Trevorum

The article doesn't say if the Riders were required to prepare and submit an Environmental Information Document (EID). If the process was followed and the environmental impacts were legitimately considered, then there would be nothing amiss here. However, it appears that once the fee was paid, the Land Manager just unilaterally decided that there would be no impacts without actually conducting any analysis. That's a conflict of interest. (edited typo) (This message has been edited by Trevorum)

My mind is made up. I have all the evidence I need. Y'all stop talking. [hands over ears] bahbahbahbahbahbahbahbahbahbahbahaba

kenk, I think its up to the chapter. We've never required that a fellow be present at the election, just the ordeal OA membership is not for everyone. Some very worthy fellows are not elected for a variety of reasons. It's not a predictable progression in the scouting path, unlike T21SLE.

Acco asks, "So, if a church is considered a "historical site" should taxpayer money be used for its upkeep? IMO, yes, as long as the taxpayers are also paying for "upkeep" of other privately owned historic properties. If these grants are available - and are actually awarded - to the owners of other historic properties in Detroit then there would appear to be no issue.

I was completely devastated to learn of this movie. I was writing a screenplay but they got there first. However, in my movie, the two fellows do not pretend to be gay, they just enter into a domestic partnership to take advantage of various social and financial benefits, all the while trying to convince their friends, family, and fiancees' that they are NOT gay. Hilarity and merriment ensues. Or would have ... Ah well, I'm a lousy fiction writer anyway.

That's like blaming Watergate and the Pentagon Papers on LBJ. If we're blaming anyone for Bush, let's start with Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Kudu, thanks for reminding us of your excellent "Consumer Reports" like comparison of OD trousers! I'd like to be able to send your page to every SPL and SM in the country. It would be great if you could update the chart to include the new switchbacks.

I accept your apology. I believe that in 100 years, Gore will be revered as a statesman for his unwavering drive to educate the public about climate change. Bush, on the other hand, will go down in history as the worst president in modern times.

Welcome to the forums, hagerde! And you too, AgingScout!

Joseph enrolled in the Hitler Jungend in 1941, after he turned 14. At that time, membership was mandatory of all teenagers. Reports say he was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings. His cousin with Down's syndrome was murdered by Nazi eugenics. IMHO, anyone who tries to label him a Nazi is pursuing some other agenda. http://bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/new_pope_defied_nazis.htm

My interpretation of your posts is that you seem to have some grudge against the man. OK, as long as we're clear. But I don't think that OGE or lizzy or myself have said anything that indicates we are "ignorant of facts". The fact is that young Joseph was a member of the Hitler Jungend. Very likely all his boyhood pals were also. Born in 1927, he was 12 (about 2nd Class age) when the Reich invaded Poland and was 18 when the War ended. I interpret his membership in the organization to be coerced and deeply regretted by him. your opinion may differ, of course

My understanding is that during the 1930s and early 40s, most German youth were members of the Hitler Jungend. Wikipedia states that by 1936 , membership was mandatory, even if opposed by the parents. By 1940, there were eight million members. That's about twice the BSA membership of the time in a country with a much smaller population. So I don't think membership in that organization means much.

"... unlike Satan, the cuckoo really does exist!" I'll bet that, given the total world population, there is no significant difference between the number of people who have seen a Cuckoo and the number who have seen Satan.

Does anyone know if any of the 2008 Presidential candidates were Scouts?

A similar thing happened to me two years ago. I crafted the exerience into a SM Minute which was well recieved by the fellows. see http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=103625#id_103625

Thanks, Ed. From Ed's link: "As commanding officer of Barb, Fluckey established himself as one of the greatest submarine skippers ... In one of the stranger incidents in the war, Fluckey sent a landing party ashore ... the sole landing by U.S. military forces on the Japanese home islands during World War II. Fluckey ordered that this landing party be comprised of ... as many ex-Boy Scouts as possible because Fluckey knew they would know how to find their way in unfamiliar territory.

oops, I was wrong on that point. I apologize for not checking my facts first! I believe the larger point is still valid, nonetheless. Moreover, (and this is a separate issue, but is raised above by JohnKC) I believe that most of the governments the world has seen that have been religiously based have had a far worse record on valuing human life than sectarian governments. This is not to say that the religious values are at fault, just that religion and political power don't seem to mix very well. Sooner or later, the "God is on our side" mantra always seems to validate violence against the non-believers.

