CalicoPenn

Create, hand out and prominently post a schedule (at the port-o-potties, at the camporee headquarters, etc) of every two hour port-o-potty cleanings with each participating unit assigned to a cleaning on a rotating basis - Every two hours, a different unit has the responsibility to clean the port-o-potties. It may be done by the lads or the adults (depending on hos the schedule works out) and depending on how many units there are, units may end up cleaning them 2 or more times per weekend. When people know they're going to end up having to clean them, they take better care of them. If a unit refuses, invite them to pack up and leave the event - the port-o-potties are there for those that help maintain them.

I always try to make my fuzzsticks from yellow pine heartwood. Of course, you can often just light a stick of heartwood on fire with a lighter but no one needs to know that

"1b Using a compass and a map together, take a five-mile hike (or 10 miles by bike) approved by your adult leader and your parent or guardian.* The asterisk takes you to the disability page noted above. A broken bone is not a permanent disability in this case." Yeah - except that's not how the book reads - which just reminds us that sometimes there are differences between the books and what is posted on National's web site. Indeed, the asterix on the web site doesn't actually lead to anything. The disability note (which is also in the book) is marked not with an asterix but with a bullet point. And yes, there is a difference when reading the requirements. The book includes this as the asterix: * If you use a wheelchair or crutches, or if it is difficult for you to get around, you may substitute "trip" for "hike" in requirement 1b. This appears before the note on disability requirements - and as I've mentioned, disability can result in a change of any of the requirements, and may take other forms to modify the requirement in question.

On one hand - good for him for insisting that someone show him the rule. We tell people on the forum that all the time so we have to set the example and live with it when someone turns around and tells us the same. So, in that spirit - the following is from the online Insignia guide that can be found on BSA's website: Shoulder Loops Colored shoulder loops identify the area of Scouting: blue, Cub Scouting; red, Boy Scouting; blaze, Varsity Scouting; green, Venturing; silver, council and district; gold, national and regional. Wear the color for the primary registered position in which you are functioning. Look beyond the "red" for Boy Scouting (the copyright is 2010, obviously the online version needs a bit of updating). The relevant part is the last sentence, and it comes right from the horse's mouth, so to speak. "Wear the color for the primary registered position in which you are functioning". If the lad is at a Troop meeting as a member of the Troop, that is the primary registered position in which he is functioning - and he wears the Red or Forest Green. He doesn't wear Orange, he doesn't wear Blue, he doesn't wear Silver - he wears Red or Forest Green. It is impossible to function in two primary registered positions at the same time - though some may think they can, they are fooling themselves. You're either functioning as a Scoutmaster or functioning as a District Committee person - you can't do both in the same instant of time. Same goes for the boys. You're either functioning as a Den Chief or functioning as a Patrol Leader - you can't do both at the same instant of time. Yes, you could hold those positions simultaneously, but you can only function in them one at a time. Note too that you wear the shoulder loops for the registered position you are functioning in - and Boy Scout (with no POR) is considered a position in this case. Is the lad registered as a Varsity Scout? No? Then he can't wear the Orange loop at all - he's not registered in that position - regardless of what the NYLT tradition is. But if he is registred as a Varsity Scout - then he wears the Orange loops when he is functioning as a Varsity Scout. Since he can't function as a Boy Scout and a Varsity Scout at the same moment in time, he has to choose one set of loops over another - and if he comes to Troop meetings as a Boy Scout wearing Orange loops, he's still out of uniform - he has to wear the Forest Green (or Red). As for the District Committee patch? He can't wear that either, despite the fancy Youth Liason title. There is no registered Youth Liason position on the District Committee, and one can't register for the District Committee until one is 21 years of age. You can't wear an SPL patch if you aren't a SPL. You can't wear a Scoutmaster patch if you aren't a Scoutmaster. you can't wear a District Committee patch if you aren't registered as a District Committee member, and if you can't register for the District Committee until you are 21, then you can't wear the patch as a youth. Chapter Chiefs are not members of the District Committee - they serve as members of the District CAMPING or Boy Scout committee (some Districts may have a Cub Scout committee, a Boy Scout committee, a Varsity committee,etc. - all under the umbrella of the District Committee) - not as members of the District Committee. One does not need to be a District Committee member to serve on the committees of the District. Think of a District Committee more as a "board of directors" - with the directors having their own committees that do the work and report up to the board on what's going on. Crossram - show the lad this section of the insignia guide and ask him what he thinks that means. Have a heart to heart with him - hopefully he gts the point.

