skeptic

Yep, I can agree with that. Shout, but do it about something real. Don't hold your breath. They also should absolutely allow other party candidates to be there if they choose, period. Guess they are afraid someone might think a third option might be better.

It would be great if we could have a couple of "real" debates. What they call debates is nothing but a programmed shouting match most of the time. But then, anyone who has actually debated, knows how shallow and superficial they are. Unfortunately, most people watching them are like sheep, and already have their herders pushing them around.

In today's world, we have many misperceptions based on the society willing to accept an absolute minimum of effort, as long as they at least come in contact with the requirement, or someone told them, and they wrote it on the requirement sheet. I am fairly certain that is why I have so few come to me for citizenship badges, as the word is out that I might actually ask them to explain the material they wrote down in their own words, just to verify they actually grasp it. Not sure what we can do about that, other than just explain to a disgruntled parent that just writing it down does no

The ballot results on this are particularly telling, in that we have such a poor level of actual participation. Has to make you wonder where that other 60% or so would come down on the issue if they exercised their franchise. But, as we have been told numerous times here; the voice of the majority must take a back seat to that of the minority when it differs from those in charge or with powerful agendas. Of course, what do I know?(This message has been edited by skeptic)

One of the Eagles we all have been most proud to have on our list of accomplished scouters. Might wonder if we should move this to a different forum, as it dos not seem to fit here, at least to me.

Actually, he planned at least a couple, and is a patrol leader now. The unit he is with is one of the most active outdoor troops in the council and is 85 years old. They have as many as 4 summer options, including high adventure as one, either a National base or Sierras, though they have done some in Oregon and Utah. Definitely not a do the merit badge at troop meeting troop, nor LDS. But, it really does not matter. You are making value judgments without any real knowledge of the boy other than what little I have noted. Frankly, I am disappointed in your responses in this thread, as

Let's clarify. The young man was not in my troop, I simply sat on his board. He from one of the largest troops in the county who does have many Eagles, most over 16, and quite a few under the wire. This young man came in with the younger age allowed, prior to 11. He has been on over 50 nights of camping, about a quarter backpacks over 5 miles. He has never missed a meeting, and barely any other activities. One of his stated goals was to help others coming up, including his 9 year old brother who is still in cubs. The parents are not helicopter; he made the goal and accomplished it. He

None of the above if they are made to be a focus to the youth directly. These are private matters, and therefore should be kept that way as well as possible. Once it becomes a "disruption (there's that word again)", it needs to be addressed. And sometimes, addressing it will lead to upset people, accusations, and possibly even the destruction of the unit. So, if is better to try and keep these life decisions as private as possible. At least that is how we try to work in our unit, and those others in our area with which I am familiar. In the many years I have been with the unit, we

Beavah; remember, the political rabble-rousers already got to the Girl Scouts, so why should they annoy them by pushing for girls in BSA? Many of the legal cases revolve around atheist issues rather than (directly) Gay issues, due to the Dale decision. But, atheists have yet to mount the long term, extensive campaign that Gay rights groups have over the past couple of decades. Of course, other than the name, having girls at ALL levels would not really be a problem anyway, other than assuring additional leadership needs were met and allowing units option of one or both, on the "l

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443989204577603341710975650.html?google_editors_picks=true This was recommended to me by one of my former scouts who is now a Lt. Col in the Army. It sort of fits with the current back and forth here. Make sure you get the "whole" link, as often the highlighted ones leave some off for some reason. Did find it interesting.

I too have seen some of similar age that never met the apparent promise. This one struck me as not being like that. And, being as he plans on attending the tech high school in town if possible, or the Catholic school otherwise, as well as playing water polo, things could change. But only time will tell.

