Lisabob

Egad, Brent, that's awful. I agree that such statements would be utterly beyond the pale and no, I had not caught that one. Upon checking, I see that it was reported in a number of what are often referred to by conservatives as "liberal MSM" news outlets, including the Wash Post. In the NY Daily News Bernhard was quoted as attempting an explanation as follows: ""[The gang rape comment] is part of a much larger, nuanced, and yes, provocative (that's what I do) piece from my show about racism, freedom, women's rights and the extreme views of Governor Sarah Palin, a woman who doesn't believe that other women should have the right to choose," Bernhard told the Daily News today. "Women deserve better," she continued. "I certainly wish Governor Palin no harm. I'd just like her to explain to me how she can hold such outrageous views - and then go back to Alaska."" http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/09/19/2008-09-19_sandra_bernhard_issues_gang_rape_warning-2.html I don't find her "explanation" to be very convincing though.

OK GW, here's your pointer. This is included in the revision of No Child Left Behind. Here's the title of the relevant section: "Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act" Full text of the act can be found here: http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+5426+0++(%27patriot%20act%27%20and%20Boy%20Scouts) Thought I'd also add this, in case people are unsure of what the actual text means. The Code of Federal Regulations includes all federal bureaucratic "rules" of interpretation. W/ regard to this Act, the CFR states the following: "Clarifying that equal access under the Act includes not only access to school facilities for meetings before, during, or after school, but also includes access to other activities related to an intention by any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts or any other Title 36 youth group to conduct a meeting within a covered entity's designated open forum or limited public forum. These other activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, means of communication and recruitment." The above quote, and a lengthy discussion of the "rule" and how it was arrived at (including summaries of public input into the process) are available here: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2006-1/032406a.html (This message has been edited by lisabob)

I don't think the quality of the video is necessarily the focal point. In some of the videos where death threats are made against Obama (at McC rallies) the sound quality also isn't the best. The bigger point is that neither party ought to be acting in ways that encourage the nutjobs to feel like it is ok to act openly nutty and dangerous. And last week that happened more than a few times on the Republican side, beyond the normal push and shove of politics to the level of calling someone a traitor and issuing death threats (that crosses the line in my view, and apparently in the Secret Service's view). Now I will agree that McCain seems to have taken some steps toward toning things down (though he still plays the same outrageous ads). And I'm not saying it is ok for people on the other side to act the same way. But I haven't yet heard the other side responding with threats of violence, either. What I have heard is rude and vulgar behavior. I don't want to condone that but it simply does not sink to the same level as stuff people were yelling about Obama last week. I would have thought that people who support the Republican campaign would be just as outraged to see their candidates veering off into such horrendous territory too, rather than attempting to deny or defend it as has occurred in some cases.

Beavah has it right here. We went through this a couple of years ago with our local school district. Our district exec took the matter to his superiors at council, who consulted their legal advisers. When word came back that schools could NOT selectively exclude the BSA, and when that was clearly explained (in writing, I believe) to the school district, they backed down. This is not a state, county, town, district, or school-by-school decision. This is national law. However keep in mind that most school principals (and some superintendents) are not that current on national law and may need direction.

I'm a liberal. By no means would I ever agree that hate speech should be defined as anything with which I disagree. There are zealots on all sides of the political spectrum, and all of them can be obnoxious to try to have a reasoned conversation with. My advice is that if you find yourself on the opposing side of a "screaming heads" match, you need to go find a better class of ideological sparring partners. No matter who does the screaming, it tends to be a last resort for folks who have run out of real arguments. But don't kid yourselves- zealotry is simply not the exclusive domain of any ideological group. And if you can't help but engage in the shouting match with friends/family then maybe stay clear of those topics, if you value your friendship and kinship ties!

Yeah, I thought I'd throw these out there for kicks and giggles. Both of these sites are well-regarded for investigating rumors and claims made by candidates, their staffs, and their supporters. Factcheck.org is sponsored by the Annenberg foundation, which tends to be more conservative/Republican. Politifact is a joint effort of the St Petersburg (FL) Times and Congressional Quarterly (an inside-the-beltway newspaper covering Capitol Hill's doings). But again, both play things pretty evenly and are considered to be reliable sources. Next time you hear something too horrible to be true, or you get blitzed with ads making one of the candidates seem like the devil incarnate, before passing it along or swallowing it whole, I encourage you to check out the veracity of the claims on one, or both, of these sites. http://www.factcheck.org/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

Vol, there's plenty of coverage out there, in news outlets of all stripes, of the recent outbursts at the McCain rallies. Reportedly, the secret service is looking into some of the harsher outcries. By the way, regarding your previous concern, you may also want to check out this link (re: "born alive") http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/762/ OR this one http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_alive_baloney.html You might note that this assertion against Obama was found to be "false" by both Factcheck.org and by Politifact.com, both well-regarded groups. (though Factcheck asserts as well that Obama's comeback was also flawed in its claim that McCain wants to ban all abortions - in fact, that would be Palin's stance though not (previously) McCain's.)

