Proud Eagle

It may have been a member of the 1980 Hockey team. The previews for "Miracle" contain a scene with that happening, though that may have just been added for dramatic affect or something.

After having viewed the presentation at the Federalist Society on the Wyman case I wonder what impact, if any, it would have on the San Diego case. It seems it very well could, because a decision in favor of BSA would largerly require all charitable groups to be treated on with neutrality, irregardles of expressive behavior. That would mean that BSA would have to have the same opportunity as other charities, but that it couldn't be given privlidges above those available to others. The case with the berth for the Sea Scouts would also seem to be impacted in the same way. I am constantly amazed at the implications of some of these cases. It seems that Dale, and potentially Wyman, really may change the way freedom of association and expression work. Who would have thought that the BSA would ever be at the center of a series of court cases that could redifine any catagory of rights? I do have to wonder about the distinction between provision of services and benefits of membership and employment in 2nd Circuit on Wyman. It seems that groups that target their services are engaging in discrimination by giving a preference to one group. While they may provide services should someone else not targeted seek it, they are making it easier for those who are targeted to learn about and recieve services. Also, the atmosphere created by targeting services and by publicly taking various positions, would be a hostile environement for members, employees, and recipients of services that do not agree with the group in question.

That is interesting, I had never heard of that site before. I guess BSA wants info to be publicily available but not highly publicised. The counter suite makes sense, especially if it is limited to mainting the lease. After all, the council has a very large investment made in that piece of property. They would have to be fools to give it up without a fight. On the other hand they may have been better off trying to negotiate a new lease rather than fighting a very public legal battle. (Though some of what I have read indicates the ACLU might file again if some new lease, even under reasonable terms were negotiated.) OK, I took a look at the site and now I know why I had never heard of it. It was only created this week.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

But that was SEVEN YEARS AGO. You may as well bring up something from the ancient days of BP.

This has nothing to do with tents, other than an evaluation of summer camping conditions in a few select places. Kentucky is certainly a hot and humid place for summer camping. (Roy C Manchester anyone?) Though I must say the interior areas in the panhandle of Florida are worse. (Wallwood) The absolute worste I have ever experienced was a KOA campground in Alabama that was surrounded by what could best be describe as a minor swamp. I conce thought summer camping was a miserable thing until I went to Philmont and discovered the cooler mountain temperatures and low humidity. I also don't think the hills/mountains of Tennessee are too bad. (Skymont) North Carolina has a few nice places too. (Daniel Boone) Oh, and AP Hill isn't exactly the sort of place to find a cool mountain breeze in the summer either. Similarly southern Indiana has its own share of swamp like environments, such as a certain mosquito infested former strip mine filled with dozens of small, marshy, stagnant ponds. (Old Ben)

On second thought something like a standing rib roast may be a better choice for holding the lines on the fly. Maybe even a couple of live cows wold even work. Most steaks just don't weigh enough to do the job.

That is interesting information about the OA and exploring. I really should read the OA history some time. That would probably shead light on some of these old questions. I do wonder if the Exploring program of old was similar enough to current Venturing for any real comparisons to be made. It seems from what I have ever heard Exploring was a Scouting program for older youth. It had the same rank advancement options as Boy Scout Troops and a few extra awards. I do wonder if Exploring at that time carried out a program similar enough to the Troops that it would include such things as summer camp participation. If so I think that would explain why Exporers could be elected into OA. Though the reasons for rank requirements being dropped is far from clear to me. It seems be looking to the past we may find some answers to current questions. This is all purely personal speculation, but it is certainly interesting.

After having read the COD info I wonder about how well a few of the elements would work. It seem to be mostly a unit based program. While that makes starting it eaiser, it makes me wonder if it really qualifies as a true honor society. It seems more like an honorary award rather than membership in an organized society. I could be wrong, and it may even be that such a loosely organized unit based program would work best for Venturing. OA did after all start as a summer camp based program, and Venturing doesn't really have such a close connection with summer camp. There also doesn't seem to be any other single unifying thing with wich most Venturing crews are associated, due to the variety of program focuses. In conclusion, I certainly can't say what will work or what will do the most good for Venturing. Only time will tell.