I'm a big proponent of Den Chiefs - and always will be. As most know, I also don't like a lot of artificial barriers being put in the way of the boys. There are no hard and fast rules about who can and who can't be a Den Chief. The BSA makes a lot of suggestions, but doesn't turn around and say a 10 1/2 year old Scout can't be a Den Chief for a Webelos Den. That being said, in this case, if I were the SPL/SM or the CM/DL, I would not turn around and appoint a Scout who has just crossed over as a Den Chief to the den he just left. One of the main purposes of a Den Chief in a Webelos den is to have someone versed in Scout skills that can assist the Den Leader and serve as a living recruitment poster, if you will. The BSA recommends a lad be at least First Class to be a Webelos Den Chief - the reason is because a First Class Scout has worked through the basic scout skills. I don't consider this to be hard and fast - you could have a very talented Tenderfoot or Second Class Scout that could fit the bill - but they'll tend to have been in the program long enough to have a few outings under their belts, and are often older Scouts that are just going through the program at their own pace. There is also the issue of den dynamics to consider - I think the potential is there for such a situation to be more of a disruption and a hindrance than a help. That all being said - if the lad is gung ho about joining the Troop and still wants to help out the Pack, why not be a Den Chief for a Tiger den, or a Wolf Den? Work his way up to a Webelos Den. If he follows a den all the way through and sees them cross over to his Troop at then end of the journey, he'll be one of those older lads in the Troop that they'll be looking towards as an example as they start their Boy Scouting journey.

Use cold water to wash clothes, not dishes. Hot water to wash dishes, warm water to rinse. Sanitize? Why?? Know anyone at home that sanitizes their dishes after hand washing them? Know anyone who gets sick because their dishes weren't sanitized after washing them? The only reason to sanitize dishes is if you're afraid they haven't been washed properly in the first place or if you're afraid the water you are using to wash the dishes in is somehow suspect. And that is how we got started with the 3 tub method - something learned from the military when they would be boiling river, lake, creek, swamp, etc. water to use for dishwashing. If you insist on a 3-tub method, then the last tub is boiling water - dishes placed in a mesh bag, and dipped unto boiling water for 10 seconds then hung to dry - no bleach or sanitizer added - it's not needed.

With the exception of Eagle Scout (due to paperwork I dotting and T crossing at National), rank starts the moment the members of the BOR shake the Scout's hand at the end of the BOR and say's something to the effect of "Well done, and congratulations on your new rank". The only thing that would make that process a bit better is if, at the end of the BOR, while handshakes are being proffered all around, the SPL or Scoutmaster meets the lad at the door on the way out of the BOR and hands him his new rank patch.

Scouts advance at THEIR own pace - not some pace decided upon by their Scoutmaster (and though we'd hope the parents would allow the Scout to make the choice, we know in a lot of cases, it's the parents pushing the pace - we can't control that). The BSA makes sure there is the opportunity for a Scout to continue to advance at THEIR own pace even if they are temporarily disabled. It's not about "too easy", it's not about a Scoutmaster delaying advancement because it's "character building" - this is about one thing - is the Scout being allowed to advance and to continue to advance at THEIR own pace. That's a big part of the aims and methods of Scouting as well - a Scout making their own individual choices. If this Scout looks at you and says they want to do this requirement as a Trip, which is allowed by the requirements, what makes anyone think that we adults have the right to impose our own "ethical" thinking on the lad and say no? A broken leg or ankle is already a barrier that a lad will have to surmount, he doesn't need some adults imposing even more barriers in the name of "character building". It can take as much character to accept using the requirement modification (and accepting help) when one temporarily has a need for it than it does to say no and wait for a year. And why should he have to wait for 6 months or a year? Because doing otherwise offends some adult's worldview on what it means to be ethical and to build character? 5year - you've already got a discouraged Scout who thinks his advancement is about to be put on hold, when in fact - in FACT - it doesn't need to be put on hold. There is a modification to the requirement that speaks directly to his temporary condition that will allow him to continue to advance AT HIS OWN PACE and will keep him engaged and moving forward, instead of sitting back more and more discouraged. What he needs is a Scoutmaster who isn't saying "well, ok, but if it's too simple...", what he needs is a Scoutmaster who says "Great - let's figure out how that's going to work and get you to where you want to be". Be careful of the "too easy" slippery slope - it may seem too easy to you (and parent) but it might not be that easy for a Scout. If the lad has, as you say, a bunch of experience with map and compass already, why wouldn't the 5 mile hike or bike ride be too easy as well? Remember, the requirements aren't to complete the hike or ride - they center around map and compass use - and if you're used to using map and compass in the woods, it can be difficult at first trying to figure out how to use map and compass to complete a circuit on a roadway or sidewalks.

