Prairie_Scouter

Wyomingi, No prob, no offense taken. Ah, so you must be clear across the state from Teton County. You know, when I first starting going out there, the Jackson airport (only accessible by prop planes then), had no terminal and a wooden table where they'd toss the luggage. We'd hitchhike wherever we wanted to go. Now the airport is dominated by private jets. I picked up a real estate guide last time I was there (2003), and there weren't any houses that I'd be able to buy unless I made about 10x the money I make now. I read in the Jackson newspaper that most of the people working in Jackson can't afford to live there. Sounds like a lot of neighborhoods in Chicago I'm thinking about bringing my Scout Troop out there for a high adventure trip in 2006. I suppose if I want to show them life in the Tetons we'll have to rent condos in the ski village Actually, we do have something local here called the "frostfire award". In Texas, I think they'd give that out if it goes below 50 Tort??

This is a very interesting question that could have a number of possible answers. If the country continues down the current conservative path, then I'd think that BSA would be encouraged to continue down its current path and "stay the course". If the country changes to a more liberal path, the BSA will most likely try to continue down its current path. This could lead to legal changes to force them to change policies, a "breakaway group" forming as another poster suggested, or a marginalization of BSA. Or, nothing could change at all. I really don't know which way it will go. I expect that if BSA made drastic changes, it would probably use, as Tort suggested, some percentage of its membership. It's possible that this loss could be offset by new members encouraged to join by a new more accepting membership policy. No crystal ball here, either. I see current challenges continuing regardless of what BSA does. Membership at the younger end continues to be a challenge as youth find other activities to compete with Scouts, and parents who are less able or willing to help out as volunteers. Within our own Council, we manage to hold steady and perhaps get a little growth, but kids aren't flocking to Scouts as they might have 30 years ago. At the upper end, older Scouts hit about 15 and start to find new interests and start to fade away from their troops. I don't think that this is anything new, but I don't see it going away. Personally, I've got about 7 more years of Scouting before my boys will age out. I don't think anything is going to change in that timeframe. I expect that at the end of that we'll still be talking about whether Scouts should be wearing the full uniform or not Ok, I'll make one prediction. I think Scout popcorn, at current rates, will cost about $200 a bag in 2012, making them almost as expensive as Girl Scout cookies.

Fuzzy, My wife does volunteer work at a local nature center and just told me that a whole school district cancelled their fall tours because they were afraid of Lime Disease. I wonder if they lock the kids up inside for the whole fall and cover them with plastic when they go to the school buses? Eeek, bugs!

Hi Schleining, Better than cable TV, isn't it? "Meet us next week for our next episode"....... I think it's pretty cool that I can write about 5 lines and Bob will turn it into a full page of responses. Kind of like the multiplying of the loaves and the fishes or something..... It's interesting to know that some folks are hanging on my every word, (literally, I think) I guess, but sheesh...... For the rest of you I've had more pleasant conversations with, you should know that (1), I've been a leader for 8 years, (2) I've had all the training, and them some, (3), I've actually read the books, and (4) I've been complimented up to the Council level for running successful programs. After reading Tort's comments, I'm confident that the LDS troops are doing just fine.

