BrentAllen

Merlyn, Your example just proved Hunt's point. The Ten Commandments you mentioned were moved - a noticeable, physical change to anyone passing by. When the CO for a Pack changed from the school to the PTA, there was no noticeable physical change. To anyone looking in from the outside, everything stayed the same. Even to those on the inside, everything looked the same. If an atheist boy wanted to join our Pack last year, chartered by & meeting at our school, he would have been turned down. If an atheist boy wanted to join our Pack now, which still meets at the school, he will be turned down. Nothing has changed. The school is not offering any other Scouting program for him to join. The much-heralded agreement did not create any other Scouting organization at the public institutions, so again, nothing has really changed. Please tell me how anyone in the general public would notice any difference. If they didn't hear about the agreement, which didn't get any coverage down here that I'm aware of, how would they know about this change?

This sounds like a very cool book! Thanks for posting the article! I just ordered one for my son, off ebay from the UK. There appears to be some controversy about Amazon not selling this book in the States. This is probably from the jacket. It is the description on ebay: If ever there was a book to make you switch off your television set, "The Dangerous Book for Boys" is it. How many other books will help you thrash someone at conkers, race your own go-cart, and identify the best quotations from Shakespeare? "The Dangerous Book for Boys" gives you facts and figures at your fingertips - swot up on the solar system, learn about famous battles and read inspiring stories of incredible courage and bravery. Teach your old dog new tricks. Make a pinhole camera. Understand the laws of cricket. There's a whole world out there: with this book, anyone can get out and explore it. "The Dangerous Book for Boys" is written with the verve and passion that readers of Conn Iggulden's number one bestselling novels have come to expect. This book, his first non-fiction work, has been written with his brother as a celebration of the long summers of their youth and as a compendium of information so vital to men of all ages. Lavishly designed and fully illustrated in color and black and white throughout, it's set to be a perfect gift for Father's Day and beyond. Chapters in "The Dangerous Book for Boys" include: The Seven Ancient Wonders of the World, Conkers, Laws of Football, Dinosaurs, Fishing, Juggling, Timers and Tripwires, Kings and Queens, Famous Battles, Spies, Making Crystals, Insects and Spiders, Astronomy, Girls, The Golden Age of Piracy, Secret Inks, Patron Saints of Britain, Skimming Stones, Dog Tricks, Making a Periscope, Coin Tricks, Marbles, Artillery, The Origin of Words, and The Solar System. Brand new hardback copy. Hardcover 400 pages (June 5, 2006) Publisher: HarperCollins Language: English ISBN: 0007232748 (This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

Calico, Sorry to hear you don't think the Scout movement is of any value to the community. The reason I volunteer so much time to the program is because I think it does improve society to teach boys to make good ethical decisions, and to teach them to become good citizens. Murder is not a good ethical decision. As the writer points out, there are many kids born into homes with no moral leadership. They don't know right from wrong, and don't value life. It is from these ranks that the murderers and violent criminals emerge. If the Boy Scouts can reach even a few of them and change their path to a positive one, it has been successful. Traffic congestion, emergency response times, a poor Fourth of July fireworks show, or a flu epidemic don't have much to do with an individual making poor ethical decisions. Murder, on the other hand, has everything to do with making poor ethical decisions. You say it is obvious the BSA isn't making a difference in the murder rate now. I counter that the rate would be much higher, if the BSA were not operating their programs in the city. My time is very valuable to me; I'm sure yours is to you. I feel this is the best program in the world for my son and the boys in our community to participate in. I honestly feel the program makes a big difference in society, and is worthy of a lot of my valuable time. If you don't feel the same, why do you volunteer your valuable time? Is Scouting something you and your son just participate in one night a week?

"And if it's such a trivial change, why was your pack chartered by a public school for years after the Dale decision?" Because, again, it wasn't an issue! No one asked us to change our charter! Believe me when I say there was no one, not a single person, complaining about our public school charter. Where are all these people upset about their rights being violated?? When the BSA asked us to change, we did. Do you really think everyone followed the Dale decision, or even knows about it now? If I asked the parents in our Pack to describe the Dale decision, I don't think a single one would know what I'm talking about! How many times do we have to say this - nobody here sees this as being of any importance at all! No one saw the Pack charter as being a case of religious discrimination - not in the Pack, not in the school administration, not in the PTA, not in the school body! That is what you cannot seem to understand. You are knocking yourself out for such a small group, it is really pretty sad. The Supreme Court has not ruled the school charters are a violation of the constitution; it is your opinion and that of the ACLU. The BSA agreed to conform because it was the cheaper way out. Again, instead of handing the recharter form to the school principal sitting to the left of me, I hand it to the PTA president, who is sitting on my right. It is such a small issue, it is not worth going to court to fight! Which is the smarter course of action - spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the issue in court, or asking Packs to get a different signature on their recharter form? Anyone, anyone? This case is the crown jewel of nitpicking!!