I'm sorry, I just have to note the irony involved when Lord of the Flies is brought up which can be read as either an adult allegory by an adult writer or as an adult writer's fantasy of what kids might do in a thread where adults are trying to think of what youth Scouts might do if it was left to the Scouts. Of course, Platypus96 is the exception - as would any other Scout that would care to comment.

I've been searching and seraching and I just haven't found anything in any of the literature that states that a Scout that breaks a leg or ankle or is otherwise temporarily disabled has to put his advancement on hold until he gets better. If the lad wants to keep on the advancement path, the BSA has provided the means to allow it. Go ahead and utilize it - you aren't cheating the Boy or the BSA. Keep in mind that though the lad may no longer be using crutches in a month or so, the nature of his injury may mean he could still have trouble getting around for a year or so - do you really want to hold up advancement?

Hmmm.... 1) Heterosexuality: The original definition of heterosexual is one who has an excessive obsession over members of the opposite sex - I doubt we want our Scouts learning to be excessively obsessed over things so scratch this one. 2) Homosexuality: The original definition of homosexual is one who has an excessive obsession over members of the same sex - as above, we don't want Scouts learning to be excessively obsesses - scratch this one. 3) Bisexuality: The Bible makes it clear that man shall not lie with man as he would a woman - now this is not a condemnation of gays as many like to think since it's obvious a gay man would never lie with a woman as he would with another man. Straights are good too - a straight man won't like with a man the way he would with a woman. Nope - this is a condemnation of bisexuality because only a bisexual man would lie with a man the way he would lie with a woman (and not to be called sexist, go ahead and substitute woman for man and man for woman). Since the Bible condemns bisexuality, and apparently one must follow the Bible to be morally straight, guess we'll have to scratch this one. 4) Monogamous marriages : It is unnatural in the Class of animals in the Phlyum Chordata known as Mammals to be monogamous - and we don't want our Scouts around unnatural things, do we? Gonna have to scratch this one. 5) Polygamous marriages (multiple spouses): The people, through our legislatures, have decided that this is not legal within the United States, so therefore, as a Scout is Obedient, we'll have to scratch this. 6) Non-monogamous marriages (aka "Open" Marriage): Despite this being the natural order of things in the Class Mammal (though without the need for the paper saying one is married), society, for the time being, has decided that this is not a morally straight thing to do so we'll have to scratch this one too. Guess that leaves celibates as the only pool of people to approach to be leaders, though we all know how that worked out for a certain church that shall not be named - so guess this one's out too. Hmmm - I think that leaves everyone out - may as well sell the camps and close the pools, there is no one whose "lifestyle" will fit in with the BSA.