The question would seem to be best answered by historians, who look human culture over the span of centuries and millenia. I would venture to guess that most historians would assert than human life and dignity are more highly valued now that at any previous time. Three points: 1. Slavery, once common, has been nearly eradicated worldwide. 2. Suffrage is nearly universal in many nations. 3. Capital punishment is outlawed everywhere (except the US, Iran, Korea, and China)

I'm not sure that I agree with John. Not that that isn't an admirable quality and one we try to teach our Scouts, but I'm not sure it is inextricably associated with Scouting. However, I agree 100% with Ed: "Trustworthy" is one of the fundamental definitions of a Scout.

Ed, except the Pope, of course.

For some bizarre reason, I am envisioning a pythonesque scene of the clouds parting and Scouter Terry decending, godlike, to fiddle inside a tall, blinking lights-type server, and him finally hauling off and kicking it. It starts humming and he ascends back to the skies. Thanks, Terry!

Ah, the neckerchief. An iconic bit of Scouting regalia, now stifled by the Oscar uniform design. I agree with Nessmuk. Ten years ago, when I first re-upped as an adult and bought my first Scout uniform in 25 years, I remember wondering what the heck is up with this collar??? Before our first pack meeting, I tried my neckerchief over the collar and under the collar and neither looked right. After a few months, I settled on wearing a bolo. That looked perfect. When we joined a troop, I was issued the custom troop neckerchief. It was a decorative piece of cloth emblazoned with our thunderbird totem and with a proud history in our large, active troop. As an Eagle, mine was trimmed in gold braid. The troop looked mightly impressive in our custom neckerchiefs! I've worn that decorative bit of cloth to every troop meeting, campout, roundtable, and court of honor for seven years and not once has it occurred to me to actually use it to wipe my brow, compress a wound, or blow my nose. For that, I use my 99 cent bandanna. I don't know about the far north, but here in Texas, a cotton bandanna and broad brimmed hat are outdoor essentials whether one is in a scout uniform or not. So the BSA neckerchief is evolving towards non-functional decoration. Sort of like the necktie. Nonetheless, I wear my neckerchief as SOP - sometimes almost daily it seems. (I'm sure glad no one expects me to wear a necktie!)

I can't speak for anyone else of course, but in my experience, the term "Uniform Police" has been used to describe someone who is excessively concerned with very minor details of the uniform rather with than the gross infractions you describe. The following are examples I have personally witnessed which I would describe as UP: pointing out that the troop numerals are placed too low on the sleeve; pointing out that adults should not be wearing patrol patches; claiming that a council issued special CSP is not intended for uniform wear; insisting that a Scout remove his "Texacan" interpreter strip and that an adult remove his "Overtrained" strip because these are not official BSA items; insisting that an Scout or Scouter remove his JSP after 6 months. These are just silly (IMHO) and not worth being confrontational about. On the other hand, (believe it of not) I myself have been accused of being a regulation uniform fanatic. As SM, I was famous for rescheduling SM conferences if the fellow arrived in less than full uniform. I was known to (politely) point out to new adult volunteers that, in this troop, camo pants will not be worn with the uniform shirt. I think my low point was the CoH in which our SPL arrived wearing pink pants. I swear they were pink. There wasn't time for him to go home and change and I did not have the heart to tell him to sit it out. I did use the ghastly image later in a SM minute (but kindly and with good humour) and the episode has found its way into troop lore as the infamous pink pants story.

Several years ago, our PLC voted to attend an out-of-council camp several states away. It was to be a lonnng trip driving, so the adults looked into a charter bus. As I recall, it was about double the cost of gassing private vehicles, but we went with the charter for safety reasons and to simplify the logistics. The fellows loved it! It was an adventure for them. We watched videos, ate snacks, played cards, and slept. And I was very glad not to have to drive that distance. That was the last time we've traveled out of state (but then, where we are, we can drive 5 hours in any direction and still be in Texas!) but I think we would consider chartering a bus again for the right trip. Our council Philmont contingents travel by bus. Four busses every year. They have it down to a science.

Oh, come on, FScouter. You know that we are just being slyly tongue-in-cheek when we talk about the UP! You've got a thankless job for sure, but someone has do do it. However, I DO find it highly ironic that the so-called "field uniform" is seemingly designed for, as you put it, "troop meetings, courts of honor, and indoor activities, and special outdoor occasions ... ". It's too bad that BSA does not have a uniform that is designed for, well, the field!