NJCubScouter

FOG, I know the statute you are talking about. For those who don't, it is Title 10, Section 311 of the United States Code. I had to mess with the formatting and hopefully it will look ok, but here is what it says: Section 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. First of all, FOG, if you are part of the militia described in section (a), you need to change your account-name as a matter of truth in advertising. I am not part of the "militia" described in this section because I am no longer "under 45 years of age." I'm not over it, either, for the next few weeks anyway, but I'm not under it. In any event, this statute really has nothing to do with the Second Amendment or gun control. Notice that even those of us under age 45 are part of the "unorganized militia," except for those who are actually members of the National Guard. (In which case the upper age limit would not apply, according to the exception referred to above.) Is an "unorganized militia" a "well-regulated militia"? It wouldn't seem so. Plus, I have to say the statute in question is a pretty odd one. Most men between the ages of 17 and (less than) 45 would probably be surprised to learn that they are members of a "militia." Unless and until the statute is actually used with regard to non-National Guard members, I am not sure that it really means anything. Congress could pass a law calling you a hamster, it doesn't make you one. As for the "statistics," what you're basically saying is that you don't know any of the numbers (which I don't either), but yet you are somehow able to call the number "statistically insignificant." I'm not impressed.

My council merged four years ago (coincidentally, with the council in which I was a Boy Scout so now my father and I are in the same council again. Well, I suppose it's not a complete coincidence, since if I had chosen to live more than one county away from where I grew up, the merger would not have reached that far.) I still see a few people with the old council patches, and I have never heard anyone say a thing about it. I was not a Scouter at the time of the merger so I missed whatever "protest" took place, I am sure there was some grousing and grumbling... in fact I caught sort of an "echo" of that a few months ago: Our district merged with another and a new name had to be chosen, and the council conducted a survey. There were a lot of votes (including by those on my troop committee who I heard talking about it) for using the name of our former council as the name for the new district, but that was beaten out by a name that is more "geographically correct" for the area covered by the new district. I hope they've finally stopped with all the mergers in New Jersey. The number of councils went from about 20 to about 10 in less than 5 years, and my merged council has about the same number of districts that EACH council had before the merger. We're running out of new names.

TrailPounder and/or FOG, I wonder if you have any statistics on how many guns, kept in homes for security, are stolen and used in crimes? (And, FOG, I don't mean used against the owner necessarily, I mean used in crime at any time.) Or how many guns carried legally are taken from their owners by criminals and used against the owners, or stolen and used in crimes against someone else? Or how many accidents occur with legal guns, even after accounting for any "skewering" of the statistics. As for the second amendment, in my humble opinion it is so poorly written that I don't think anybody really knows what it means. But you can't ignore the part about the "well-regulated militia."

From one practitioner of sarcasm to another, very good, FOG.

I was not asked for proof either. In fact, I think I asked the Scout-Shop-person whether I needed to bring in my Arrow of Light card from 1969 (which I do have), and I was told no. Cash or charge, was the message. But I think the person also told me that they DO require proof for the Eagle knot, which isn't an issue for me anyway. Maybe some shops do and some don't. I think they probably should, for Eagle.

My contribution to this discussion is: Eamonn, I like the title of this thread, the first part anyway. Good song. One of my Christmas/Hanukkah presents this year was the new Beatles album with that song on it. (Ok, the album is 33 years old, but it is newly remixed back to its originally intended state minus all the Phil Spectorizing, and almost all the songs, including I Me Mine, sound better. Nice that they could do that for George even though he is no longer around to hear it.)

DS, you are right, the comment about "professionals" was out of line. I apologize. I think I made clear that I was talking about only the professionals who are doing what we are talking about, but even there, singling out professionals is incorrect, since volunteers can place the emphasis where it does not belong just as easily. What I really meant was "all those people who are doing what we are talking about."

TwoCub: Bingo. I think it was pretty clear what Eammon was saying. Some people have a tendency to "interpret" a post so that it asks what they want it to ask, and then they answer that question, instead of answering the question that the person really was asking... or in this case, respond to the rhetorical question as if it were a different, "real" question. Well, usually just one person, not some people.