I'm always surprised when any one side in a political contest or a sporting contest feels the need to lay claim to a higher power as their rationale for why they deserve to win (or the other guy deserves not to win). For one thing it makes some very human and very arrogant assumptions about the nature of their deity, that he/she/it would even notice, let alone deign to intervene in, such a petty matter. For another, in order to make sense it requires an assumption that the opposition in somehow unworthy, or perhaps downright ungodly. And then too, it becomes rather problematic when the "right" side loses. How, for example, are we to understand McCain/Palin's possible defeat in a few weeks? From one side of things we're hearing that they and their supporters have the ear of a higher power. We're hearing about prayers that voters will be guided to vote as "He" would want. We're hearing about how the candidates seek to be "blessed" with a win. And so, if McCain loses, does that mean the opponent was more in touch with their higher power? Or that McCain is not one of the favored after all? Or that McCain's supporters simply didn't pray hard enough? Or that voters who voted for Obama were, in fact, being guided by that same higher power to do just that? Or that the forces of evil overwhelmed the forces of good? I just can't see it. If your guy wins and you invoke a higher power to explain why, then what does it mean if your guy loses, after having invoked that same higher power?

What do you mean by "supposed calls for harm?" Are you suggesting that perhaps these did not actually occur at Republican rallies last week?

I think you should split the den up as well, but regardless of whether you do that or not, you should GET YOUR DEN OUT OF THE ZOO in the cafeteria. There's no reason to have all the dens meet at the same time/same place, and lots of reasons not to, as you've discovered. Claim your own space (and/or time) and a large portion of your problem may resolve itself when you no longer have to compete with the rest of the dens.

Nah, it won't even take this particular troll 3 weeks, Calico. He's already gone. This was a drive-by troll.

Just an update - my council sent out an email with some info this week. Estimated cost will be about $2000 and they're interviewing adults at the end of this month.

Vol, There are mixed records regarding Thurmond's repudiation of his earlier (clearly racist) stances. I don't know what he felt in his heart, obviously. My point was, and remains, that if McCain and his followers want to try to make the case that Obama is somehow less than honorable, or even dangerous, based on limited associations with other people (rather than based on the candidate's own views and actions on relevant issues), then neither McCain nor pretty much any other politician should get a pass on the basis of their past associations, however remote, themselves. Now that's clearly a somewhat ridiculous position (to say McCain is a racist because he associated with racists), but that's my point re: Obama too. Obama is certainly no terrorist and, like or dislike him, he's not "dangerous" to the point that people ought to be afraid for America if he's elected. Now what I have found problematic is McCain's tacit acceptance of the sort of talk where McC's supporters shout racial slurs and yell for violent attacks against his opponent. That's not the best of American democratic tradition and McC should be ashamed. Judging from the fact that, in the last 24 hours McCain has begun to pull back from such rhetoric, perhaps he actually has the grace to BE ashamed. But he can't have it both ways. He can't say that he wants to run a respectful campaign, and then also play the same crazy ads and encourage his lap (pit bull) dog Palin to say the same outrageous things at the same time.

Ed, I'd never have thought it... And I agree completely with you that attempting to limit the use of those words is silly. If the BSA program can't stand on its own as a distinct program at this point in its history, then it is far weaker than I think it is. I don't believe the BSA even needs this sort of legal protection any more, if it ever did.

In the way of non-liberals endorsing Obama, Christopher Buckley (William F. Buckley's son and a regular columnist for the conservative National Review magazine that his father started) came out for Obama yesterday. Vol, you are correct that Byrd, Thurmond, Helms, etc. were not directly implicated in terrorist acts. Some of them were Klan members though and we know that the Klan engaged in all sorts of racial violence. That is no better. Within the last year McCain has publicly lauded Thurmond as an "astute politician and [...] dedicated public servant." Now we could, I suppose, argue about whether Thurmond's (sort of) change of heart late in his life qualifies him as a figure to be respected, or whether he remains a villain, or a relic of his times, or whatever. My point, though, is that here are several Senators with whom McCain did "pal around" and in some cases, whose coat tails McCain has attempted to ride upon (a la, praising THurmond at a South Carolina rally in an obvious attempt to get votes). If McCain's point about Bill Ayres is that people should fear Obama because of the fact that 35 years ago this guy did something practically everybody including Obama denounces, well then I think McCain had better look more carefully at his own associations first. This kind of Kevin Bacon game in politics is ridiculous. What politician of any national prominence at all hasn't, at some point in their long careers, been tangentially linked to someone controversial? If associations are the only thing that matters then we'd best throw out all the bums, including McCain and Palin! No, what matters is what the candidates say, do, and stand for. And for me, I'm mightily unimpressed with McCain/Palin's current hate-mongering. They're allowing racism to flourish right under their noses. They can't even express astonishment that things have turned so ugly because, frankly, they stirred up this mess and are smart enough that they should have known where it would lead. Thus it is clear to me that McCain RIGHT NOW, TODAY, HIMSELF, is willing to do anything to win, even to the point of allowing people to incite racial and ethnic violence. What McCain and Palin are doing now is pandering to the worst elements of American society, just in a desperate ploy to win (or not lose so badly). That's not honorable and that's not leadership. I had thought better of McCain than this.

