NJCubScouter

Bobanon, I agree with you. By his "background" I was specifically talking about his criminal conviction, later overturned due to an ill-advised grant of immunity by the Senate. My point is that even if a criminal violation were not part of his background, he is not an appropriate speaker for the BSA because of his message.

I think the most important point here is not necessarily Oliver North's background, but the type of message he delivers, and you know he is going to deliver that message when you book him. You know he is going to ATTACK the so-called enemies of Scouting, to exaggerate the motives and methods of those who simply think the BSA has no business excluding certain people, and most ridiculously, to call those who question BSA policies members of the "far left." On this forum, and in real life, I have encountered many people who do not think the BSA should exclude gay people, or who at least could live with the BSA changing its policy, and the vast majority of them were not members of the "far left." Some of them are conservatives. The problem with people like Oliver North, or at least the characters they play when you throw some money at them and give them a microphone, is that everyone who disagrees with them is a radical on the far left and is seeking to destroy America. Is that the message we want to be sending the boys, that if you disagree with me, you are the enemy? Because that is the message Oliver North sends. John brings up two good examples of another kind of speaker, Gerald Ford (who is probably not on the circuit anymore these days) and Colin Powell. They are moderate men with moderate messages. But I guess they don't stir up the crowd enough for some people, because they stress the positive, and not making an enemy out of your neighbor. Some councils would rather have the guy who throws red meat to the crowd, I guess.

SR540, they are probably considering it at their leisure.

I said: One can quickly imagine the kind of chaos it could cause the potential for abuse. I meant "One can quickly imagine the kind of chaos it could cause, and the potential for abuse."

I have never heard of either a "blank" merit badge or the ability to create your own merit badge, and it does not sound very likely to me. One can quickly imagine the kind of chaos it could cause the potential for abuse. I have heard of merit badges being "piloted" in one or more councils before actually being introduced, but that is done by national, not by a troop. Any Scouter can suggest a merit badge, but national decides what are merit badges, what the requirements are, publishes the pamphlet, etc. Of course, the BSA does produce a blank round patch, but it is the blank patrol patch. Could it be that someone confused the blank patrol patch with a merit badge? (I realize they are not the same size, I am just speculating.)

Beavah says: Because da "supervisor" or "superior" is responsible for supervision, eh? They shouldn't need to be "made aware," they should be makin' themselves aware. Dat's the legal doctrine. Beavah, I don't think that's (excuse me for typing correctly) the legal doctrine applicable to this case. The BSA (national or council) is not necessarily liable for every wrongful act committed by a unit volunteer in the course of a unit activity. A superior or supervisor is not necessarily liable for the actions of a subordinate; it depends on the circumstances. In addition, the legal doctrine that sometimes makes an employer liable for the acts of an employee, does not necessarily apply to the BSA's relationship with a unit volunteer.

So, Beavah, when you are at "community events," you often find that people are whipping out articles about the Boy Scouts and wanting to discuss them, do you?

My understanding is that LDS packs follow the same Webelos "program" in the sense that they use the same handbook, have the same advancements with the same requirements, etc. As has been said, the difference is in "timing," but the specific thing about the timing is that in LDS packs the Webelos program is only one year (age 10) as opposed to the approximately 1.5 years in other packs, and the boys are entering and leaving constantly, individually (based on their birthday) instead of when they change grades in school as a group. That is why there is a separate page in the Webelos leader book explaining how to best sequence the activity badges and other requirements for the Webelos badge and Arrow of Light so that the boys can earn both. As I recall, it is probably just one double-sided page, not "many pages" as someone said earlier. I have never been particularly offended that the BSA provides this information to better allow LDS packs to adapt the Webelos program to their own needs, but I have wondered how many BSA units an organization would have to charter before they get their own page in the official publications.

The meaning of that statement from G2SS has been debated in this forum before. Personally I wish it just said "Use of tobacco products is prohibited at all BSA activities and all adult leaders are required to enforce this prohibition." I wouldn't even limit it to just activities involving "youth participants," but even if that limitation was in there it would be better than the convoluted, ambiguous sentence that is there now. On the other hand, no matter how clear the statement is, I suspect that would not have changed what kraut-60 saw or the fact that the adult leader waved him away.