NW says: Venturing does have an advancement program and working with Cub Scouts would fit in some of the requirements. I was wondering about that. But correct me if I'm wrong, the Venturer could fulfill the same requirements by working with other youth groups such as Campfire, 4-H, church group or whatever, right? In other words there is no special mention in the requirement that it be a group within the BSA. Cubs would meet the requirement but so would other groups. (There, I said the exact same thing from 3 different directions, but lately I have learned that I can't count on being understood by some people around here unless I do that... and no, NW, that was NOT directed at you.) On the other hand, obviously, the position of den chief can ONLY be performed by working with a Cub Scout den.

Bob, what you have described is the theory. I don't think anyone here doubts or questions the theory. What we are talking about is what actually happens in reality. Some people have posted (in this and other threads) evidence that for some people, at some times, the "numbers" DO become the goal. Forget about "cheating" and leave Eammon's example aside for the moment. Scoutldr's example is not about "cheating" and it is about something that is apparently done openly. I also have difficulty believing that if his council's professionals are putting that on their web site, those in some other councils aren't doing something comparable. But again I ask, who does it serve to take funds that could be used for something else, to pay registration fees for boys who join on Dec. 31 and not those who join one day later? You know the answer as well as I do. It is not the boys who are being served by this. And although it's off-thread, this is somewhat comparable. Bob, I have seen you make the statement many times along the lines that advancement is not the goal, it's the by-product or residue or result (or whatever) of a well-run program. Again, this is the theory. It does not explain why, shortly after my son started the fourth grade, I received a form letter and brochure from council promoting the Boy Scout program and talking about transitioning to a troop (all fine so far) and how if my son joins a troop he'll be able to work toward his Eagle badge. It probably mentioned Eagle three times and the clear message being sent to a parent was that you should have your son continue into a troop so he can earn Eagle. It did talk about the program as well, but advancement was very prominent. I wish I could find that letter so I can quote it precisely. But I can tell you, I as a parent was being told by COUNCIL that advancement was the goal, or at least "a" goal. Since I actually know better, I was kind of surprised by that. But the majority of parents who got that letter were never Boy Scouts nor did they ever have any Boy Scout training, and they did not know any better. All I am saying is, Bob, maybe some of your "is"s should be "should"s and your "is not"s should be "should not"s. If the reality does not match the theory, it's ok for people to say so. In fact, unless people DO say so, there is no way the reality can ever be pointed back in the direction of the theory.

Scoutingagain, since you mentioned my name in your question, I will respond as best I can, which is not very well. I am not an expert in international law. For some reason, practicing law in suburban New Jersey has not brought me into contact with any prisoners of war, enemy combatants or military detainees, or their legal rights. I have represented a few citizens of other nations who mysteriously found themselves in this country with no authorization whatsoever to be here, and before anyone gets huffy about that, please realize that my job was essentially to help clear away all roadblocks to getting them deported as fast as possible (since, given the choice between being in jail here or being not in jail there, they'd rather be not in jail there.) But I can say this: Having read what leVoyageur has posted, I agree with Scoutingagain, at least to the al-Quaeda-types. I don't see how any of those categories apply, perhaps if someone thinks one of them does and can explain which one, I could respond to that. And maybe change my mind, but it doesn't seem to me that any of the "POW" categories apply to the terrorists themselves. The Taliban fighters (if there are any still in our custody, I don't know) may be a different story. They were fighting for an established government. I don't know if they wore "marks" or if they fought "openly" or obeyed the "laws and customs of war." I'd have to wonder whether that phrase is applied literally in this age of guerrilla wars. So I don't know whether the Taliban would be considered POWs or not, but they would be the best candidates. Personally I think that we should honor basic principles of humane treatment regardless of what category a prisoner falls into. But I'm not sure that in the case of someone who was an active member of al Quaeda and may have knowledge of their future plans, that we should have to stop questioning them when they give name, rank and serial number. Which, just so it's clear, has little to do with the cases that this thread was started about. I don't think the Geneva convention is at issue in those cases, though in fairness I still have not had a chance to read all 30 or 50 pages of them. What was at issue in the Ninth Circuit case was not even the actual rights of those being held, though it may have been discussed in passing. All that was really at issue was whether the detainees could even ask a federal court to determine whether their rights were being violated, which would first require that the court determine what those rights are. The Ninth Circuit said that, yes, the detainees can ask, and I agree with that. And my guess would be that the Supreme Court will agree also, maybe by a 5-4 vote. But the question of what their rights actually are has NOT been decided.

