BrentAllen

With that definition, no president has ever received a majority.

A school baseball team is much, much different from a Scout group. The baseball team would wear uniforms with the school name on it, and would represent the school in competition against other schools. The baseball team or any other team representing the school, wearing the school name, should not be allowed to discriminate. A Scout unit wears a Scout uniform - they are a unit of the BSA. The official uniform does not contain anything that denotes they belong to the school. They do not compete against other units while representing the school. In most cases, the CO doesn't even choose the leadership, they just sign off on them. The rest of the issues - ownership, etc. - are just semantics. Without a court ruling, it's all just opinions. You have yours, I have mine. And we have a Pack that meets at the school just the same as when the principal signed the papers.

So, there is no court ruling, right? Schools have FCA clubs and other similar type organizations. I don't see a difference between those type clubs and a Cub Scout Pack. Why would a public school spend a small fortune to go to court when all they need to do is get a different person to sign the forms? I think that is what is called a wise use of resources.

Been there, done that. Started a new Troop. Those parents and that Troop are so far off the reservation, they couldn't find it with a GPS! Bottom line is - what type of Scouting experience do you want for your son, and what are you willing to do to get it.

Huh?? Are you trying to prove my point about brain-dead Democrats? Which election are you talking about? 2004 election Totals Bush 62,039,073 50.7 Kerry 59,027,478 48.3

"Why do you think public schools ought to be able to discriminate against atheists, anyway?" Because I don't see that a public school chartering a Pack, which operates outside of school hours, is part of the public school program. I must have missed the court ruling that stated public school Cub Scout Pack charters were discriminatory - please point me to that specific case and ruling.

Big deal - there was a majority of brain-dead Democrats (oooops, that's redundant) in Missouri at the time. They keep electing Ted Kennedy and his brain has been pickled for years. The good news is the people of Louisiana came to their senses this past election.

None of that holds a candle to the Democrats in Missouri who elected a dead guy to the US Senate. Maybe they knew something the rest of us don't...

As of 12/31/06, membership is up, not down. Membership: 2005 - 4,586,831; 2006 - 4,619,730 Number of units is basically flat. Cub Units/Elementary: 2005 - 54,663; 2006 - 54,552 Total units: 2005 - 138,882; 2006 - 137,884 Our Pack was one of those "casualties" of the ACLU public schools nonsense. We had the PTA president sign the forms instead of the principal and presto! Our Pack has grown from around 70 boys 3 years ago to 140 now. Yeah, we are floundering...

"Then another District wanted to require scouts to appear before Eagle Boards of Review in perfect uniforms or be turned away. I said you can't do that as the BSA does not require scouts to own a uniform." If you read the BSA materials closely, they state uniform parts should not be worn with civilian wear, and that the uniform should be worn completely or not at all. I see no problem with requiring an Eagle candidate to show up in full uniform. They are trying for our highest award! They are supposed to be high achievers - why not expect that from them? As I've said before, I have never heard anyone praise their leaders or mentors for being easy on them. The teachers you always hear mentioned in graduation speeches are the ones that challenged their students and required a lot out of them, not the ones who let them just slide through.

Eamonn, I''m glad OJ was able to help. As upsetting as it would be to see a fatality, he probably feels a little elated that he was able to help the survivor. First Aid is just one skill a boy will learn in Scouts. Some people go to the Red Cross and learn those skills, without ever putting on a Scout uniform. As you know, the main difference Scouting and any other youth program is that Scouting teaches leadership and responsibility. Those skills/lessons are taught in the patrol, using the patrol method, and through the PLC. Visitor or part-time Scouts do not help teach those lessons (they aren''t part of the group going through the phases of team development) and they do not learn them. So while Scouting has some value to part-timers, they are really missing the main point of the program. Would OJ have attended more if the leaders (boy or adult) called when he was absent and let him know he was missed, and hoped he would be there next week?