citizenship in the community citizenship in the world communication American cultures scholarship I'm thinking I may drop communications in favor of another (maybe American heritage). There are lots of counselors out there for the various Eagle-required badges, and as our council limits us to a maximum of 5 badges, it can be more challenging to find a counselor for some of the less commonly earned badges. On the other hand, I've been a counselor for the American cultures badge for several years, I am the only person in our council registered for that badge, and not one boy has ever contacted me about it. Anybody else counsel the American heritage badge? Is there much demand for it?

I wanted to clarify that my point about McC's associational relationship with the likes of Byrd, Thurmond, Helms, et. al, was not to suggest that McCain is therefore also a racist or that he "hates America" or something equally ridiculous, but rather to point out that it becomes very easy to paint with too broad a brush when drawing conclusions about someone based on who else they've been tenuously linked to in the past. I do think this business of allowing your supporters to shout death threats against your opponents without rejoinder or reprimand is extremely disturbing though, and raises far more immediate questions about character and patriotism.

There are plenty of reasons to like or dislike a candidate, and I'm not out to change anybody's mind here (since that seems unlikely to happen anyway). But I would point out, scoutldr, that some of the things you ask about Obama can just as easily be asked about McCain. McCain has not released a full medical file and in fact, gave a hand-picked group of reporters just a couple of hours to peruse over a thousand page of (un-numbered, out of sequence) medical records, without the ability to take notes or make copies on those records. At age 72 and with his medical history, I think that's less than re-assuring. He has also "palled around" with people who had (at best) questionable values. This is the same fellow who worked side by side with folks who favored segregation and used incendiary language about racial minorities, for years. (Think, Robert Byrd, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, among others - all committed racists at some points in their careers.) More recently, he has not only associated with, but actually hired and paid the exact same folks who stooped to election-year tricks so dirty and beneath the dignity of the American process as to cause even fellow Republicans to howl in outrage. Notably, the same guys who cooked up the "black illegitimate baby" story in the 2000 primary to undermine McCain's campaign, now work for McCain. Not to mention the fact that at recent rallies, supporters have publicly called Obama a terrorist, a traitor, and shouted for his death. We're talking angry mobs here, folks, and this sort of thing rarely ends well. And the candidate McCain has done not one thing to attempt to put a lid on such dangerous talk. That's horrible for American democracy, no matter who wins. I don't care if you like McCain or Obama, or not. I do care about being honest about what you expect from your candidates and how you evaluate the "other" guy. Me, I expected better from John McCain. He is a patriot and a bona fide hero, and he has served well as a US Senator most of the time. He has, at some points in his career, screwed up, but he has also had the grace and humility to admit it and seek to improve upon his weaknesses. What I'm seeing from him now though? It is very disappointing. He's better than this.

My council has a limit of 5 MBs per counselor and as far as I'm aware, no serious check of qualifications. One has to specify why one is qualified when filling out the initial paperwork, but I have serious doubts that anyone ever checks up on whatever is written. Now in our case, I've been told that the 5 MB limit comes from a time when some MBCs signed up for 20+ MBs, and some scouts could (and presumably did?) earn all MBs in their entire careers just from one or two people in their home troops. That is seen as a potential abuse of the "trustworthiness" of a scouter (can someone truly counsel 20 or more badges and do them all justice?), as well as a poor use of the adult association method.

Exactly what sort of "immoral values" are you talking about here? There must be a heck of a lot more going on in that troop than what you have posted here, because so far all I've seen is that the SM is inviting unregistered adults to camp with the troop. Now that could be an issue, but on what basis? Why are you so worried about these adults? What have they done that makes them a threat, in your eyes? (And how do you think attempting to impose a form, which frankly I imagine the SM isn't going to agree to and will likely blow off, is going to resolve this?)

