely to be on the list, if I were to actually have one. I basically have been told a few times that my ideas are out of date and too simplistic; occasionally hinted at on this board. And, from my point of view, I would only have an issue with an atheist in the group if they made it an issue. The incident you noted would be unacceptable; but I again may see it too much black and white, and view the atheism as something that can be worked around in most cases (especially with youth who are still likely searching for their own beliefs), maybe even an opportunity to offer another view. On the other hand, I fail to see why, when there are other options for them if they choose to believe/disbelieve, they would want to join BSA. It again comes back to why would you choose to join a group if you do not like what its precepts are? Find something more compatible; but do not demonize that with which you disagree. What is the point?

Well, I finally got offered an assignment. Not what I had hoped, but I simply want to be there. Retail Food; Concessions-B. Not sure exactly what that entails, but imagine it is involved with the trading post areas. Guess I will find out more as we go forward. Now, I may soon be able to review options for getting there, and so on. Considering a grand tour, since a lot of parts of the country have never seen; but do not know if I will want to spend that much time driving, and also if I am up to it. Also have to consider troop needs here before I leave. Now will not feel guilty if I sew on the patch.

Packsaddle: I understand where the current rulings come from, but I do not see how these people are truly harmed by this. If my tax dollars pay for the stupidity of someone doing harm to themselves, even though it is illegal, or ill conceived, or whatever, it does not hurt me, except to annoy me that they are used in such a manner. Something that benefits a majority and does good for the community as a whole is a far better recipient of my tax dollars, especially when there are similar outlets for these few who feel somehow harmed that do not disallow them. My question is when did inconsequential, even questionable, psychological harm become a reason to deny the better good? If we are to hold to the law with no "common sense judgment", then we need to arrest or fine a large majority of the population for one type of violation or another (many unknown, but violating statutes long out of date), and we certainly need to apply the same standards to every aspect then, including illegals, drug abusers, prisoners, wealthy, government representatives, and on and on. I simply fail to understand how an atheist is harmed by having to see a cross on a hill, or to occasionally hear a mention of God, or to have an miniscule percentage of his tax dollar benefit the community and the kids that reside there just because the group running it has beliefs with which they disagree. It is simply a matter of making an issue of something that has almost no true impact on anyone, while allowing far more abusive activity to run rampant, or somehow be legitimized due to strange twistings of law and perspective. I know that I am viewed by the "pseudo intellectuals" and PC crowd as foolish and completely out of touch. But I live in the real world; and frankly, people on my level are reaching the point of breaking and more and more are feeling disenfranchised. It is a bit scary to think what could actually happen if this kind of "Egocentrism" continues unabated. So destroying or demonizing groups that actually help the society most of the time just makes no sense to me. And, of course, there are a great many well educated, brilliant minds that can offer very strong arguments that some of the judgments recently made are wrong (written off by others because they are on the "wrong side"). Certainly, a lot of them were passed with a minimal majority of the panels. To me, people need to stop living their lives like noone else matters. If there is no actual physical psychological harm, or real monetary harm, then just get on with your own life, and leave those with whom you disagree alone. Let's try going back to the old adage of "live and let live". Rose colored glasses in a Utopian story. Not in what is left of my life time.

It seems to me that none of this really was an issue until sometime in the late 60's or early 70's. So, I guess the real question might be what happened to make a "very few" so suddenly become injured somehow by something that really had no effect on them, except in their heads? When did the focus change from what is best for the most, to what is best for "me"? Or, when did "egoism" suddenly become the guiding principal of society? I do not think it ever did; only that the strident few took control, and the masses found themselves marginalized, finally becoming jaded because their voices somehow no longer seemed to matter. But then, I am "old", and grew up when children still respected teachers and adults, when you did not fear walking or allowing your kids to wander the streets in most neighborhoods, when stores were only open late one night a week, and only specially needed business were open on Sunday, and when personal responsibility was a guiding principle in society and the courts.