RobK, when you talk about those bad countries who were trading with Saddam Hussein and otherwise helping him, are you talking about Europe over the past few years, or are you talking about the U.S. in the 1980's? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29? And before you say that that was before we knew how bad Saddam Hussein was, this article suggests otherwise. What it suggests is that the Reagan and Bush I State Departments were happy to be in bed with the guy as long as it served our interests. And I have nothing against our policies serving our national best interests, in fact I wish that were the case more often. (I am marginally ok with the latest war in Iraq though I am becoming less ok by the day as our lack of a real post-war strategy becomes clearer and clearer, and as more and more of our young people die by week.) It's just that some of the righteousness I see and hear about Saddam Hussein, and those who dealt with him, seems pretty silly when you know the actual history. I keep hearing talk-radio voices saying how we had to get Saddam Hussein out of there in part "because he attacked two of his neighbors." They neglect to mention that when he was fighting against the first of those neighbors, we were helping him.

FuzzyBear mentions Seton and Beard, and indeed either of them could be considered a "father of Scouting" alongside or even instead of B-P. Both had Scouting-like organizations (though not with that word in the title) before B-P did. Here's an interesting article, and along with others that I have read, it suggests that B-P is given the pre-eminent role at least in part because Seton and Beard agreed that rather than continuing to squabble over "credit," it would be best to recognize B-P -- but of course with no actual role in the U.S. organization. The article also says a whole bunch of other things that are pretty interesting, including the controversy between Seton and James West, and an excerpt from a 1916 edition of Boys' Life in which the BSA states that Seton was "dropped" from the position of "Chief Scout" in part "because he was not in sympathy with American customs and ideals." http://www.scouting.milestones.btinternet.co.uk/seton.htm

CubsRgr8 says: In my council, the charter year runs Feb - Feb, so signing up 300+ new venturers in December would cost significantly less than $3K. Is that also the case in your council, Eamonn? If so, I could see the professional staffer willing to fork over the cash himself in order to make Quality, and thereby assure himself of getting a decent annual review. I'm not sure if that makes this all sound better, or worse. Cubs, in Eamonn's scenario, do you really think that in February (using your recharter date, my district's standard date is the end of March) they are going to collect $10 each from all these boys (/girls?) who were herded into the auditorium and anointed Venturers? Or is the council (or the "special fund") going to be tapped again for the recharter fees? Or are the registrations (and charters) just going to be permitted to lapse now that they have served the professional's purpose? (I can pretty much see the smoke coming out of a certain forum member's ears right about now, but it's nothing personal, Dave. This is about someone else, and admittedly some of the facts are unclear.) And if the registrations are allowed to lapse after 2 months, what have the boys gained? Are they really being served, or are they just names on a piece of paper?

scoutldr says: Suffice it to say that Eammon's council is not the only one offering free registration as an enticement to grow numbers at the end of the year. Nothing sneaky about it, though...it's advertised on our website. Just the normal recruiting methods...no herding them into the corral and locking the gate. Maybe I am being naive here, and admittedly I have never been involved above the unit level. But doesn't the phrase "the end of the year" indicate something? If the sole aim is to provide the "program" for as many boys as possible, and if growth in "numbers" is desireable solely because it means more boys are being served, then WHY is a registration at "the end of the year" more valuable (literally, $) than one at some other time of the year? Why waive registration fees for a boy joining Dec. 29 and not one joining Jan. 5? Or for that matter, Sept. 1, which in many places is around when the "program year" starts? The answer seems pretty clear: The numbers are "counted" on Dec. 31. Which is all well and good, but that date has no magic in terms of program delivery or benefiting boys. So if funds that could be used for camps, or camperships or whatever, are instead being used to subsidize registrations, but only when the calendar is on the last page, I don't see how this is being done "for the boys." And believe me, I understand numerical job performance goals. But when I have encountered them (outside Scouting), there is no effort made to disguise what they are or why they are there.