Dan writes, "I've found that pigeonholing people into the categories of "left" and "right", particularly by painting them with a broad brush over issues that really cross ideologic lines (how many other "righties" are critical of FNC here?), often completely shuts down meaningful dialog." Sorry, but this has never been an issue with me. I am a conservative, Republican, red state right-winger. I have no problem with those terms, because they truthfully describe me. I have never heard anyone on the right complain about being labeled with any of those terms. In fact, we have RINO's who like to be called Republicans, but really aren't. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of people on the left who complain about being called leftists, lefties, liberals, blue state left-wingers. Why is that?

Merlyn, One final question, which for me, sums up the importance and depth of this situation, of changing the signature on the recharter application from the principal to the PTA president. How many nits could a nitpick pick, if a nitpick could pick nits?

Just speculating here, but I'm pretty sure Supplex nylon is not going to burst into flames. If anything, it will melt. The US military recently prohibited our soldiers from wearing Coolmax or other polyester t-shirts or u/w. The problem is if the soldier wearing polyester is involved in an explosion, the flames/heat melts the material onto the skin. That is the one downside of the product, which doesn't happen with cotton. Scouts shouldn't have to worry about that problem. Just found this on the net: All fabrics will burn but some are more combustible than others. Untreated natural fibers such as cotton, linen and silk burn more readily than wool, which is more difficult to ignite and burns with a low flame velocity. The weight and weave of the fabric will affect how easily the material will ignite and burn. Recommended fabrics are materials with a tight weave. Heavy, tight weave fabrics will burn more slowly than loose weave, light fabrics of the same material. The surface texture of the fabric also affects flammability. Fabrics with long, loose, fluffy pile or "brushed" nap will ignite more readily than fabrics with a hard, tight surface, and in some cases will result in flames flashing across the fabric surface. Most synthetic fabrics, such as nylon, acrylic or polyester resist ignition. However, once ignited, the fabrics melt. This hot, sticky, melted substance causes localized and extremely severe burns. When natural and synthetic fibers are blended, the hazard may increase because the combination of high rate of burning and fabric melting usually will result in serious burns. In some cases, the hazard may be greater than that of either fabric individually. In terms of flammability, silk may be the worst with a high burning rate, which may be increased by the dyes and other additives to provide color. Cotton and linen also have a high burning rate but this can be alleviated by the application of flame-retardant chemical additives. Acetate and triacetate are as flammable or slightly less flammable than cotton. However, they can be made flame-retardant with chemical treatment. Nylon, polyester and acrylic tend to be slow to ignite but once ignited, severe melting and dripping occurs. Wool is comparatively flame-retardant. If ignited, it usually has a low burning rate and may self-extinguish. http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/fire/flammable.asp

Calico, I think your analysis of the evolution of cable news is pretty accurate. Any of us who saw/heard Bernard Shaw reporting from that hotel room will probably never forget that. Z-, The reason I keep comparing O'Reilly to Rather or Arnett is because he keeps getting slammed as if he was the worst thing to happen to television. For instance, Dan writes "Bill O'Reilly certainly seems to be the worst offender on the misinformation without correction, retraction, or apology hit parade." There have been plenty of slams in other threads. My point is to those who think O'Reilly is the "worst offender", he doesn't hold a candle to a couple of real "worst offenders" who are considered "real", "serious" or "respected" reporters.

No epaulets?? Where would you wear your loops?? Supplex nylon does not "stand up" like the current materials used in today's shirts. Sew any badge on them anywhere, and they are going to be droopy. As much as I like the modern material, I don't think it would work very well for a uniform shirt. Maybe some other suitable material would work better...