There's no reason to even think about alternative requirements. First, alternative requirements can only be used if the disability is of a permanent basis. In this situation, the disability isn't permanent so you can just skip that whole part. But as you pointed out, there is a modifier to the requirement - if a lad is in a wheelchair or on crutches, or otherwise has difficulty getting around, then the lad can do a Trip rather than a Hike or Ride. That's certainly appropriate in this case - the lad is presumably on crutches (or in a wheelchair) and is definitely having difficulty getting around. Letting him complete the requirement as a "trip" is NOT getting around the requirement - the modification is written specifically for situations just like this - temporary disabilities. So what is the purpose? Look at the whole requirement, and how the requirement is subgrouped. Note the emphasis on learning map and compass skills, then utilizing map and compass skills. This requirement isn't about fitness, it's not about getting a Scout to go on a 5-mile Hike or 10-mile Bicycle ride - it's about using a Map and Compass to successfully complete a hike/ride/trip. So how does the lad do a "trip"? First, let's acknowledge that if he wasn't temporarily hobbled by his ankle issues, any hike or bike ride he would go on (just as pretty much every Scout does) is going to be on some kind of paved street/bike trail or marked hiking trail of some kind. A Scout can use a map to plan the hike or bike ride, but most are never going to be going "cross country" over unmarked paths needing extensive compass use. So think about how your scouts use the map and compass on their "normal" hikes and rides then use the same technique for a trip. As for the trip - he could be hauled in a trailer behind someone else bicycling, while he navigates. He could be pushed in a wheelchair while he navigates. He could be driven in a car while he navigates (though if in a car, I think I would make the route equal a bicycle length, rather than a hike length). He could be carried on the backs of fellow Scouts while he navigates. He could be pulled in a wagon while he navigates. He could be hauled around in a sedan chair while he navigates. I hope the common word is hopping out at you - navigates. That's what this requirement is all about - navigating.

"We need to understand that the government cannot spend us out of a recession or depression." I don't understand where this idea that government can't spend it's way out a recession or a depression. It certainly doesn't come from our own history where the only thing that has consistently worked is for government to spend our way out a recession or depression.

Regarding Dale - it was a decision by the Council, not the CO. The CO and the Troop supported Dale and wanted to keep him on as an ASM. Their support was about him growing up in the Troop, they all knowing him, and liking him, and respecting him, and knowing his capabilities and knowing he would never be a threat.

"He plays mind games with people that belittle and disrespect the other person to make his point. Guess what, it's abusive behavior. No, it's not. No matter how many times yeh repeat it, yeh can't justify elevating boorish behavior to "abuse". What you are describin' is just boorish behavior. The fellow is a cad. OK, fine. But he is not "abusing" anyone. There is a difference." I have to agree AND disagree with you here. And I have to do so because we were given two different sets of people. When it comes to the girlfriends, I think you're right - he's being boorish and a cad. It's not abuse because there is no power relationship in play. BUT... We're also told he does this with people he supervises. I read that to mean people that work FOR him, not just with him. If they were just people he works with, boorish and a cad is spot on. However, in this instance, we do have a power relationship in play. These aren't just people he works with - these are people that work for him, which usually means he has some level of control over them, be it financial, work assignments, etc. In this case, the behavior would be considered abusive by just about every HR department and company out there. If the company doesn't consider it abuse, I'm not sure I'd want to work for that company, or would want a spouse or child working for that company. It's a fine line between boorish and abuse - and the tipping point is usually the nature of the relationship.