An internet search on "den aide" turned up several position descriptions, all the same, so I assume they come from the current or past version of some official BSA publication. (Probably the Cub Scout Leader Book, which I don't have with me.) The description is: The Den Aide Role Qualifications: A teenage boy or girl, ages 14 through 17, who helps the den leader succeed in bringing the benefits of Cub Scouting to the members of the den. The use of den aides is optional with packs, and is usually done where it is not possible to recruit den chiefs. Den aides are selected by the den leader, with approval from the Cubmaster and pack committee. This is a non-registered, non-membership position designed principally to strengthen Cub Scouting in rural and urban communities. Responsibilities: The den aide's responsibilities are similar to those of the den chief, as determined by the den leader. Interestingly, the "den aide" is also referred to in SOME versions of the requirements for the Den Leader Training Award. Some lists of those requirements include: Have an assistant den leader, den chief, or den aide who meets regularly with your den. The web site I found this on said it was the 1988 version of the requirements. However, a newer version I found breaks the assistant den leader and den chief into two separate requirements and omits the den aide. (You can tell a newer version of Cub Scout adult training award requirements because it requires Youth Protection Training whereas the older ones don't.) So, does this mean that the position of "den aide" was de-recognized? Or de-emphasized? Or maybe just deemed unsuitable for mention in materials for nationwide distribution when it is really intended as an only-when-necessary position. Also interesting is that fact that the den aide, being a non-registered, non-membership position, does NOT have to be a member of any Scouting program. So, Johnny's 16-year-old sister, can be a den aide regardless of whether she is a Venturer, but when she turns 18, if she and the pack desire for her to continue to assist a den in an official capacity, she must register as an Assistant Den Leader. As stated previously, a den chief must either be a Boy Scout, Varsity Scout or Venturer who was a Boy Scout. And just for the record, I have never seen a "den aide" or heard of a pack actually having them. I only know about them from the internet. So how widespread the use of this position is, I cannot say. I do know that while I was a den leader and assistant cubmaster, my older daughter did help out at times, but was never registered. I believe she was already 19 when she started helping so it would have been as Assistant Den Leader anyway.

A biographical novel, I wonder what that is exactly. How is the reader to know what part is biography and what part is novel? The article cited-to does not say that Burnham was the "Father of Scouting." The name of the book about him is subtitled "King of Scouts," but it is pretty clear that this refers to his reknown as a MILITARY "scout." Admittedly the article uses the term "scouting" in a somewhat confusing manner, and always uncapitalized, and it is not always clear whether it is referring to military activity or Boy Scouting. Here is a quote from the article: Burnham planted the seed of scouting, but he never served as the father. Baden-Powell, the single mom, spent the next forty years "sucking" Burnham's brain for more lore on scouting and the outdoors. Burnham provided a wealth of information, but mostly by mail from places like Mexico, Kenya and California where he was busy doing other things. I won't comment on some of the, um, imagery in this paragraph. Suffice it to say that it looks like the "plain facts" have been embellished a bit in this article (and the book that it is about) so it is difficult to tell who exactly did what. What appears is that Burnham provided Baden-Powell with some ideas, but Baden-Powell used them to found Scouting.