Here's a thread again talking about public schools chartering BSA units that exclude atheists: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=200165&p=5 " Or, maybe the people in the school simply hoped the PC stuff would not be an issue, and the 99% positive element of the program could happen. They, perhaps weighed the positives and negative(s, then felt the positives "far" out weighed the negatives; and a large group of parents wanted it. Oh, I am sorry, we need to ignore that group, as they just want what they see as "best" for "their" kids. Right there, you advocated that public schools ought to be able to run "no atheists" private clubs. " Actually Merlyn, I was simply making a comment. No where did I say the decision to have the unit was right, based on the current law; rather I said that the people who tried it simply took into account the "large majority" who felt it was a good fit, somehow not realizing that they were injuring someone egregiously by doing something good for their kids. Taking things out of context does not prove anything. Again, you trumpet your selfish, egocentric self. Your right, but a truly sad individual, from my perspective. Your response is of course exactly what I expected. Continue with your diatribe. I will tune into something less strident.

Merlyn: You are now doing what you so often accuse others of doing. Find anything that can prove that I ever made such a statement or comment about schools and atheists. While I may think the move does more harm than good, it is the legal ruling and therefore applicable. It was not applicable when some schools, with the backing of your favorite organization, were not given equal access to the use; and that too was brought to a legal ruling that must be met, even though some think it unfair for some reason. But, as has been noted numerous times; you have no desire to EVER admit an error, or to accept that sometimes things take time to come to conclusions acceptable to all, even the "terribly majority". Blather on now.

Meanwhile, if certain individuals or groups would simply let the internal, albeit, slow, process work its way out, you might finally see an acceptable solution. Confrontation too often simply causes stagnation. But, no matter what happens, there will be someone who is not happy, or cannot live with having to see something they do not agree with or like.

Yes, let's end the charade. Just because they are owned by the same larger group, does not make them equal. That would be like trying to say that the disparate arms of a multi-national firm, each with its own operating program and structure, are all equally responsible for whatever one of the other branches does. As pointed out by someone else, this is simply a continuing political issue that chooses to ruin good programs for the benefit of almost no one, because they have "undue power" based on PC idiocy. So, let's see how long this one continues with the regurgitation of the same tripe over and over. Have fun.

Keep hoping for a letter or some contact. I updated everything, but I am still in limbo. It is a bit disconcerting, in that I applied in September last year. Guess not playing on the regional and National stages may be a drawback. Oh well; still seem to be openings in some of the areas in which I would like to volunteer. Just would like to know, so I can make plans going forward.

Added verification of West's presence. Page 31 of the book noted: ........................................ "The last speaker on the program, and to us the most inspiring, was James E. West, our National Chief Scout Executive. He declared that Scouting was a great factor in developing fine citizenship and said that America was still in need of pioneers---in need of boys and young men of vision and ideals." .............................. There are also a couple of black and white photos with Mr. West in them, one of them as speaker, and the other as one of a group of notables. ............................... Also, in the back of the book is a list of all the scouts and leaders; and Willard Adams is listed as a leader of group 3 from the Eastern Area of Idaho, the town of Rigby.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Around 800 scouts and leaders hiked various parts of the Oregon Trail through 15 states to a celebration at "Independence Rock", Wyoming in the summer of 1930 to celebrate the centennial of the Oregon Trail. Perhaps Mr. West attended the 3 day event noted below. From the book BOY SCOUTS and the OREGON TRAIL which I have in my personal collection. "COVERED WAGON CENTENNIAL" "A Proclamation; by the Governor of Wyoming" Now near at hand is the significant celebration planned at "Independence Rock" upon July 3, 4, and 5, 1930, as an outstanding feature of the nation-wide observance of the Covered Wagon Centennial. ................................... The young manhood of America has always received inspiration from the romantic figures of those having part in the historic exploits attending the conquest and development of our western country. It is therefore fitting that the Boy Scouts of America should heed the call and join heartily in the celebration of this year............ Therefore, I, Frank C. Emerson, Governor of Wyoming, believing many things combine to make this event at the time of our great national holiday of outstanding significance, call upon our people to give attention to the celebration of the "Covered Wagon Centennial and the National Boy Scout Rendezvous" at Independence Rock ............ In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand thise 23rd day of June, A.D. 1930. Frank C. Emerson, Governor(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Since they have no sense, they pay them big bucks. That being the case, why do they not show the sense the "large amount of cents" should generate? Oh, that's right; common sense is in hiding.