Ed the problem I have with the assumptions you, GW, and many others "out there" seem to be making is that they are only correct for a certain segment of society. There are plenty of people out there driving the $1000 clunker cars and living in smaller and smaller apartments to try to keep making ends meet. These are the folks who raise a family on $40k or less a year. There's not much left for these people to cut back on; they're already on the edge. And I see plenty of these folks at work and in scouting on a regular basis. Maybe things are different where you live but that's reality around here. In fact I've had a couple of conversations with folks recently who told me they were probably going to have to pull out of scouts because they couldn't afford it any longer. And I don't doubt them. I have a lot less sympathy for people who drive fully loaded SUVs, own every "must-have" electronic gadget under the sun, have grown accustomed to eating out 5 nights a week rather than bothering to shop and cook for themselves, and bought McMansions at such ridiculously inflated prices that they could barely afford to furnish their homes. Surely these folks could have been more cautious in the boom times, and then they'd be far better off in the down times (like now). But that's only one small segment of people feeling the pain of this economy. Let's not caricature those folks who are truly being hurt by this and who have no cushion to fall back upon, despite being hard working and frugal individuals.

Well I think a lot of scouters "use scouts for their own enjoyment." If that were not the case then many of our adult volunteers would not be here. I don't necessarily see a problem with this, as long as we also recall that scouting is *more than* an opportunity for adults to enjoy themselves. And maybe the SM is attempting to bring along a few new adults who would consider becoming troop leaders at some future point? That could actually be really good news for your troop (the adults have enough fun that they register as ASMs or committee members?). What did you mean when you said you were stuck with the one guest's fees from the previous camp out? Do you mean you personally ended up paying for him? Perhaps what you do need is a clearer set of expectations at the committee level about who pays to attend events. But that's the committee's job, not an ASM's job. Your notion of a form, or formal committee approval of guests for that matter, I find to be too heavy handed a way to address this issue. Not knowing the other dynamics of the troop, it is hard to say what you ought to do. But John's right that this is not the ASMs duty. For that matter, I really don't believe it is the committee's duty either. This doesn't mean I think the SM is 100% on the right track here. It sounds as though he is causing frustrations and tensions where there doesn't need to be any. It would be courteous of the SM to talk with his staff (ASMs) and the CC prior to inviting random buddies along for fun. But I don't think you all have veto power over guests either, unless there's a whole lot more to the story and these guests are acting in highly inappropriate manner around the kids. And so far you haven't suggested that is the case. Sounds to me like what you have here is a communication problem and an expectations problem. Forms and "pre-approval" by committee do not solve these types of problems. Talking with each other like reasonable adults is the only serious option.

gcan, does your unit have a unit commissioner? If you do, this might be a good time to call him or her for some help with this delicate task, and both of you could meet with the CC. Sometimes an outside, friendly, voice can achieve things that are much more difficult when it is just you meeting with the CC. Having been booted out of 3 other organizations including your CO isn't a good sign. As BW will surely chime in, this is a problem that would be far less likely if everybody actually followed the leader selection guidelines from the BSA. In all likelihood, the CO would not have chosen her to head up their pack, had the process been followed. (In reality, I know of very few units who follow these, myself, sad to say. So I'm not criticizing your pack, just making a comment about the gap between ideal and real sometimes.) But the larger issue - unless there's someone else who is not already wearing too many scouting hats and who is both more capable and willing to be the CC, then I'd recommend you slow down with talk of sacking this woman and look first at helping her understand the boundaries of her position. Also, CCs shouldn't be running meetings with/for youth. That's really the CM's and DL's jobs. If you can make that clear to everyone and the rest of the DL/CM group are up to snuff, you'll be able to avoid future situations where she "wigs out" on the kids because she'll never be running a kids' activity. By the way, what is your role in the pack? Are you on the committee? Are you a Den Leader? The CM? Your role may influence how you approach her.

Go ahead and call national, but probably more importantly, call your Scout Executive and your council president too. They're the ones who have any real influence at your council level. National doesn't, in most cases (or anyway that's my understanding)

There's a time to have that friendly cup of coffee and a chat, when things seem to be going a bit off track. I think you're there. Seems that people are often ready to kick out volunteers for various transgressions without stopping to consider that maybe this is an over-reaction. So this woman has a lot of strengths but annoys people by being to hands-on. Reminds me of that old knock-knock joke... Knock Knock... Who's there? .... (scroll down for punch line) Control Freak. OK now you say "control freak who?" You can all "fire" her (assuming your CO is either oblivious or in agreement), or you can find a way to politely let her know to back off, and then also help her direct her considerable organizational talents to places where it is really needed.