Comparing capture the flag to a snipe hunt is asinine. In capture the flag, you have teams, and everyone knows the rules. In a snipe hunt, there is no team, there is the singling out of an individual who doesn't know the rules. Comparing humiliating an individual or a patrol by making them sing for a lost item and a uniform inspection or a swim test is asinine. Uniform inspections and swim tests are done by everyone - and all have equal participation. Frankly, there is no pass/fail. Handled correctly by adult leaders, they can be used to help a Scout improve. Singing for lost items is more likely to make a Scout resentful than help him improve. With uniform inspections, there is absolutely no need to humiliate a Scout. Praise publicly, critique privately (note I said critique, NOT criticize). Every single Scout can be praised for something during a uniform inspection. And every single one should be praised if you are praising any. A Scout not in full uniform can be praised for patch placement. A Scout not in uniform can be praised for his polished shoes, or belt buckle, or neatness of grooming. If a Scout feels humiliated, then you aren't doing it right, and you should let someone else do it. With swim tests, there is no failure. A Scout may become a non-swimmer - that means you get to work with them to become a swimmer. A good leader gets his Scouts through this - no criticism, everything is good. And that message has to be delivered by everyone in the Troop. If Johnny Scout doesn't make swimmer, no one - NO ONE - should be allowed to make fun of him. If anything, his Patrol mates, his Troop mates, should be the first ones to go to him and say "let's meet at the waterfront tomorrow during open swim and teach you how to swim in a lake". I've been on camp staff - I've helped man the waterfront during swim tests. One of the greatest things I've seen a Scoutmaster do was after a swim test, when one of the Scouts in his Troop was ranked a non-swimmer and one of the older Scouts in his Troop starting razzing the kid about it, the Scoutmaster took that older Scouts buddy tag, and using his knife, cut it in half and gave it to the Waterfront Director and told him this Scout was not allowed to use the waterfront. Only when the Scout apologized, and took the swim test again, was he allowed to use the waterfront. Guess who was one of the Scouts helping the younger Scout learn to swim that week. All because a Scoutmaster refused to allow any of his Scouts be mocked, teased or humiliated. As for singing for lost items, what if the Scout refuses to do so - then what are you going to do? Keep the item? One of our adult leaders was a police officer. He suggested that if you have the item, and keep it, knowing who the rightful owner is, and you have the chance to give the item back to the owner and refuse because they didn't sing your little teapot song, that you could be considered in possession of stolen property at that point. Now our legal eagles might not agree but they'd have to sort it out after the police officer arrests you for it. I emphathize with OGE. I went through something similar (though not a snipe hunt). It was some stupid "initiation" the leaders and 16 year old SPL thought up. We were a brand new troop - we all transfered from the troop we joined out of webelos to a newly created troop connected with our old pack. It was our first campout and they did the "owa tago siam" bit (but with a different saying) then "pretended" to cut a leg as if it was part of some indian initiation. I was the last to understand what the saying was and was already humiliated by that. Then when they "cut" my leg, they accidently used the blade and not the back of the blade. No one knew because it was dark and they had clamped bandages on all of us right away and told us not to remove it until the morning. I have a high threshold for pain - and often don't react until I can see my injuries. I discovered that I was bleeding about half an hour later - after we had all gone to bed. My tent mate was fine - we looked under his bandage and he wasn't cut at all. I took my bandage off and saw the cut and started hollering and crying. I was taken to the hospital - fortunately I didn't need stitches - but I didn't talk to my Scoutmaster on the way back to the campsite, and I didn't talk to anyone the next day. I didn't trust any of them. I was in a new troop in a month, after refusing to go any meetings of this troop. I think about the times that were when OGE experienced this, when I experienced what I went through, and I think about the present times. I wonder what I might have done if I were being raised up now - would I have been tempted to grab a big stick and start beating someone with it - all because of a little joke? I'll say it again - Follow the Scout Law and the Scout Oath, and everything else will fall into place. If you follow the Law and Oath, you won't likely be in a situation where you're being accused of hazing or whatever.

Obama capitulating once again to the Idiocracy is one of the reasons his job approval ratings keep declining. Obama has joined the race to the bottom instead of standing firm. That Americans are standing by and letting those that believe if China doesn't care about ground level pollution then we don't need to is a disgrace. As far as I'm concerned, clean air is far more important than whether business can keep another fraction of a penny on the dollar - and the billions that would have been "lost" to some businesses would have been gained by other businesses, with a bonus of saving billions in health care costs. Protectionism has been the American way of doing business since the beginning. Where do people think the government got its revenues from prior to the imposition of the income tax? Tariffs - protectionist tariffs on imported goods and meterials. Protectionism started to decline in 1947 with the creation of GATT and the final nail was driven home with the creation of the WTO in 1995. Protectionism is what helped create "American Exceptionalism". It's the loss of Protectionism that is doing the most harm to exceptionalism, if you believe in it.