pack, So, how do you feel about Gore''s son? Doing 100 mph in a Prius, busted with marijuana along with Xanax, Valium, Vicodin and Adderall. He didn''t have a prescription for any of those. This was his fourth run in with the law - possession of pot in 2003, drunk driving in 2002, and reckless driving 94 back in 2000. He gets off without a slap on the wrist every time. Is it just a matter of time before this guy kills someone? I''d really like to hear how you feel about Ted Kennedy! Funny, I felt the same way about Clinton. I couldn''t see how this guy could win, or why anyone would want to vote for him. When he won, I decided I would give him a chance. That didn''t last long! What a disgrace - to the country and to his family! Bill has a serious allergy with the truth! Bush had led us in the war against terror. I am thankful for his leadership. We have defeated Saddam and we are defeating Al-Queda. I''m sure you disagree - hey, it''s a free country. Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, October 15, 2007; Page A01 Better get your digs in before we win! Just like Gore better solve GW before the natural cycle turns! LH, He said every skeptical scientist he looked at was backed by oil money. I''ve called that bluff before. He made the claim, he needs to back it up.

So, firstpusk, you can''t come up with a single name? Only some guy you heard on a radio show? Interesting. For some reason, that is the answer I expected to get.

pack, You really need to get out of that liberal campus environment and take a look around! Your take on Bush is 180 degrees out of phase. Here you have a devout Christian man with a loving wife and two wonderful daughters, and you are hoping he will crawl back in a bottle?? Wow, now there is a Scoutlike attitude! The problem I have with Gore and his offests is they are a joke! Or as Gore would say, "There is no controlling legal authority" to govern these offsets. There is no standard as to what they are supposed to do, nor how they are measured. Try to find out what they are actually doing, instead of just PR soundbites. You can''t. "The shortcomings of current carbon trading systems are clear. As a piece in Newsweek concluded, "So far, the real winners in emissions trading have been polluting factory owners who can sell menial cuts for massive profits and the brokers who pocket fees each time a company buys or sells the right to pollute." Currently, the link between the purchase of carbon offsets and the actual reduction of carbon emissions is highly controversial and almost impossible to verify. The process is easily manipulated. Measurement tools are remarkably primitive. Even the most basic calculations are subject to wide variations. The New Internationalist requested estimates from four reputable carbon trading companies for the number of credits a passenger would need to purchase to offset an around-the-world flight, starting and ending in London. The magazine received four answers: 4.3, 6, 8.68 and 11.63 tons." Theres a lack of standards in the voluntary market, and the offsets that people are purchasing might not be accomplishing what they hope they will, said Deborah Carlson, climate change campaigner with the David Suzuki Foundation, a Canadian environmental advocacy group. When the environmental group Clean Air-Cool Planet commissioned a study on carbon offsets, communications manager Bill Burtis was surprised to find how few groups offered transparent details of their projects or had set up any process of independently verifying their environmental benefits. It was pretty startling, he said. Some offset retailers did not even return the studys questionnaire, and one provider, which Burtis wouldnt identify, actually lobbied against the release of the report. Clean AirCool Planet hired an independent firm to do the study because it has ties to a carbon offset provider called NativeEnergy. The study ultimately awarded only a few companies its highest rankings, including the U.S. firms Climate Trust, Sustainable Travel International and NativeEnergy. Burtis said other providers have made changes since the report came out. Free market? I think not.