Dan, Kind of like when I watch Media Research Center and NewsBusters to see how ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and NPR twist the news to favor the left. Tell me one thing - please point out one instance where O'Reilly did anything half as bad as using forged documents to try to influence a national election. Or anything half as bad as falsly accusing the US of using nerve gas on American defectors in Laos. Can you point out anything O'Reilly has done that even comes close to falling in those neighborhoods? I never knew how much O'Reilly's success stung the left.

SA, My question was concerning knowledge about FNC shows, not knowledge in general. Some posters here really despise Hannity and O'Reilly. How can they know if they really dislike them unless they watch them? Some have posted comments about the accuracy, or lack there of, in O'Reilly's shows. How would they know unless they are watching him regularly? I have tried to watch the Daily Show, and it just isn't that funny to me. Stewart's schtik is annoying and predictable. Either my Georgia Tech degree isn't what it is made out to be, or elitist liberal Ivy League'rs dominate the Daily Show audience. Regardless, I would like to see that pop quiz. So, are we ever going to catch Saddam Hussein? :-)

CNN tried confrontational news with Crossfire, and it didn't work. To say Fox is just winning with that style of news is a little disingenuous. To me, the format simply isn't boring. Looking at the comments here, their plan must be working extremely well. A lot of posters have a lot of bad things to say about Fox, but they are also very knowledgable about the news shows. Am I wrong to assume that knowledge was gained by tuning in to Fox? Seems to be a lot of viewers here.

Give it a rest, Merlyn. Public schools have only been chartering Packs and Troops for the past 75 years or so. In all that time, no one saw any "blatant constitutional violations." And be honest - you aren't interested in seeing the schools stop violating anyone's civil rights - you just want to force the BSA to change its policy. If you were really interested in not "allowing public schools to practice religious discrimination" you would have gone after the schools, instead of going after the BSA. The name of your group is "Scouting For All", not "No Religious Discrimination at Public Schools." Has the U.S. Supreme Court ever ruled that a public school chartering a Pack is a violation of the constitution? Or did the BSA just agree to stop accepting charters to call of the rabid ACLU dogs?

Merlyn, RE: Supereme Court, I was talking about the BSA decision, not schools. Since the school requested and owned the charter, they would be the ones sued. We can run in circles forever if you wish, over a non-issue. Your scare tactics are about as threatening as 30 lashes with a wet noodle.

Fuzzy, I think you have oversimplified the situation in the mid-east. If we never needed another drop of oil, the Israel-Muslim/Arab problem would still exist. I'm starting to agree with Rush Limbaugh - I don't think that problem will be solved until full war breaks out and someone wins and someone surrenders unconditionally. Given the UN's meddling, that might not even produce a final resolution.

Wouldn't it be the school leaders that lacked principles, since they decided to own the charter? Wouldn't they be the ones violating civil rights? We are just a Cub Scout Pack, lawfully discriminating within our rights. How can we violate someone else's religious rights? The Supreme Court has already decided that issue. I think you need to get your information straight. When are you going to turn your attention to the fact that NY City is violating all the citizens rights to own firearms, as protected by the 2nd Amendment? Winning that fight might gain you a little more fame and fortune. It won't change BSA policy any more than your current fight, but at least those you are supposedly helping would know and care about the issue.

No. Just as now, I would not allow them to join. It never happened before, it will probably never happen now. There never was anybody to sue us, or complain. Again, nothing has changed! This is a victory for who? If you are trying to get the BSA to change the policy, how is this a victory for you? It has not changed the policy one iota. I'm glad you are excited about it. Rearranging the sock drawer must be a humdinger in your household!

I'm pretty sure they are going to say "So what?" I hate to burst your bubble, but most people out there, including atheists, think this is one of the biggest non-issues they have ever seen! What would I say? The same thing I would say now. It doesn't change anything. That is what you don't get, Merlyn - it doesn't change a thing! Whether we are chartered by the school or the PTA, is doesn't matter. We still meet at the school, nearly all our Scouts come from the school, they wear their uniforms to school. Nobody other than the CC, ACM and me (CM) even know the charter was changed. To them, nothing ever happened. I'm glad you feel you are saving the world - too bad nobody, including all those supposedly affected atheists, even know about it. That is what I mean by shallow victories. At the end of the day, you have changed nothing.