Bob, What the heck are you talking about? I said 4 things in my post based on the earlier posters comments. One, that by segregating their Scouts by age, they miss some of the continuity and community that a mixed program provides. Two, I said that if LDS leaders have a low percentage of trained leaders, that would seem to be contrary to the level of importance placed on training by many posters on this forum. Three, that "drafting" leaders didn't seem like the best way to do things, and four, that taken together, the comments by the earlier poster seemed to indicate that the LDS units were on the edge of what most would agree was "following the program". Now, in responding to that, you responded with comments about the age of instructors in their units. I was clear in my response that I said nothing about training, I was talking about the sense of community within a mixed age group. That is what the Scout may be missing out on. You commented on age groups for Cub Scouts. Most of the comments of the earlier posters were about boys of Boy Scout age, where in BSA, most troops are made up of boys of a wide group of ages. There are specific examples, which you mentioned, that have a tighter tie to age, but as I said, it sounded like the poster was talking mostly about boys of Boy Scout age. New Scout, Regular, and Venture have some age structure to them, but only in the New Scout Patrol do you normally find an age mix as small as you do in the groups mentioned by the earlier poster. You wrote that I said... >>You wrote "There are probably more leaders outside the LDS who do not follow the BSA program and make it up as they go along, as there are inside. I see no need to single out this one group. Well, I didn't say that, that was one of your comments. My response was that I didn't single out the LDS, the thread itself was about the LDS. Then there's this exchange... >> >>What is the amount of outdoor activity that the BSA asks any troop to do each year? >>I think the answer is "none", but once again, not something I mentioned." >>Again an absolutely incorrect statement when the answer is easily obtainable in several BSA resources. You continually choose to ignore the opportunity to learn facts before you post. You brought up the question of outdoor activity as though it was part of my comment. It was not, and as I clearly said, I thought the answer was "none" but it was really irrelevent, because it was not something I had mentioned anything about. Actually, I don't even think the earlier poster said anything about outdoor outings, either. Also, >>Yet as you see by your own quotes that you did make these statements and I did not fabricate any part of what you said Seems to me that exactly the opposite is true. Lastly, I never said that there was anything wrong with what the LDS was doing, contrary to your comments. I thought that their Scouts might not get the best use of the program by their age segregation, but that doesn't make it wrong, per se. They have managed to work some flexibility into their program that I think many would find fault with on these forums because they are not following the straight and narrow. The fact that you think that they might be closer to the BSA program than most "regular" BSA units is really irrelevent. It seems that the way you've managed to connect comments to me that I've never made, and then take some phrase I did write and extract some other meaning out of it, twice on this thread alone, indicates to me that you're really more interested in starting some sort of flame war. If you want to think I'm ignorant of BSA knowledge, that's fine. I'm perfectly willing to say that I don't know as much as some people. I'm perfectly willing to admit when I've erred, but I won't let people put words into my mouth. On the other hand, Tort took a moment to provide clarification on what the earlier poster had written. I think it's great that things have worked out well in their program. And golly if Tort and I weren't able to have that exchange without suggesting that we don't know anything about what we're talking about.

As a former CC and DL, I guess I can take a shot at this, but remember, your mileage may vary. 6-8 boys is usually the ideal size. 4 is getting too small for the boys to really have much interaction. Anything beyond 8 usually gets unmanageable. So much for the numbers. As the CC, it's up to you to determine den assignments. That's part of "the job definition", but anyone who tried to do that without the input of the CM and the DL is asking for trouble. So, in this case..... Everybody seems happy, but on the other hand, it doesn't sound like the den is getting much done. Now having said that, know that some dens don't plan to work on advancement in their den meetings; they see that as a parent/Scout activity. Personally, I always thought it was good to spend at least SOME time working on advancement projects. So, I think you need to do a couple of things. If everybody's happy with the size of the den right now, you could tell them that they can stay that way IF.... One. They structure their meetings to get some Scout-related things done (so it's actually a den meeting and not a play group), and Two. They get at least 2 more assistant den leaders. 17 boys with 2 leaders is not a good ratio at all. I can't see how 2 leaders can help 17 scouts get any projects done in the time of a usual den meeting, and really give them any time. If you don't do anything else, you need to help them get more leaders. Now, if you really think you need to split them.... If the den has been that way for more than a year, it'll probably be hard to split them, unless they've already developed a "natural split" of their own, just because of their size. If it's even feasible to split them, I'd go for 2 dens, 8 and 9. That's still kind of large but going to 3 dens is border line; if they lose anybody with a den of 5 or 6, they're getting too small. And, as Murphy's Law has it, you'll always lose scouts from the smallest den 1st Main thing is, is everybody's happy and you think that they're actually getting their rank work done fairly and honestly, regardless of how, you might consider just not messing with it. But, you're the CC. And remember, it's only an hour a week!

Merlyn, To clarify what I said... Up until a couple of years ago (I've since move on to the Boy Scouts side of things), I used to stop by our local public elementary school, during lunch period, to spend 5 minutes of their play time to talk to the kids about our Pack (that's about as long as I could hold them inside ). I'd show them 2 or 3 projects we've done, and then give them a handout inviting them to our open house, where we could talk to them and their parents in more detail about Scouting. So, the talk was more like 5 minutes of "you can do neat projects like this, too!" rather than talking about the merits of the Scouting program. That was held for the evening open house. Wyomingi, Thanks for the info. And yep, I understand the difference between sponsoring and allowing to use facilities. Interesting court case you cited. BTW, from your userid, are you from the great state of...? I've been out to the Jackson Hole /Grand Teton area something like 18 times since 1970. First as a climber, later as a vacationer. Gorgeous area, nice people. At one time, thought about living there (but the prices are unapproachable now), but the -40 winters.... Here in the northern Illinois, we manage to stay a bit warmer than that I knew a park ranger who lived in Wilson who used to tell me stories about skiing off the roof of his house.... Of course, people like Tort probably put on their jackets when it gets below 70 in Houston

Tort, Thanks for your explanation; what you describe is what I would like to see happening, but is somewhat different than the impression I got reading the earlier posters comments. I think that the age-to-age interaction is a very important part of Scouting, and from the earlier poster's comments (or how I read them, anyway), it sounded like this wasn't happening. I'm glad to hear that it is.