Scoutldr, you are probably right. I was not really making a distinction between "where the CO is" and "where the troop meets," probably because in my experience they have always been the same place. I suppose there could be situations where they are not. I am sure some CO's have multiple locations and a unit may meet at one that is not in the same council as where the CO's headquarters is. There may be some ambiguous situations (the church that is the CO is on one side of the street but the troop meets in the church's Sunday School building on the other side of the street, and the street is the council boundary) but I would hope and expect that this (undoubtedly rare) situation would be covered by the "rule of common sense." However, I was not suggesting that brooktrout's troop go meet in the street somewhere, 5 feet over the council boundary. In the vast majority of cases, "moving the troop" would also involve getting a new CO.

I suppose anything is possible, but in theory such an effort should not succeed, since a council serves a defined geographic area. I would be surprised if a "neighboring" council would accept a charter from a unit that is not within its defined area. Beyond the fact that it would probably violate the council's own charter from national, a council that accepted such a unit charter could hardly complain the next month when two of its own units decided to join a different council. Eventually the whole idea of councils as geographic entities would begin to erode. There is, of course, a way to change councils, and that is to change where your troop meets so that it is in a different council. That is probably not a practical solution unless your unit is very close to the border of the council, and even then, it would probably be better and less disruptive to just resolve whatever issues you are having with your current council.

The link in my last post seems to go to a non-existent article. I am not sure how that happened since I am creating the link the same way I am creating this one... but try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Spangled_Banner Disclaimer: Wikipedia has a lot of information, and at any given moment most of it is true, but you don't get to know which parts are true, which are just opinions, and which are completely false. This particular article, however, seems to be well-researched and does not seem to have been vandalized, taken over by adherents of particular ideologies, or any of the other things that happen to articles on Wikipedia.

Then again, maybe only in English is the best approach I don't see why whatever language people want to sing and/or listen to it in, isn't the best approach. Nobody is forcing anyone to listen to this new song... which from what I have read, is not simply "The Star Spangled Banner" in Spanish, but has lyrics "based closely on" The Star Spangled Banner. I have now listened to it, so I would know what everybody is talking about, and have read the lyrics. It has additional lyrics beyond what a simple translation would contain. And for Packsaddle, the tune is the same, more or less, though it is highly "stylized" and I was not sure right away that it actually is the same tune. However, music-wise it is no further from the "traditional" renditions than many of the versions I have heard sung at sporting events over the past 30+ years. It is definitely in the style of current Latino music that I have heard coming out of the car radio while tuning between my oldies station and my classic rock station. By the way, it appears that the U.S. government itself has no problem with the National Anthem in other languages, as the government issued an official translation in Spanish more than 80 years ago. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner. The same article mentions that it has been translated into other languages as well. But I guess anything "foreign" is a hot political button right now.

I will leave it to others to debate immigration policy and the relative merits of "The Star Spangled Banner," except to quote the humorous "history" book "It All Started With Columbus": "In an attempt to take Baltimore, the British attacked Fort McHenry, which protected the harbor. Bombs were soon bursting in air, rockets were glaring, and all in all it was a moment of great historical interest. During the bombardment, a young lawyer named Francis Scott Key wrote The Star-Spangled Banner, and when, by the dawn's early light, the British heard it sung, they fled in terror!" As for "Nuestra Himno," I would quote that other great American, Sean Connery... er, that great Scotsman, Sean Connery, who, while playing a Soviet submarine captain in "The Hunt For Red October," said (in, inexplicably, his usual Scottish accent) these immortal words: Let them sing.

So jkhny, other than that, how do you like your council?

Is alcohol a performance enhancing drug? Only if the performance is karaoke.

You are correct on how it is supposed to work. As someone who has signed up along with other troop leaders to direct traffic for a major church event in a few weeks, at our CO/church, I guess we have a pretty good relationship with our CO. They choose not to become intimately involved with the troop, which is ok with us, but we do things for them and they do things for us, which obviously works out on both sides. I do not have direct contact with the pastor, but my understanding is that when the CC informs him of what's going on in the troop, the response is a polite "thanks" and then everybody goes aboout their business for a few more months until someone needs something. As for how the relationship is handled in other units, based on what I have seen and also on what I have read in this forum, I'd say it is handled in as many different ways as you can possibly think of, from a direct and perfect symbiotic relationship, through the many and varied kinds of good and/or acceptable relationships that may or may not go "exactly by the book," all the way over to various dysfunctional relationships, feuding, the occasional lawsuit etc. etc. It's all part of the incredible diversity of mankind's ability to get along, or not get along, with each other.