Anyone looking for a top down approach to this issue is asking for trouble. The only way this will ever work well is buttom up. That is how OA got started. It was created at one camp by two men. It took decades for it to become a fully integrated part of the national program. That was after it had already been adopted by a couple hundred camps on one of the co-founders and become national director of program. Follow the example of Dr. Goodman. Do your homework and try something locally. The level of youth leadership in Venturing indicates higher levels of youth involvement may be needed for successful creation of a Venturing honor society. Look for it be a couple of decades after a successful program is started before BSA nationally recognizes it.

Uniforming is probably the center of so much attention because it is the most visible and easiest to judge the 8 methods. This is particularly true amung adults. It is easy to see which adults embrace uniforming. It is harder to see which ones embrace the others. It is also true that those that follow/use one method are more likely to use the others. That doesn't mean that someone out of uniform is ignorring all 8 methods, but it indicates they are ignoring at least one. Generally I would say wearing the uniform has little relation to the ability of someone to carry out any technical requirement in Scouting. (paper work, money management, merit badge counseling, supervising a hike, or anything like that) However, it is a very good meter of how completely someone has accepted and embraced the Scouting program as a hole. (have they "internalized" it?) The best adult leaders I know are almost always in uniform. At the same time those same adults have never been known to attack someone else because of uniforming. I do know of plenty of very well uniformed adults that harp on the uniform but are hit and miss in other areas. There are also other adults that do a wonderful job on 7 of the 8 but miss uniforming almost completely. In short, uniforming is the quick, easy way to measure someone else in Scouting, but it isn't necessarily the best way of measuring their performance. Oh, and I really like the thing Bob White said about making it ONLY ONE of the eight instead of one of ONLY EIGHT. I think he is spot on about that part.

I had a lengthy commentary based on this written, but I decided it would do neither you nor me any good to post it. So instead I would suggest viewing the presentation.

I must say Bob's example of the council checking the signatures seems unlikely to me. I have signed on a number of advancement forms, and no one ever asked a question of it or told the troop to fix itself. I have been asked to serve on several BORs because no one else was available. (This included no one else being available within a reasonable time period.) There was one occasion when a BOR was scheduled (same night as a meeting) for a Scout's advancemnt. The BOR members didn't show. Only the CC did. The choice was deny the BOR the Scout had been promised, or have a Board consisting of the CC, SM, and an ASM. On another occasion the Advancement Chair quit with little or no notice and the SM was the only person able to take on the job for a couple of months until someone else could be recruited, and oriented on the job. That caused a bit of a problem. Generally anytime the question has been, do we wait until we can do it properly (wich could be weeks or months from now, and will cause a Scout to have to wait, when normally they get a BOR within a couple of weeks of asking for it) or do we do it now in a "creative" way, we get creative. Besides, if the BOR is for the purpose of reviewing the execution of the program rather than the Scout's advancement as most seem to say, then it won't hurt the Scout any to have one ASM on the board to round things out. (Particularly in this troop since really adults fall into 3 catagories- parents involved with the program (mostly MCs), non-parents involved with the program (mostly ASMs), and other leaders that are mostly inactive. It doesn't matter to the Scout if it is an ASM or a MC on the BOR, it is still someone they see at meetings, on campouts, and at other events helping carry out the program.) That being said the correct way is the way that is preffered in the troop, and efforts are made to get that to happen. Unfortunately many things seem to go wrong and so that leaves other options as the only way to make it happen.