Thanks, Tort, that case summary was interesting. Merlyn, Can you answer a question for me? I'm trying to understand this better, because I think I'm missing something. I've gone into schools as a Den Leader (now an SM) and met with the kids to tell them about Scouting. I bring in things we've built, like catapults and radios, etc, to show them the fun stuff we do. Now, if I'm understanding this right, you probably don't have a problem with that presentation, per se, but more with the bigger picture of advertising Scouting in a public school, because you would see it as a religious organization? If minority groups, let's say an atheist group, are allowed to use a school facility as part of a school's "public access" outreach, is it ok, then, for Scouts to use that facility as well, after school hours? If you've covered this before, I apologize for asking you to repeat it. And, in answer to the poster who earlier asked why you would come here, knowing that very few, if any would agree with you, I'll throw back a response to that question I posted earlier, which is, this wouldn't be much of a discussion forum if the only people welcomed were people who all agreed on the same things. I am personally not so much "pro-Gay" or "pro-Atheist" as I am "pro-any good people who want to be involved in Scouting".

Thanks, Tort, that case summary was interesting. Merlyn, Can you answer a question for me? I'm trying to understand this better, because I think I'm missing something. I've gone into schools as a Den Leader (now an SM) and met with the kids to tell them about Scouting. I bring in things we've built, like catapults and radios, etc, to show them the fun stuff we do. Now, if I'm understanding this right, you probably don't have a problem with that presentation, per se, but more with the bigger picture of advertising Scouting in a public school, because you would see it as a religious organization? If minority groups, let's say an atheist group, are allowed to use a school facility as part of a school's "public access" outreach, is it ok, then, for Scouts to use that facility as well, after school hours? If you've covered this before, I apologize for asking you to repeat it. And, in answer to the poster who earlier asked why you would come here, knowing that very few, if any would agree with you, I'll throw back a response to that question I posted earlier, which is, this wouldn't be much of a discussion forum if the only people welcomed were people who all agreed on the same things. I am personally not so much "pro-Gay" or "pro-Atheist" as I am "pro-any good people who want to be involved in Scouting".

Bob, I don't expect that you'll ever agree with me on anything, but in response to your post... >>Nothing written in this thread or in the the BSA program supports what you have written Prairie Scouter. Well, let's see. >>Many units have leadership problems because they recruit leaders by standing in front of a gathering or parents and saying "we need somebody to do this job". The LDS Bishop after carefull consideration says "we need YOU to do this job". A method that is far more in line with the BSA recommended selection process. How can you say this? I know for a fact that many units DO look for qualified leaders; I know for critical positions, such as a DL or CC or CM or SM, I would never, ever just try to "fill the chair". You don't know that every single LDS bishop always uses "careful consideration". How do you know that they're not, at times, just thinking in terms of "we need somebody to do this job"? >>If a 13 year old scout teaches a 14 year old scout a new skill, as oppossed to a 12 year old, is that less valuable to either because the teacher was younger instead of older? What if they were the same age? would either benefit less from the teaching. I never said it was less valuable. I said that by segregating the Scouts by age group, the Scouts miss out on some of the continuity and community that is a part of Scouting. >>The BSA teaching process is the youth with knowledge share with the ones who need the knowledge. The age of the instructor is immaterial. Once again, I never said anything about the age of the instructor. My comments were specifically about the LDS practice of segregating the Scouts by age, which is not normal practice in BSA that I'm aware of. >>There are probably more leaders outside the LDS who do not follow the BSA program and make it up as they go along, as there are inside. I see no need to single out this one group. I didn't single out this group; the THREAD is about this group. >>Why is there a concern that LDS leave Saturday night? You don't mention the Jewish scouts who do not arrive until Saturday, or the Catholic Scouts that leave very early Sunday to attend Mass? I didn't say anything about LDS members leaving on Saturday night. Since I didn't say that, why would I be talking about Jewish Scouts? We have Scouts that sometimes have to leave early for a variety of reasons. I'm happy to have them for as much time as they can spend. >>Lack of knowledge in some people breads mistrust and misunderstanding. Lack of knowledge in the LDS church seems to do the same to some scouters. I have trained many LDS leaders over the years. Our training team simple explains that some age groups and some group names may be different than those in their specific program structure but the methods, and skills are the same. If you're implying that I have a lack of knowledge about LDS and that that has somehow caused me to mistrust and misunderstand them, that is simply not true. I have read about the history of the LDS; I don't pretend to be an expert on their religious practices, and I don't think that that's required to respond to what was written in this thread about their practices. >>Nowhere does the scouting program say that you have to go out Friday night and come back home Sunday from a campout. I never said it did. >>I will ask this question again of those who feel the LDS is missing out on the outdoors of scouting. What is the amount of outdoor activity that the BSA asks any troop to do each year? I think the answer is "none", but once again, not something I mentioned. Bob, it's perfectly fine for you to disagree with me, but it seems a little unfair to attribute comments to me that I never made. And two, Bob, you seem perfectly willing to take people to task in other threads for not dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" when it comes to the Scout program, but when it comes to the LDS, it's seems ok with you if the age groups are different, or the groups names are different, or the program structure is a little different (your comments). Now, let me say this. I think it's perfectly fine that the LDS is able to do this. BSA could use some flexibility in the way they do things sometimes. My comment was that the LDS program, from the comments made here, seems to be far enough out of the "straight and narrow" that some Scouters advocate that they are really just hanging on by the skin of their teeth. That's not a bad thing; it just is what it is.