Well I suppose that depends on your definition of wild. Desert Wild is different from Ocean Wild is different from Northern Forest wild. Boundary Waters/Questico is about 2.1 million acres - mostly uninhabited. Does the size of the area make it more wild? If so, then what to make of the 3.2 million acres - mostly uninhabited - that is the playground for the former Maine National High Adventure Base (now operated as a high adventure base by Katahdin area council). The Montana high adventure area is only 1.5 million acres, but it beats out both Minnesota/Ontario and Maine by having Grizzly Bears, Wolverines and Bighorn Sheep - if animals are your guidepost for wild. Maine has a rugged mile-high mountain that is often a capstone for treks - Katahdin, with a trail called the Knife's Edge for a reason. But Philmont, a mere 137,500 acres, has Baldy Mountain, taller at 12,441 feet. If mountains are your definition of wild, then Philmont certainly has them - but then so does the Bob Marshall Wilderness, but it's highest altitude is around 9,000 feet - about the same height as the Tooth of Time. Maine has rivers with class 1 through class 5 rivers, including a 4-mile stretch of class 1 to 2 rapids on the Allagash Wilderness Riverway, a destination for the HA trips in Maine. Minnesota and Ontario have a lot of remote lakes - but so does Maine. Minnesota and Maine both have moose. How do you decide which is wilder? How do you compare it with the desert environment of Philmont, or the wilderness of Montana. And how does one go about comparing the wildness of a terrestrial environment with an environment that has rays, sharks, barracudas and sharp corals in it, and that you need equipment for in order to breath if you're underwater. And really, how unexplored and untouched is an area that you can navigate without a map? A brand new scout at a regular summer camp on a camp's nature trail for the first time will find it to be an adventure. A summer camp staffer who has been on it a number of times won't see it in the same way. For people who have never been to Philmont, it's all unexplored and untouched. The experiences are going to be different at each HA area. Not better at any one - just different - and can't we finally accept that one doesn't have to be better than another? (This message has been edited by calicopenn)

"There's a marked difference between this President and previous ones who faced recessions. Other recession Presidents approached the situation with the philosophy that the business climate must be improved because businesses create jobs. This President adheres to the philosophy that business cannot be trusted, and that therefore the government must intervene to correct the business environment so more jobs can be corrected." So how are you going to improve the business climate? Eliminate regulations that have been around for 50 years? This meme that the business climate needs to be improved is utter horse-hockey. So is the meme that government doesn't create jobs. When government spends money on infrastructure, it creates jobs. When jobs are created, demand is increased. When demand is increased, businesses do better. This President bailed out the US Auto Industry when a lot of folks were saying "let them go out of business". That saved millions of jobs, and the US Auto Industry is poised to become Number 1 in the world again. US Car manufacturers have added 90,000 jobs in the past 6 months. Government intervention can work - and can work very well. Business is holding on to a lot of cash - more than enough to employ enough people to drop the unemployment level to under 5%. They just aren't doing so. Why? Because there isn't the demand - and I don't mean the demand from people wanting jobs. I mean we aren't spending as much as we used to - at the personal level or the government level - and as a result the need for additional people to meet the demand is decreased. It's a vicious cycle - business lays people off, hordes cash that can be used to employ people, that reduces demand so businesses lay more people off, hordes more cash, reduces demand even more so that more people are laid off. McDonalds held their big job fair earlier this year. Why? Because they realized that the more people are employed, the more people will buy their products. The more people buy their products, the more people they'll have to employ and the more successful they would be. This whole BS idea about "improving the business climate" is about one thing, and one thing only. Eliminating regulations that protect consumers, protect our drinking water, protect the air we breath, protect the workers, protect small investors. Some folks have looked overseas and have seen how having few regulations means higher employment and higher profits (at sub-living wage) in countries that are destroying their environment and don't protect their people, and they think the best thing we can do is to lower our standards to the standards of the third-world countries. And enough people have bought into this thinking that they support such short-sighted thinking as "being good for business". I think that's short-sighted idiocy. Instead of lowering our standards, we should be levying high tarrifs on countries that don't meet our standards. We shouldn't be thinking what's good for business is good for people. That's backwards. We need to be thinking what's good for people is what's good for business. It's a privilege to do business in a country as wealthy as ours. If business can't live with the attendant regulations, then let them go elsewhere, and tax them at high rates to import their goods back to the US.