firstpusk, If you would, please list the names and/or reports of those "skeptical scientists" you have read, who are receiving "oil" money. Once I see those names, maybe I can provide you with some who haven''t received "oil" money. You are interested in hearing both sides, right? That argument always gives me a laugh. By claiming they are taking oil money, are you saying they know we are destroying the planet and they just don''t care? That they would rather take a payoff than tell the truth? That they would rather pocket some money than save the planet for their kids and grandkids? Is that what you are saying? If not, then what exactly are you saying? As for Gore using offsets, isn''t it interesting that he buys them from a company he owns and chairs? It is just a money shell game. How effective are the offsets? Here''s an answer: At this point its basically symbolic, but the goal is to build a groundswell to get countries to do something about this, says M. Granger Morgan, head of the department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pa. Final question - who lives more environmentally friendly - Gore or Bush? Answer: Whoda thunk it? Former oilman George Bush, scourge of the environment, lives in a house more eco-friendly than Al Gore, a dwelling that would make Hollywood eco-activist Ed Begley, star of HGTV''s ''Living With Ed,'' drool. When Dubya spends time at his Crawford ranch, he''s in a single-story, 4,000-square-foot limestone house that a 2001 article in USA Today described as an ''eco-friendly haven.'' Even David Roberts, staff writer for the online environmental magazine Grist has called the energy efficiency of the president''s home as ''fantastic.'' As USA Today described it: ''Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is called ''gray water,'' and one tank for ''black water'' from the kitchen and toilets.'' The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater. In addition, ''the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems use.'' As Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted: ''It''s interesting that Bush seems to actually practice conservation, while Gore seems to want to buy his way out of his obligations.''

pack, We teach our Scouts to lead by example, and Gore certainly does NOT do that! He yells from the mountain tops that the sky is falling, and flies back, in a private jet, to his house that is using 10 times the energy of the US household. He must really believe in his cause! And I really enjoy the fact that he is so willing to listen to the other side, and debate the issue. Oh, wait - he has refused EVERY opportunity to debate global warming. Now, there is a man firm in his convictions. He lives like there is no concern for tomorrow, and he isn''t willing to take the stage with anyone to debate the subject. Yeah, sign me up! There are plenty of other reasons for him to be pushing his cause, when he doesn''t have to lift a finger. #1 would be to stroke his huge ego. #2 he gets to sell bogus cabon offsets back to himself. What a scam!

"Bush will always have an asterisk next to his 2000 election results because of it." Yeah, and Gore will always have an "L" next to his 2000 elections results, for LOSER.

Gern - I think I have pinpointed your uniforming problems. Ridiculing those boys in your unit who show up in full uniform probably doesn''t send a good message to them, or to the rest of boys. BTW, I should have those "No Uniform Method" patches and socks in next month. I''ll get them to you asap. OGE - some people are so blinded by their politics, they can''t see the truth when it smacks them in the face. Makes you wonder about their judgement on all other issues. This from the NY Times - that ultra far-right wing publication: November 12, 2001 Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year''s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court DID NOT award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court''s order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court. Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations. (emphasis added) pack, My counter-punch to Trev was not something I actually believe, but was to show how ridiculous those types of comparisons and generalizations can be. And, in this entire thread, I believe I am the only one who has linked to any type of scientific report (NASA study) to support my thoughts. Yes, I read and study both sides of the issue, and I firmly believe the planet is warming, and I firmly believe it is the result of a natural cycle. The earth has been cooler than it is now, it has also been warmer than it is now - long before humans were here to claim any blame.