My 1 cents worth... I'm sure the LDS Scouters are all very well intentioned, but as things have been described here, it sounds an awful lot like Bob's comment of "we think we know better and we're going to do it our way". Now, somehow, they've managed to figure out a way to remain within "the program", at least according to the letter of the law. But, Scouting is also about continuity and community, and the older Scouts teaching the younger, etc. Seems like these age-based groups within LDS units specifically disallow that. Several comments also that the LDS Scouters have what seems to be a low percentage of attendance at training. Once again, haven't there been many comments in other threads about the importance of training? Is "drafting" leaders going to get you leaders that are really interested in the Scouting program? I don't know, folks, but this sounds to me like a different program that manages to stay within what most would consider a "normal" Scout program, but just hanging on by their toes.

We don't have any requirements for cooking, but all of our Scouts are trained from the beginning on how we prepare our menus and cook. It's been built in to such an extent now that everyone pretty much knows what they should be doing, and pass that on to "the next generation". Typically.... Friday night we'll eat on the way up and have a cracker barrel. Saturday breakfast is usually a DO meal, something like a mountain man breakfast. Saturday lunch is something easy, like PB&J. Saturday dinner is usually more involved and could be something in the DO again, or a grilled dinner. Sunday morning is usually something easy to get together and clean up so we can concentrate on preparing to leave. We've got 5 DO cookbooks and at the meal planning meeting, we encourage them to look around for new things to try, but we don't tell them what to choose. We might "coach" them a bit if they think dinner should be Slim Jims and Cheetos. I personally don't believe in letting them screw up to the point that they don't have anything to eat. Usually, there's enough things happening on their own to give them a challenge. I think that there are better ways to teach them.

I think that this situation is going to be different for each person entering it. I'm 54. I've had a bad back since I was 20, but I've managed to run marathons, rock climb, play tennis, keep camping. It definitely gets more difficult each year. I'm done with tennis. Not running much anymore, BUT, my younger son is getting into rock climbing, so I've gotten back into it with him. My back barely survives 2 nights out on a campout; I've gone to 2 sleeping pads I guess the answer to the question is that you keep doing it until you lose the enjoyment of it. That can be loss of desire or physical limitations. There's always things that need to be done to support the troop. I wonder myself how much longer I'll be able to camp and really enjoy it, but I'm not planning on stopping yet. Regards the future. I've been a Scout leader in a pack and troop for about 8 years now, so I don't have the history that some here have. But, each year, I'm seeing it getting more difficult to get the parents to participate. I managed to "cultivate" a good group of parents in Cubs, and they came with me to the Troop that I'm the SM of now; that has helped a lot, but it continues to be a challenge. Add that to the continued availability of other activities, and to be honest, I don't see it getting any easier. Having said that, every time I think a trip is going to fall apart, somebody steps up to help out, so we manage.