Bob, you are correct for the most part, but patch companies, like everyone else, sometimes use different systems from company to company. I know that some companies do charge based on number of colors. Most companies I know of allow approx. seven colors in the base price, then extra for more. I do know of companies that have no color limit, and other that charge per color, starting with one. This may be a rip off, but that is what some do. The type of edging or border on the patch is another major issue. There are several types of edging that can cost extra, and cut edge borders are also usually more expensive. (I have never seen a cut edge CSP, but many event and some Lodge flaps are done this way). Unusual shapes can also add to the cost, but this is rare. You are correct that stitch count and quantity are the major factors. Stitch count is almost always based on surface area. There are some odd cases where there is significant deveation from this, but that is the norm. Also, some patch companies have variations in the density of the embroidery (meaning you can have smaller stitches, and therefore more stiches and greater design detail). Patches made in foreign countries are usually much cheaper. I have heard stories of patches being both designed and produced at such a low cost that the shipping charges were as much as the patch costs. I don't know if it holds for CSPs, but Lodge flaps are required to have certain elements in them. I seem to recall a fleur de lis is one requirement. The only restriction on wearing CSPs that I have heard of relates to temporary CSPs such as Jamborree CSPs. (JSP ?) I seem to recall those may only be worn for one year. (six months before and six months after)

I have to agree with Fuzzy Bear- If you want cheap a tarp or piece of canvas, two upright center poles, lots of good rope, and good steaks will work wonderfully, if set up properly. I would suggest running a rope in place of a center cross piece rather than just stretching the tarp, that will relieve some stress on the gromets. Just make certain everything is steaked out very well and it will hold up for most weather. Now for a more durable option my troop has two very nice dining flies. They are an older BSA canvas tarp (larger than current ones I think, and certainly heavier canvas). For poles we use some sort of metal pipes, I think steel. These actually screw together to create 3 H frames per fly, with some sort of end piece sticking up to slip the grommets onto. These are wonderful sets and have been in use for at least a decade, perhaps two. If anyone wants details I will check next time I am camping with the troop to see exactly what size pipe is used and what not. There are only two major disadvantages with this design- it is prone to getting stuck together, and it requires a long vehicle or trailer to carry.

The following lacks proper grammer, punctuation, or any rational organization. polymer external frame pack (can't be destroyed, no sharp things to cut tent) one burner Coleman fuel stove- great cooker, more heat output in most conditions than standard propane stoves, good for outdoor cookout back home when you need one extra burner for the fried potatos or what not Coleman Peak 1 mummy bag- 8 years old, poorly cared for, but still works leather Philmont belt real swiss army knives... from Switzerland (if its from China burry it, don't risk someone else thinking it is a real knife) anything made in china is junk and should be avoided if at all possible real wool hiking socks polypro liner socks polypro long underwear (from Philmont trading post, very good price and quality compared to local stores) Nalgene bottles, wide mouth lexan and narrow mouth white plastic- wide mouth is great for general purpose, narrow lets you walk and drink at the same time without getting wet (try that on a rough trail with a wide mouth) stainless steel wire handled camp cup- it can be used for anything, cooking, eating, drinking, digging a hole in soft soil (not recommended, saw someone try it), or as a uniform item when carried from a belt with a toggle, in fact, it should be a required part of the field and activities uniform BSA campaign hat- does that really require an explanation? just don't wear it when it is both very hot and very humid Ridge Rest pad with camp chair conversion kit, it is a sleeping pad, a chair, no inflate time, stores easily, works good when you have company (such as your cousin, his wife, and their six children) Therm-A-Rest also reccommended, especially for car camping inflatable beds (the nearer they look to pool floats the more this is true) are a terrible idea, most pumps for them are even worse pay more to get the good stuff, it will save you money, time, frustration, field repaires made without the right tools or materials that don't quite work... you get the idea anything cast iron- particularly Lodge- though some other brands can be good aluminum foil I'll second the motion on garbage bags Silva compasses and yes, GPS CAN BE worth it if you value the ability to find out exactly wear you are, that is their greatest feature, anything else can be done with proper orienteering skills, though if you are trekking from point to point without trails the ability to enter a set of coordinates and have it tell you how to get their might be more useful, I would buy a cheap, light one that runs a long time on one set of batteries I have a larger, older unit that eats batteires, it does having a moving map and some other nice features, but it takes more effort to use them than it is worth night vision is a neat technology, but has only very limited uses, so save your money