"Unemployment @ 10%" So what? It means 90% of us are employed. And why is that a bad thing? What is magical about 5% unemployment? If 10% is unacceptable, why is 5% acceptable? This is one of those statistics that the media makes a big deal out of when the reality is that it really isn't a big concern. It's really no more relevant than the "heat index" or the "wind chill factor". Economists don't really consider this number to be that bad - they may pay lip service to appease the media whores but in their writings, they don't start worrying about unemployment levels until it reaches the 20% mark. But if it is such a big concern to you, then let's go ahead and compare the rates under conservative hero Reagan and Obama. For the first 1.5 years of Reagan's Presidency - unemployment rates were above 9% for 16 months. For the first 1.5 years of Obama's Presidency, unemployment rates were above 9% for 14 months. More telling, during that same period, unemployment was above 10% under Reagan for 10 months. Under Obama, it was 3 months. It took Reagan 5 years to get the unemployment rate down to 5%. Obama has been President for 2.5 years - and rates are coming down. Why isn't he being afforded the same chance and courtesy as Reagan? Forget partisanship - use history as a guide. These numbers are not uncommon at all during and after periods of deep recession. Only a fool believes that these kinds of issues can be solved with a snap of the fingers. "30% of all homes foreclosed?" So what? 30% of homes may have been foreclosed but it hasn't left many people homeless. The vast majority of the people who have been foreclosed on are now renting - just as they were before they took out a mortgage they didn't understand. Those foreclosed homes have been resold to others in the market. If not, then that would suggest a glut of housing in the market - and we're just not seeing that. And I have to question the accuracy of the 30% number - that may be true in select markets but it certainly isn't a national figure. "Another 25% loss of union members?" And this is the President's fault how? "GM sells less than 20 of it's newest car, the MicroVolt?" There is no such thing as a MicroVolt - at least not in the US. They sold over 300 Volts in August. "Global temperatures cool to further record lows?" So what? Another person trying to use surface temperatures to "prove" that global warming (which should really be called climate change) is a myth. Such use just shows a complete lack of understanding of science and the way the world works and frankly, after all this time, it's not even worth it to try to educate people out of this kind of ignorance any more. "What if Obama got us into wars in Libya and/or Syria?" He got us into a war in Libya - and have you paid attention to the news lately? In less than 6 months, the old regime is pretty much gone and a new government is being set up - all without US boots on the ground, without US casualties, and in far less time than the war Bush got us into in Iraq. All because Obama stood shoulder to shoulder with our allies and supported a NATO mission - as was proper by treaty. As for Syria, with Europe banning the importation of oil from Syria (and the biggest market for Syrian oil), and Syria's two biggest allies putting pressure on them, the Syrian situation is more likely to be resolved the way the situation in Egypt was resolved, but if NATO begins a mission in Syria, then I'll support our President assisting our allies and NATO as part of our treaty obligations once again. If there will be a primary challenge, it will be from the left wing of the party - from people who thought that Obama was something other than the moderate pragmatist that he is - from people who heard health care and filled in their own blanks (like single payer) even when he never said that - from people who heard end the war in Iraq and added Afghanistan even though he said we would expand the war in Afghanistan. But I'm not sure they'll find someone to run in the primary against him - unless they find a gay black woman who has a chance, not even the left is going to tick off a large voting bloc of the Democratic Party by challenging the first sitting black President.

Who cares what the legal definition of hazing is. Who cares what the dictionary definition of hazing is. Who cares what the APO definition of hazing is. The BSA says no hazing. Now we've got to spend time dithering over what that means? The BSA says no bullying. Now we've got to spend time dithering over what that means? No - No we don't. Because all we need is the following: A Scout is Trustworthy A Scout is Loyal A Scout is Helpful A Scout is Friendly A Scout is Courteous A Scout is Kind A Scout is Obediant A Scout is Cheerful A Scout is Thrifty A Scout is Brave A Scout is Clean A Scout is Reverent When you're dealing with the youth or your fellow adult volunteers, are your actions in accordance with the Scout Law? Tell me, is making people sing for lost items helpful, friendly, courteous or kind? Tell me, does sending new scouts out on a snipe hunt, or for rope grease, or a smoke bender make you trustworthy or loyal, let alone friendly, courteous or kind? Does dragging a lad to a 50 gallon barrel of water really send the right message about cleanliness? All we need is the Scout Law - if your words and actions are in alignment with the Scout Law - everything else is going to be just fine.