Bob White says: Being a Quality Council is a signpost that you are providing more support for more units and more scouts than you did last year. Unless you are cheating, of course. And if one council cheats, and people find out about it, that seems to devalue the award for every council that wins it legitimately. It makes it look like an award for "making numbers" rather than enabling more Scouts to get the program. And if what Eammon describes happened in one council, it is difficult to imagine that it has never happened anywhere else. I also want to make clear, having re-read my last post, that this is NOT about a council (or unit) paying registration fees for boys/girls whose families cannot afford the fee. We all know that when a boy cannot pay a fee for something (I have never seen that situation for a fee as small as a registration fee but I am sure it happens), quite often there is money "available" from one source or another. I think most of this happens at the unit level but I know my council also has a donated fund available for this purpose, usually for larger dollar amounts such as Philmont. But that isn't Eammon's situation. There was nothing in his posts about these boys/girls being unable to pay the fee, either individually or as a group. It sounds like the council just decided to remove a barrier to the registration of boys/girls who had never expressed any actual interest in joining the program. As he describes it, they were not actually "joining," they were really "being joined" with almost no participation by them, so of course one wouldn't expect them to fork over the $10.

Eamonn, I have read your past posts about the 300+ students who suddenly became Venturers, but it was not until I read this post that that I understood that the council (not the new Venturers, or the CO, if there really is one in this case) are paying the registration fees. This just seems like plain old fraud to me. Was this really approved by the volunteer body that supposedly governs the council (I am weak on the terminology at that level), or is this something the Scout Executive can approve on his/her own? If it is the latter, it is my understanding (partly from reading this forum) that the compensation (and continuation) of at least some professionals is dependent on "making numbers," though I don't know whether the Quality Council Award figures directly into this. In a logical world, the same numbers that a given professional would be given as a goal would also be the goals for the quality whatever award. However it is, in this case the logic of the numbers seems to have obscured the actual goal of getting a Scouting program to these youth. In another post I think you said they didn't even fill out applications (though maybe I have that wrong) and it was not clear what kind of program they will be receiving. It also seems likely to me that if they rounded up 300+ students of high school age and said "You're all in the Venturing program now" and didn't explain to them exactly what that means or give them a meaningful chance to "opt out," they may have swept up at least one atheist in their "net." I'd be surprised if they didn't. Not to mention other types of persons who are unwelcome in the BSA. (I'm noticing this is not Issues and Politics so I'll just leave it at that.) But I guess that's no problem for whoever is actually driving this -- you probably get to keep the award and whatever extra $ you (not you, Eamonn) get no matter how many letters of termination you have to send out months or years down the road. From time to time on this forum and elsewhere I have heard hints about a "scandal" within the BSA at some point, where councils were creating fictitious units and members in order to "make their numbers." I don't see how this is different, and maybe it is worse, because it sounds like someone has decided to use funds raised by Scouts and donated by others in order to obtain a benefit for themselves. Unless I'm missing something.

Is there any particular controversy you'd like us to talk about, Dave? In any event, it seems that "Council Relations" has been somewhat of a hotbed of controversy, so it's not like everything is quiet.

My son and I each received an air mattress (we have been using skinny foam pads) and a non-electric pump for inflating same. I don't think Santa quite got the idea that there are trips where we need to pack all our stuff to the site in one trip, to say nothing of backpacking trips themselves. These things are really no good for any of those kinds of trips as they are too bulky, and also pretty heavy. I am not going to look a gift mattress in the mouth, however. My son's troop gave all the boys new pocketknives. I suspect that someone "came into" a supply of these... if they were going to go out and buy something, they probably would have bought something that the boys didn't all have already -- and since all the younger boys (including my son) came from a pack that gives a Boy Scout pocket knife to all departing Webelos, I think it is a pretty safe bet that they all did.

Commandopro, first of all, I agree that there is a "problem," I don't think I would call it a crisis, and the problem is partially generated at the national level and it is partially inherent in our society. These issues do not affect all areas of the country or types of localities equally. I can say from the perspective of a suburban area in a state that is "socially progressive," it is a big problem. Sports is a major draw away from Scouting starting in the first grade. The two CAN co-exist, sometimes, but they don't always. My son's troop has about 20 active members but is lucky to get 8 on a camping trip because everybody has basketball, soccer or whatever. As for the "socially progressive" part, well, I notice this is not under "Issues and Politics" so I will leave it at that. Do units share some of the "responsibility"? Sure, but not as much as some people seem to think. Having said all that, Commandopro, I am not sure what you mean about "stripping Scouting down to its essential parts" or "making the Cub Scout program idiot proof." What are the specifics, or examples, of those suggestions?