Well, now you people are simply reaching to the point of foolishness. There is a difference between simply living your life within the view of others and making it a public issue. If you cannot see that, then you are not as bright as you seem to think. As far as the specific case, and a number of similar ones, they have obviously been prompted by the political arm of the Gay movement to keep the controversy regularly in view. He did not have to make this decision and immediately go to a reporter. The exec in So Cal did not have to come out and immediately bring in the reporters. The

First of all Lisa, I am a proponent of "local option" as well. But, I am really skeptical of the way these things are orchestrated by the political arm of the Gay rights movement. It does far more harm than good to local units, as we then have to deal with the idiots that do not understand we simply do not discuss it with scouts. A conspiracy? No, I think it is a politically oriented attack that is not necessary or constructive. He chose, supposedly to "come out" publicly; then he feels the need to tell the world how mistreated he is. Sorry, but currently that is the exact thing th

Since I tend to be a "skeptic", I find it interesting how once again we conveniently have one of these supposedly "pick on the Gay leader" stories, just in time to make sure it does not lose visibility. Those that say the Gay activists are not actively orchestrating this seem to me to be naive or blind. But, then I am skeptical anyway, so perhaps I am a victim of misperception.

Unless he is a very good con, he was not forced by any means. Plans on adding palms, working with troop, joining attached Venturing crew when old enough, and wants to work on camp staffs. So, appears the second is not a problem either. Of course, since also is a water polo player and swimmer, as well as involved in his student government while 4.0 student, high school could alter his views and time availability. We will see.

Just returned from sitting on an Eagle board for a young man just starting 8th grade tomorrow who turns 13 on Wednesday. For those going on about young Eagles, I guarantee you this young man more than fits the role of Eagle. He is the sort of "young" man or "boy" man that proves the rule so to speak. Better spoken, better prepared, and simply all around exceptional example of what we hope a scout will become by the time they reach Eagle, superior to many much older whose boards I have sat. Gives you hope each time you do one of these boards, but especially when you have one so young

"That makes no sense; the plaintiffs aren't controlling access to public property and excluding the BSA, the BSA is excluding the plaintiffs." Maybe you should get the facts straight. The plaintiffs were never denied access, as they chose to not even try because they might be exposed to some small indication of religion, according to them. Apparently, having to book use through the scout office was too much contact with a supposedly "religious organization". But, since apparently atheism is also, according to the ruling you quoted, then they really do not have much on which to base the

"No change there; the city leased public land that gives some people inferior access based on religion, sexual orientation, and age+sex." But, if the plaintiff, peripherally is also religious, then what does that do to their complaint in the first place? Just seems to me that it considerably weakens their claims of discrimination by a religious group, as they too could be judged as discriminating against the group. I realize that this is a stretch, but the decision already made by Judge Jones is pretty much stretched to the max as well, or so it seems to me.

"Under US law, discriminating against atheists (because they're atheists) is religious discrimination. Read Torcaso, read Welsh v. United States, read Kaufman v. McCaughtry." So, if it is religious discrimination, as per the above, then it must have a religious aspect. Otherwise, it could not be discrimination; would you agree? If not, then the above determination would appear to be erroneous. If though, it is judged to be accurate by the court, then "atheism" does have a religious connotation, even if only peripherally; much like the BSA is peripherally religious (but not a religion).

So, have to ask Beavah; any connection to you in this story?

At least if you are using Google, you are given an option to opt out of targeted ads. Just go to this link, review, then decide to either opt out, or simply edit what they already have on your list. http://www.google.com/ads/preferences?hl=en Do not know if there is something similar for other browsers or connected services.

Shortridge; My point was I do not understand why there might be a problem, as here camps are regularly used by non BSA groups and they pay to do so, just as troops do, though a bit more I believe when private camps. There are camps that are leased, and they all are open to the public on the same terms as scouts. And the two largest in San Diego, Balboa and Fiesta Island are the focus of two combined lawsuits by the ACLU on behalf of people who never even actually tried to use the camps. Their suit is due to the BSA supposedly be a religious organization, so they should not have the lea

If in fact the jambo itself draws the projected amount, they still need room for visitors. Certainly better too big than too small. It is still a grass hillside, so how much more effort is involved in being sure it is large enough, just in case? And yes, hopefully they should find a way to utilize it for non scout activities. Do not understand the concerns. Here, all camps are open to outside groups with various restrictions. Off season, our main camp is booked almost year round on weekends, mostly non scout groups. It helps supplement the upkeep, that is for sure. Some camps

So, what exactly is a "monster trunk derby"? Large boxes on wheels with remote controls; or maybe very large elephants? Just wondering.

Now Moose'; do you really think he is a "great actor"? Maybe in the B level acting of the old black and white westerns on TV. Sometimes fun to watch, but seen one, pretty much seen them all.