Hi amouse, The thing that might be a challenge for you is that some ranks require a certain amount of time in rank before you can move on to the next rank. You should look at your Scout Handbook and do the math to see if you've got enough time to finish before your 18th birthday. And some ranks have some leadership requirements where you have to hold a leadership position for some length of time. Talk with your Scoutmaster; he;ll be able to help you figure it out. If you really want to become Eagle and there is time permitting this, then go for it. But remember also that Scouting is about the journey even more than the destination. That just means that you can have plenty of fun in Scouts even if you can't make it to Eagle. There are plenty of Scouts, most, actually, that don't make Eagle, and still have fun careers as Scouts. Good luck however it works out for you.

Tort, Thanks for the reply on the "line" question. I wasn't sure exactly how that works. Interesting. Regards legal costs, I see your point, and in the bigger picture, think that a lot of frivolous lawsuits could be eliminated by forcing the loser to pay the legal fees of the winner. But, I wonder, wouldn't that effectively eliminate the "little guy" going after a much bigger player? Even if you believe fervently in your cause, you never know what a jury is going to do, and a small player could be wiped out. Even now, large corporations will defend against smaller players by overwhelming their resources. Getting too OT, probably, but just a thought. Gavvin, Actually I was thinking about Augusta when I was writing my question, and agree that many times it's public opinion rather than law that will force an organization to change its policies.

Main thing, the website owner is the person who has the power to allow Scouts to have their own forum. If he/she/they chooses to do so, they can, or not. But, gosh, why the harsh words? Seattle's post just sounded to me like a rhetorical question as well as a request to the owners to consider the creation of a Scout forum, as is stated in the forum guidelines. Didn't sound to me at all like there was some sort of "deliberate slight" being implied. If we're going to interpret a post based on the phrasing, maybe we could try to see the "positive" in the post, or at least ask questions of the poster, rather than making assumptions and then responding to those assumptions. I think a private area for Scouts could be difficult because you have no way of knowing who the posters actually are. For a Scout forum to work where they could post their own opinions, we'd probably need some sort of "gentlemen's/gentlelady's agreement" to not intrude on their discussions unless asked to do so. Beyond that, I suppose there's a reason why it's "scoutER.com".

I think that forcing Scouts to make the decision we believe is right may satisfy the need for immediate gratification that's so popular today, but that may or may not lead to the long term results we're also looking for. I'm trying to figure out the best way to word my thoughts, but let me try an example. If I say to my troop, "you must wear your uniform or you will be sent home", 3 things may happen. One, they'll show up in uniform, two, they'll show up out of uniform to see if I'd really send them home, or three, they just won't show up. One is good, two leads to confrontation, and three is just bad. On the other hand, if I say "we'd really like the troop to attend meetings in uniform", I find it more likely that someone will say "why?". Even if the purpose is to just start a debate, it gives me a chance to explain why we think it's a good idea. They may not agree, but at least I've had a chance to state my case. Yes, I could give that explanation at the time that we say "you must wear your uniform", but my experience is that, in the long run, you're better off letting the Scout make their decision based on a "recommendation(?)" rather than a "mandate". As I read this, I think I'm not stating it very well. Bottom line is, I think a unit is better off doing the work to help the Scout come to the decision you'd like him to come to. That's a lot more work, and sometimes leads to frustration on both sides during the process, but in the long run, I just think it works better and you end up with better Scouts who turn into better thinking adults.

Just seems hard to believe that the ACLU would construct a strategy against the government's support of BSA just to gain income. There would seem to be plenty of easier ways for a group of lawyers to make money. Here's a question for you legal eagles that maybe should be spun off as a separate thread if there's enough interest. The BSA is allowed to discriminate against gays and atheists because the Supreme Court agreed with the argument that they are a private club and therefore have the right to establish their own membership requirements. How far does that go? Could the BSA say, for example, no people of color allowed? No Protestants? I guess the question is, is there a line somewhere that BSA or any other private club can't cross?

So Ed, >>So we let the special interest groups determine what is OK because they scream the loudest? Does that mean, then, that, since conservative Christians are a special interest group like any other, you'd be against their push to pass laws in regards to gay marriage and abortion? George Carlin has been and continues to be just hilarious.