DS: Just doing my bit to try to increase the mutual understanding of constitutional law. Or trying to, anyway -- this is a tough crowd!

Eisely says: Enclaves such as Guantanamo fall under the authority of the military. US military bases not on US soil would fall under the jurisdiction of the US Uniform Code of Military Justice, and any "status of forces" agreement with the host government. This is one of the areas where I think the ninth circus went awry, by creating jurisdiction for itself, essentially usurping the powers of congress. I have finally gotten the opportunity to print out the full decision, though I have only read the part that discusses jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit spends a lot of time discussing the very issue you mention, Eisely, and it comes to the opposite conclusion. First it concludes that "territorial jurisdiction" rather than "sovereignty" is sufficient for the U.S. courts to have jurisdiction over a petition filed by a prisoner, and that the U.S. has "territorial jurisdiction" over Guantanamo. Second, in deference to past precedents that apparently do require "sovereignty" for jurisdiction, the court made an extensive analysis of the lease between the U.S. and Cuban governments for Guantanamo and the history of the performace of the governments under that lease. The Ninth Circuit concludes that Guantanamo is "sovereign U.S. territory." Most interestingly (and I never knew this before) the U.S. does not comply with the terms of the lease (written in 1903), and specifically the U.S. uses the base for purposes not permitted in the lease. One snippet from this discussion: "Today, the Base is in every way independent of Cuba and in no way reliant on Cuba's cooperation." And here is the conclusion to that section (I took out the footnotes and citations because they make it a bit hard to follow): If "sovereignty" is "the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed," "the power to do everything in a state without accountability," or "freedom from external control: autonomy, independence," it would appear that there is no stronger example of the United States' exercise of "supreme power," or the adverse nature of its occupying power, than this country's purposeful actions contrary to the terms of the lease and over the vigorous objections of a powerless "lessor." ("The plain and ordinary import of jurisdiction without exception is the authority of a sovereign."). Any honest assessment of the nature of United States' authority and control in Guantanamo today allows only one conclusion: the U.S. exercises all of "the basic attribute of full territorial sovereignty." Accordingly, we conclude that, under any reading, Johnson does not bar this Court's jurisdiction over Gherebi's habeas petition. Those are just the facts; I have not yet gotten around to giving my opinion on this subject. I would, however, note that even without the Ninth Circuit decision, the issue is already in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. That Court has already decided to review a case brought by another Guantanamo prisoner, in which the Court of Appeals (the D.C. one, I believe) ruled that the U.S. courts did not have jurisdiction. So this Ninth Circuit ruling is hardly worth all the fuss, it does not change anything other than making life easier for the Supreme Court law clerks, who now have a fully written analysis on each side of the issue to choose from and present to their bosses, who will make the ultimate decision.

Just to add one thing to that. I have pointed out a number of times that while "separation of church and state" is not mentioned in the constitution itself -- nor is "innocent until proven guilty" -- there are a number of other things not mentioned in the constitution that have been interpreted as constitutional guarantees anyway. One of those is the "right to expressive association," which is not mentioned in the constitution, but if it were not a constitutional right, there would be openly gay leaders in the BSA right now. That principle was the basis for the Supreme Court's decision in the Dale case (despite the widespread but incorrect belief that the BSA won the case solely because it is a "private organization"; if you read the decision, you see that that is not true.) So if you would like to ignore any constitutional rights except those specifically mentioned in the constitution, I'd say be careful what you wish for, you may get it. I would also point out the language of the Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. If that seems somewhat vague and open-ended, it is, and the courts have been struggling with it since it was adopted in 1790 (+-). But it clearly does mean that you can't just look at the words of the constitution and expect to see every constitutional right neatly laid out.