Bob says: If it is legal then it cannot be "unjust". Wow. And you talk about "values"?? I am glad you and whatever values you are a "role model" for are nowhere near my son. For one thing, you think slavery was "just" prior to 1863? Now there is a horrifying thought.

I do not know whether gregtlaw is accurately reciting all the facts of his situation or not, but assuming that he is, the BSA's policy does NOT prohibit him from being a leader. He is, by his own statements, NOT an "avowed homosexual." Just because his ex-wife knew of his sexuality (as well she might) and told a Scoutmaster does not make him "avowed." Now, a unit does have the right to pick its own leaders and to exclude anyone for any reason or no reason (with the probable exception of race or ethnicity), so I suppose that greg could be excluded from leadership in THAT unit.

Ed, assuming you were referring to Greying Beaver's post(s), it looks like most of us will have to take your word for that...

Hunt says: I would think that COs who make the scouting program an element of their own program--like the LDS church--would be the most involved, while COs with transitory leadership--like a PTA--would be the least involved. Is that the case? In the pack in which I was a leader, which was chartered to a PTO (same as a PTA except you don't pay the hefty dues charged by the National PTA, and there is no national policy telling you not to be a CO as there is with the PTA), that was (and I am sure, still is) the case. I think the fact that the PTO leadership is transitory is part of the reason, but another part is that because the pack was made up almost entirely of boys in that particular school, there was a huge overlap between the leaders of the PTO and the parents (and leaders) in the pack. Virtually all of the pack leaders and parents were members of the PTO (until their sons went into the fourth grade in a different school, but if they had younger children they were still in that PTO), and quite often the PTO leaders had sons in the pack. It was almost like the PTO leadership and the pack leadership were both "subsidiaries" of the larger group of parents in the school, rather than the CO being the "owner" of the pack. In my last year as Assistant Cubmaster, the president of the PTO (who, on paper at least, was the IH) also was a Tiger Adult Partner for her son. There was a person designated as CR on the charter but in reality this person was selected by the Cubmaster and approved (in the annual paper-signing-without-necessarily-reading) by the IH. In this setting, the position of CR was really superfluous, because the IH was at every pack meeting (not that she she knew what her responsbilities were, either, and she didn't even know what her "official" relationship with the pack was until I told her.) I'd also have to say that in this particular situation, this is what worked, and I know it works somewhat similarly in many other units as well.

OGE, are you really comparing insults against fans of an opposing sports team with a statement that someone is necessarily inferior in their citizenship because of what they believe or don't believe about the existence of God? Or are you kidding? I have been known to make the occasional comment or two about fans of the Red Sox or, further back the Orioles or other teams. But I think everyone understands that those kinds of insults are meaningless, it's just part of being a fan. Sports (the spectator variety) and ALL entertainment is equally meaningless (I know I have just committed heresy), which is part of their appeal. When the Boy Scouts says someone is not a good a citizen as someone else, that's a whole different ballgame (so to speak.)

Rooster says: Of course, Jews are free to think otherwise so please spare me the sensitivity training. Speaking for all the "Jews," let me say, we appreciate your permission. However, it seems to me that the last time I mentioned my non-Christian religious beliefs in this forum, I was challenged by at least one poster (not you) to "prove it." I have not seen anyone challenge you to prove your beliefs, nor should they, but I can't help but notice the difference.

Before we discuss whether the thread should be closed, I'd like to know, what exactly is wrong with this thread (or more specifically, the first post in it)? Most of it is taken from an official district web site, and the rest of it is jkhny's comment on the factual information presented. If people disagree with what has been said, they can say so, or they can just ignore the thread or read it but remain silent (as I most likely will do after this post, as I have done with the majority of the other threads jkhny has started.) So I guess my feeling is clear, I see no reason to close the thread.

I have to agree with FScouter on this one. (It doesn't happen all the time.) What had a bad summer, perhaps, was the general national perception of the Boy Scouts... in fact in some areas that perception has had a "bad summer" that has lasted five years and isn't getting any better. But for individual units, Scouts and Scouters, life goes on, and perhaps a little better because I think there is probably some more attention being paid to how to deal with getting lost, on safety during thunderstorms, etc. (My son was at summer camp when the electrocution occurred at the Jamboree, and he said they definitely used it as an object lesson for the boys.) Of course, safety should be stressed all the time, but we all know that tragedies and near-tragedies make dangers seem more real, and therefore seem more important to protect against, even though the danger was there all along.