yeah yeah yeah...meteorologists can be wrong - so what? The longer the distance between prediction and event, the more likely they'll be wrong. But even there, the models are improving. But they are more often correct about events happening in the short term. Hurricane Irene is a prime example. When it was first forming near Africa, meteorologists ran a number of different models to try to figure out what it was going to do. By the time it hit the Bahamas, they had the model for what it would likely do as it headed for the US. They said it would hit in the Carolinas and move north through NYC. It did exactly that. They even said that by the time it hit the Carolinas it would be a Cat 1 storm and would weaken to a tropical storm after it hit the US and before it headed up to New York. It dd exactly that. Unfortunately, the rest of the media hear that the storm was a Cat 4 and heading our way, without listening to the rest of the story - and got everyone worried. Had anyone paid attention, the devestation we see in Vermont wouldn't have been a surprise. The Meteorologists had said that their models showed that there would be more damage inland rather than along the coast and that inland New York and New England should get ready. Again, the media concentrated on DC and NYC giving everyone the impression that those areas would be the worst hit - despite meterologists saying otherwise. You really can't compare a priest and a meteorologist. The nature of being a priest is that you make vague predictions. A meteorologist makes specific predictions. A meteorologist will way it will rain a week from Tuesday. A priest would say it will rain this summer. Who's more likely to be correct?

This is a shame - looks like the next generation of solar panels - panels that can be mounted flat on a rooftop at a lower installation cost than standard panels. But when you have governments that have subsidized installations moving away from that proven model leading to a glut of supplies in the market coupled with the intransigence of certain politicians at the state and national level in one of the biggest markets in the world who believe that alternative energy is a codeword for socialism and communism, it's not surprising that forward momentum stalls. At one time in our country, we rallied to meet new challenges - and all prospered as a result. We took big risks, and reaped big rewards - and changed the way we live our lives. Do you have a microwave oven? Thank the US Government for funding the research that led to them. Do you enjoy the freedom of cruising the internet? Thank the US Government for funding the research and development that led to it. Boldly stating that we would put a man on the moon in less than a decade led not only to a brilliant success but to products we no longer can seem to live without. All because our politicians said "Yes, we can do this" and not "Ummm, no because my big oil supporters will get mad at me". This is exactly the kind of research and development our government should be taking a risk on - and we need politicians willing to help it succeed by providing incentives and subsidies and tax credits and protective tarriffs to help create the market. Panels like these, put on roofs all over the US, would give us a tremendous boost in our energy production - what are people so afraid of? (This message has been edited by calicopenn)

"The applicant must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth." While we're all concentrating on the "moral" qualities, what about the "educational" qualities? Is being a high school drop-out an example of the educational qualities we want in a leader? What about a leader that is illiterate? No GED's allowed? What about "emotional" qualities? Where do we draw the line there? No leaders that have ever been seen and/or treated by a mental health professional? No leaders that cry? No leaders that don't laugh at stupid jokes? The answer, Shortridge, is that there is not a single BSA publication readily available to volunteers that states that "homosexuals may not be volunteers. They leave that to "common knowledge".

"I have to admit, I've never really understood the thing about Catholics. Why not Presbyterians? Lutherans? Why Catholics? I'll probably never understand." Can you name a nationality that has not been subject to prejudice in this country? About the only nationalities I can think of that had a pretty easy time of it were the British, French and Spanish (because they actually colonized this country) and the Scandinavians (Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic and the quasi-Scandinavian Finns) because I suspect everyone was still afraid their Viking heritage would rear its head. I would have said Germans but that changed in WW1 and WW2. Almost every nationality that has come to this country has faced additional hardships caused by prejudice. One of those groups was the Italians - when they started coming over, they were not well liked. And what is essentially the state religion of Italy? The Catholic Church. The Irish were not really well liked when they started coming over either. Which church is most connected to the Irish? The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church helped explore and colonize this side of the planet. They have been an integral part to the European colonization of the US from the beginning. They were a respected part of the religions in the US for a very long time. So what changed? The Italians and the Irish started immigrating to the US - and people hated the Italians and the Irish. That hatred transfered to their church - the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, it seems that once we're infected with hatred towards something, our society can't seem to shake that hatred off. Fortunately, it's a fairly small minority that keeps that hatred burning, so I consider that hopeful.