I am glad this thread came up. I am thinking of buying a new tent, one capable of backpacking. I really haven't decided what my exact needs are, though I have started browsing tents from time to time. I do know the Eurekas are good tents, but I think they may over do it a bit for the level of use I expect. Though a Timberline 2 would probably be OK. (I really like the size and durability of the Outfitter 4, but those weight too much for most packpacking.) I am also timpted by some of the bivy shelters and other small one man tents I have seen, though I haven't ever used one, and I do like my space. Eventually I probably need two new tents- a small, light backpacker, and a larger tent for car camping. Though I don't really have the budget for two, so I will make do with my old worn out "packpacking" (yeah, right!) dome tent that I got from SAMS club for car camping. In fact everytime I go looking for camping gear I see more stuff I need, so I should probably just hold off completely until the budget expands.

I went to Philmont in 2001. At the start of the trek my pack weighed about 45lbs fully loaded. I was one of the larger youth on the trek at then 190lbs. (180 upon arriving home after the trip) My crew gear consisted of 3 Coleman fuel backpacking stoves of 2 differnt types, a set of maps, and a notepad. The stoves were fully fueled whenever possible. Each was placed in a ziploc, and then a soft carry case to prevent damage to other items in my pack. I was somewhat heavy on personal gear since I had the following extras: Bible GPS instruction manual GPS reciever extra eating utensil (aluminum pie plate, ended up using it as a pot lid by chance since we only had one pot lid but often needed two) The biggest mistakes I made were in taking too large of a notepad, the Bible, and the instruction manual. Those things never got used. I also took a chair kit for my foam sleeping pad. That was useful but not essential. We also could have gotten by with one less pan and one less stove. (2 stoves, 2 pots, and 2 lids would have been best) Philmont food should best be prepared by placing as many of the items as possible into one pot together. This saves on cooking equipment and cooking time. (Most of the stuff is just boiled in water and it doesn't really taste that great no matter what you do with it.) We were lucky in that we never had more than 3 days food at a time, though we did usually manage to talk them out of 15 peoples worth of food for our 12, all of wich we gladly ate. We also had easy access to water on the trail and at each campsite. If I do it again I will go lighter. I would also like a larger pack because I was very tight on space. I would also want a new sleeping bag, since my current one is wearing out. (I have had it for something like 8 years, it is somewhat heavy, too warm for hot summers, and too cold for even some Philmont temperatures because of insulation shifting around.)

I didn't see the entire half time show. However what of it I have seen was in very poor taste. It was not the sort of thing I would want children (I don't have any, so we will go with my young niece and nephew) seeing. Some of the comercials were also less than optimal for children, but not nearly so objectionable. The real problem wasn't the halftime show, it is that things like that, and the message it sends, have become main stream entertainment in America. If all one did is pay attention to the TV and movies, (other than Fox News, certain MSNBC programs, and a hand full of other media sources) you would think that such sexually themed things are part of the very values of America. Now the breast exposure may or may not have been intentional, but it was certainly a very bad thing to have happen on live network TV. However, it has brought attention to the lax standards in our media and culture, so something good has come of something bad. (Incidentely, several years ago the person who played Zena was doing a rendition of the national anthem for some sporting event and raised her arms at the end and had a double "custome failure" if the reports I heard were true.) Now the flag thing I also find to be disrespectful. It is a sad reflection on our culture that such disregard for the flag could honestly be seen as an attempt to show patriotism. (I find it more likely he was using it as a good selling prop). The fact that most observers wouldn't have objected is also a bad sign of things. Once people treated the flag with reverence and respect even if they didn't revere it in the religous sense. Now people do whatever the heck they want with the flag if it suits them. If they are wanting to be patriotic, fly it from the truck until it is so faded, torn, and frayed that it is no longer recognizable as a flag. If they want to protest it they burn it, use it for bodily functions, or make it into "art" of the sort only the NEA would support. (though apparently the current adminstration is trying to turn the NEA around according to some recent reports) There was a time when people did quite literally die for the flag. (See various histories of Civil War battles. Those bearing the flag were always at great risk, though often one would be killed another would take it before it even hit the ground, such was the respect for the flag that people were willing to increase their own danger to prevent it being lost and trampled on the field of battle.) There are now certainly more of the days when such feeling could be found in common men behind us than ahead of us, or so it would seem. Glimpses of that devotion were still seen as late as the 60s when one Marine tried to hold off a group of campus protesters bent on tearing down and burninga flag. (the acount I heard indicated that the Marine and many of the protesters were the worse for it, though I can't recall if the protesters or the Marine succeeded) Another example was told to me be a Scouter who had recently been discharged from the military when the event he related took place. Apperently at a training event the same group of adult staffers conducted consistently bad ceremonies, to the point of treating the flag with casual disrespect, such as taking it down and wadding it up istead of folding it. This adult and another vet decided they couldn't take it the last time it happened, and so one dropped the adult with the flag, the other caught it before it hit the ground, and it was folded properly. That isn't quite how I would want to have that lesson taught, but then again I can't argue against the passion felt by those that have served this country. OK, I am done rambling for a bit.