Looks like I''m not the only one who feels this way. Gore''s prize: A fraud on the people http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gore''s+prize%3A+A+fraud+on+the+people&articleId=c55c0e3e-f569-4b50-83f6-8431bde279dd Five Norwegians gave a prize to Al Gore, and all the world is supposed to heed his counsel henceforth. No, thanks. Alfred Nobel felt horrible about the uses to which his invention -- dynamite -- was put. So he endowed the Nobel Peace Prize and instructed that it go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Al Gore has done exactly none of those things. Gore, however, did write a book and make a film about global warming. He has become the second environmental activist to win the peace prize in the past four years. Wangari Muta Maathai won it in 2004 for planting trees. Thus we have indisputable confirmation that the Nobel Peace Prize is no longer a serious international award. In 1994 the five Norwegian politicians who award the prize gave it to the murdering thug Yasser Arafat. Two years before that they gave it to literary fraud Rigoberta Menchu, whose autobiography was largely fabricated. (An example: The brother she supposedly watched die of malnutrition was later found by a New York Times reporter to be very much alive and well.) On Friday the prize was given to Al Gore and the International Panel on Climate Change. Two days before, a British judge ruled that Gore''s film, "An Inconvenient Truth," contained so many errors (read: lies) that it could be shown in British public schools only if accompanied by a fact sheet correcting the errors. The Nobel Peace Prize is worse than a joke. It''s a fraud. It is such a transparent fraud that the five Norwegian politicians who award it have been reduced to defending their decision by concocting elaborate rationalizations. This year they laughably claimed that Gore deserves the prize because, well, global climate change" may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth''s resources," and "there may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars." (Emphasis ours.) And Islamic terrorists may give up jihad and sing Kumbaya after listening to old Cat Stevens records. But that''s no basis for distributing the world''s formerly most prestigious prize. If winning this useless medal prompts Al Gore to get into the presidential race, which we doubt, the irony will be that the American people will turn a more skeptical eye to His Smugness than the Nobel committee did. The American public won''t accept at face value Gore''s self-righteous proclamations or his self-serving predictions of looming global catastrophy. And Gore has to know that, which is why he will almost certainly stick to the world of make-believe -- Hollywood and International Do-Goodery -- where he can pretend to be the great sage and savior he wishes he really were and left-wing Europeans and thespians try to convince us he is.

Trev, The prize has become purely political. The committee admitted when it gave the award to Carter, they did so to throw rocks at Bush. "The Norwegian Nobel Committee contrasted Carter''s success in finding peace between Egypt and Israel through diplomacy with President Bush''s vow to oust Saddam Hussein, by force if necessary. "It (the award) should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken," said Gunnar Berge, the Nobel committee chairman. "It''s a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States." This is just the same thing with Gore - pure politics. Am I proud of him for winning a political award for making a seriously flawed movie, based on "consensus science"? Uhh....no.

Trev, Same as those who believe humans are causing GW are, by and large, part of the "blame America first" crowd, who think we are to blame for the 9/11 attacks and for all of the world''s problems.

A more serious blow to the GW crowd, NASA just came out with a report that the melting of the Arctic ice is being caused by changing wind patterns, not warmer temperatures. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html The Peace Prize has now been awarded to Yassir Arrafat, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. Could it lose any more credibility? It is now just a joke of an award, purely political.

Come on, pack, Chris was just a man before his time! Look at all his imitators - Survivorman, Man Versus Wild, I Shouldn''t Be Alive. I think the movie does the same thing as the book - presents the story in a way so the viewers can look at his actions and try to answer the $64,000 question - why? That is why I want to see it, to see if I can gain any additional insight into why such an intelligent person could end up doing something so stupid. I don''t think it is meant to glorify his life, especially in a way that would encourage others to follow his path. The funny thing is I''m not a big Sean Penn fan either, but I do really want to see the movie.

Thanks for the review. I''m waiting for the movie to reach our market - I would really like to see it. I did read the book, years ago. I have been reading reviews for the past month or so. Salon actually had a pretty good review, though I''m no big fan of Salon. That review pointed out that Alex Supertramp (Chris McCandless) ran away from his family, but was always seeking out a surrogate family on the road. From what I''ve read, Sean Penn wasn''t really going for hero worship, but more to exploring the wander lust that exists in most of us, at some level. Definitely a sad story, but also very intriguing.

Kudu, I ordered the High Adventure DVD - it is ok, but not exceptional. After viewing it, I don''t think it is exciting enough or put together in such a way to help much with the type of recruiting you discussed. I''m still glad I ordered it, and I will get plenty of use out of it explaining to the boys what to expect at the different HA camps. It will be a good tool for talking with existing Scouts, but not ideal for new recruiting.