A perfect example of why zero tolerance doesn't work. Regards the nails being hard to miss, for an 11-year-old, carrying a bunch of nails in his pocket might be the SMALLEST thing in his pocket Nails are a weapon? And what, "Pop Rocks" fizzy candy is an explosive??? This ranks right up there with the asthmatic girl who lent her inhaler to a friend who had forgotten hers and had an attack. The girl was declared a hero for saving the other girl's life and then was suspended for drug dealing. Duh.

jd, I can only say, "I Trusty in Dusty" Not without limits, but for now, yeah. Ask me again in August. Back on topic... This is, like many, a very grey area. Like jd said, "Morally Straight" comes back to bite us, again. Who gets to decide what meets that highly subjective phrase? In this case, some folks in Irving, Texas, who I don't know, and don't know whether they're speaking in the best interests of Scouting or on behalf of some special interest. Although I don't agree with their views, I at least hope it's the former. Legally obscene material has no place in Scouting for obvious reasons. Pornography, I think, is in the eye of the beholder. One person's pornography is another person's art.

Eamonn, D&D is a game called Dungeons and Dragons. It's a fantasy role playing game where characters can take on traits of good or evil in the context of the game. Individuals gain power and experience through successfully negotiating adventures created by a "dungeon master". It can be used to teach teamwork or the power of the individual, although it is primarily just a game. It's been popular since at least when I was in college in the late 60s, early 70s. D&D is like many things that are viewed negatively by those who I think don't understand the nature of the thing being discussed. This is true with D&D. There are those who think that Halloween is satanic in nature, regardless that its history says otherwise. Harry Potter is about a boy coming of age; there is, of course, a magical component to it, but there is no mention of Satan in any of the books that I know of. There is a TV show called "Charmed" that has also been condemned by some, even tho the story line involved magic as a force of nature, used to battle evil. I find it interesting that those who would attack these kinds of things seem to have no problem with "miracles" within their own religions, which are quite "magical" in nature. Anyway, in the context of a Scout campout, there is going to be down time on any campout. Every second doesn't have to be filled with activities directly tied to merit badges or other Scout-related activities. Some down time should be scheduled into these outings, and during those times, I see no problem with them doing something like D&D.

Wow, I go away for a couple of hours and pages and pages of posts appear. Must be a popular topic! Tort, Your responses have carried a thought, very well constructed by the way, that seems to indicate that think, I believe, that issues like this need to be handled within the U.S. consitution. Yet, many local governments, be they state, city, etc., have passed laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual preference. With your references to the Constitution, I get the impression that you may think that these local laws don't "count". I'll grant you that a national law could be done by way of a Constitutional amendment, but I don't think it's really required. Couldn't the Congress just pass legislation like this if it so desired? Would legislation like that be unconstitutional for some reason? (I'm asking seriously because I'm not sure myself). I'll grant you also that a good number of states are passing laws to prohibit things like gay marriage, but I think that might be equal parts politics and honest conservative view. I don't really know where the answer is; I do believe that it is not in the best interests of the country to pass laws that show preferential treatment to the views of any particular religious interest. They may very will have the ability to do so; it's just my personal belief that it shouldn't be done.

Hi Tort, Didn't think you were trying to bait me; just making a sort of self-depricating remark about my chances of getting a logical argument correct, ie, slim >>So why don't you accord the People of the United States (or the People of Texas) the right to pass laws that coincide with their beliefs of right and wrong? Why would you want ANY law that did not attempt to keep society on a good path? I guess because I'm not so sure that there are one set of beliefs here. And if that's true, just using the beliefs of the majority would, I think, seem to the minority to be an infringement on their rights to practice their religious beliefs (within some rational limits who are established by, well, somebody). Hey, I've been down to your beautiful state a few times. Don't you guys down there sort of do things your own way anyway? (Just kidding, I've always had a good time there and met really friendly people, not unlike us midwesterners... Been to, let's see, Dallas and San Antonio; my wife has been to Austin and Big Bend NP) >>If society is dominated by the people of one religion (and it's not in our country), then why shouldn't that society reflect those views if the society is governed by the people? Because if you do that, some of the time you end up like countries in the Middle East where they solve the problem of differing religious views by just killing everyone who disagrees. >>I worked for a partner who knew the Bush family very well. The President is a headstrong man who does ONLY what he thinks is right...and yes he has made mistakes. He's no one's puppet. He is very much his own man. I am actually glad to hear that. My impressions are based on what I read, mostly, because my chances of getting to know the man personally are, well, nil. Hearing the opinion of people who actually know the man would carry a lot more weight with me. 'Course, I still don't agree with a lot of what he's doing