There could certainly be a secular purpose in a brief teaching on creationism in science class (though that does not mean it would be tought as true science, though there are at least a few real scientists that support creationism, most are not widely accepted). For one thing all research and teaching on science was for many years based on creationist principals. Creationism was accepted as truth. It is only in the last 200 years that alternative theories supported by evidence have begun to emerge. Therefore creationism could be taught as a belief upon which some early science was based. Now avoiding an entanglement with religion would be difficult. However, I think it is possible to teach what creationsism is while neither supporting nor discreditting the religous beliefs of others. You mentioned teaching that the world is flat. I would certainly think that any major geography book would be incomplete if it did not at some point (such as in an introduction) mention that people once believed the earth was flat. I know that was certainly taught as part of the history of geography in the science or social studies classes that I had. They even had sections on the old beliefs of sailors about falling off the edge of the world and things like that. Now these things weren't taught as being the current concept of geography, but they were certainly appropriate to teach in a geography class. In the same way, teaching creationism as the best scientific explanation may be illegal according to your test, but teaching that creationism is part of the history of science, or that some people do not accept evolution because of creationism, would be appropriate. It is by no means something that should be given equal time, or even have all of the arguments for it presented. (Though not even evolution gets all the arguments for it presented. In fact I don't think any public school class is that thorough on any subject.) However, something like this would do quite nicely in my opinion: In centuries past it was accepted that some higher power(S) had created all things, including the universe and life. This is known as creationism or intelligent design. The study and teaching of science assumed this to be true. Eventually the study of science led to the proposal of new theories on the origins of the universe, and life. Evidence was then found that made these theories more robust and credible. The body of scientific evidence now supports the theory of evolution [or Darwanism, or whatever the best term is] in regards to the origins of life in its current form. Many people still believe in some form of intelligent design, mostly for religous reasons. However, some people reject evolution based on belief in certain forms of creationism. Current scientific evidence neither supports nor refutes belief in intelligent design. Ok, that probably would need some work, but to me there is nothing in that which any reasonable person should find objectionable. I may perhaps have made less than perfect word choice, but I think that captures the character of what could be a advantageous and legal teaching on creationism. Someone else could probably write a far better piece, but here are the elements it should probably contain: what creationism is an explantion that is was once a commonly held as true by early scientists that some people still believe in intelligent design that some people believe in creationism to the exclusion of evolution that science does not seek to, and that current accepted scientific evidence does not disprove or prove intelligent design As you can see I am not suggesting that a lengthy lesson is in order. Rather I am suggesting just briefly touching on the subject. I have tried to think about this from the purely scientific standpoint and the religous one, and I think this should pass muster.