Z, Yes, I do consider it to be fair and balanced. The question you should is ask is balanced against what? I think they do a fair job of presenting different sides to an issue, but I also think they balance the rest of the MSM. Beaver likes to blast Hannity, but last time I checked, they have Colmes on there to present the other side. It gets a little too heated for my taste, but they do present both sides. They also have Brit Hume with his roundtable, which includes Mara Liasson from NPR, Fred Barnes from The Weekly Standard, and Mort Kondracke from Roll Call - that looks pretty balanced to me. I think Cavuto and Smith are pretty good about giving both sides of an issue as well. You see a lot of liberals on Fox - they are given a chance to present their side. Beaver - Drudge didn't beat the MSM to the Monica story - he was just the first to publish it. Newsweek had the story, but for some odd reason, they sat on it. BTW, Drudge didn't say Kerry had an affair. He said "others are reporting that Kerry had an affair..." Yes, I will give you it is sort of a dodge - sort of like Iran having Hezbollah do their dirty work for them. O'Reilly may make a few mistakes, but I'd take his record over that of the NYTimes any day. I'd be embarassed to work for that paper these days. O'Reilly isn't going to toss softballs like Larry King, so some people won't go on his show. I've seen him interview some arch-enemies, and he has treated them with respect, and he gives them the last word. So, yes, I do consider FNC balanced - certainly much more balanced than any of the other cable or network news casts.

We saw some Illinois Boy Scouts heading west into North Carolina around Asheville, back on Sunday, July 16th. Two white vans, one towing a red (I think) trailer. Couldn't get the Troop number. Y'all like to travel! My son will be a Webelos II this year, so no full summer camp for us this summer. We did attend the NEGA Council Scoutland Adventure Camp at Lake Lanier. They have a special Outback Adventure for Web II's, which was very cool. We got to canoe to Outback Island (actually a penisula) and set up our own camp. The boys had to start the fires and cook the meals. Plenty of swimming and Scout skills. The staff was very impressive, marching in on cadence for colors. Some were older, in college a year or two, and their maturity showed. They were clearly having as much fun as the younger staff members. We learned some new songs to take back to the Pack. Food is catered in, since they only have a warming kitchen. Very good, and plenty of it. After 4 days and 3 nights, we had to pack up and head home. My son was asking if we could go back next year; I told him no, he would get to go to Boy Scout camp next summer, where the real fun begins! After reading all these great reviews, I can't wait!

Fuzzy, What do you think is going to happen to the person who invents the economically viable fuel cell, or some other alternative energy form? Think they will give Bill Gates a run for his money on the "Most Wealthy" list? I do. That being said, don't you think there is plenty of motivation for our best and brightest to be working on this problem? It cracks me up when people suggest there isn't anyone seriously working to solve this problem. I guess they think the beer companies are in cahoots with the oil companies to keep the best and brightest college students drunk and hung over!

Tell you what, Merlyn - if I ever actually run into any atheists who realize their civil rights were being violated because our Pack was chartered by an elementary school, I'll be sure to point out that you were the man, the champion, who protected them. Fair enough? The atheists I do know have never said a word about it. Should I enlighten them?

John, All I can tell you is the staff at the AAC Scout Shop, including the woman in charge of purchasing, say these will be official Class A Field Uniform pants. They are the same exact color as the current uniform. Why would they make them the same color if they weren't going to be replacements for official BSA pants? When they issued the activity shirt, it was a different color. They have certainly gone to a lot of trouble to make these look like the current pants. Does anyone know if they sent a sample shirt to all of the shops before they issued them? They have done this with these pants. We should hear the official word on August 1.

Merlyn, I really don't want to help you sleep any better. However, I do enjoy exposing your ignorance. Those numbers are for 2005, correct? The agreement went into effect in 2005. Units recharter in either December or January. Those numbers are for units that rechartered in December 04 or January 05. The 2006 numbers will show the true results, after the agreement. FYI, my unit was chartered by our elementary school until we rechartered in January 06. So our unit is in that 3,881 count, but won't be in the 2006 count. How pitiful that your life is measured by such shallow victories.

I'm glad this stuff keeps Merlyn up at night. He truly deserves what he gets. How about Pack 733 at Arthur Kramer Elementary? Are they chartered by a public school? Here is the web address: http://www.kramerelementary.org/pack_733.html Sure looks like it, doesn't it? Read the page and you will find the truth - the only problem is, will Merlyn recognize the truth when he sees it? Now you have only 3,880 units to check on! Knock yourself out!