Carter I would have taken a couple of years ago, but lately he has been making some very harsh speaches and comments. (Everything from hinting that Bush isn't a real Christian to attacking the war in ways that the French haven't even thought of.) Maybe if Carter gets done blowing off his steam he would be a good speaker again, but now he is a bit out their for most audiences, even though most still respect him as a good man. Maybe everyone secretly thinks he is just getting old, I don't know. The previous Bush wouldn't be bad, except for the fact his son is the current sitting president. Clinton would be good, except for... well that could take years to write, so we will just leave that alone. Ford would probably make a good speaker. Actors not known for ubjectionable roles or extreme politics might do. CEOs and other business persons with good reputations would work. Athletes would be fine as long as their on and off field reputations are good. I can even see how using a very partisan person could be fine. That would be particularly true if a council scheduled a series of speakers that included various points of view (probably at different events). Really alot of it depends on local conditions. You don't want Al Frankin speaking at a function in this area. You probably wouldn't want Rush Limbaugh speaking in certain places either. If they will draw money, won't alienate other sources of funds, and don't cause a major values conflict, it seems OK to me for a fundraiser. It is really quite difficult to find someone that is well known, has made significant accomplishments of some sort, has good values, is politically safe, and has good speaking/entertaining abilities. Usually you will have to compromise on one point or another.

I don't really have a problem with North as a speaker. However, he would need to tread lightly on the partisan politics. (That doesn't mean the subject is off limits. Anyone that knows who he is well enough to buy tickets to a speaking event would expect at least a little bit of politics.) I would also want to make certain that he supports the values of the BSA. Does that mean his life has to be a perfect example of living the Oath and Law? No. Does that mean a public confession is required for any past mistakes? No, not in my book. I have made plenty of mistakes that I have not published in the papers or told all my friends and family about. Now someone brought up North saying Reagan knew and Reagan saying he didn't know. Isn't it possible that someone lied to North and told him Reagan knew? I don't know all the details of Iran-Contra, but that certainly seems like a very reasonable possibility. At the Lodge winter banquet a couple of months ago we had a state Senator for a speaker. He happens to be a Democrat, which automatically makes him suspect for most of the people in the lodge (at least at the leadership level our lodge is a very conservative sort of group). However he happens to be an example of a conservative, or at least centrist, Democrat. He is the sort of old fashioned democrat that are still seen in state and local elections in some parts of the country, but like Joe Liberman has no hope of being the Democratic candidate for president. He was probably a decent choice for a speaker, but no one coached him on the nature of the event or gave him any pointers on good speaking topics. So, he basically just winged it. It wasn't a very good speach because it didn't really have a point and sounded like something better suited to a chamber of commerce dinner. It went down hill when he realised he wasn't connecting with the audience and opened the floor for questions. That brought out all sorts of obscure policy and politics questions that totally missed most of the audience. (I am usually the sort that would be asking such questions, but the lost reaction coming from most of the audience made me think I should be nice and spare them.)

Most people seem to forget this, but in 1997 regime change became the law of the land in regards to relations with Iraq. Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act and it was signed into law by President Clinton. The reasons for that were Saddam's human rights record, history of aggression, non-compliance with UN resolutions, breaking the gulf war cease-fire agreement, and the continued threat to the region and world he posed by his actions and is personal instability/unpredictability. Developement of WMD was also part of the reason. During the Clinton adminstration there were a series of bombing raids and cruise missile strikes target at Saddam's WMD programs. No nation thought that Iraq had sworn off WMD prior to the invasion. Even the French position, as revealed through public statements and their UN voting record reveals they thought that Saddam either had WMD or was trying to develope more WMD. Reports about the Iraq scientists and government officials interviewed after the invasion show that there was an elaborate program to decieve the UN inspectors, to bluff the international community into thinking there might be WMD, and to cover up certain problems in the WMD programs so Saddam himself wouldn't know what was going on. Even some of Saddam's field commanders expected chemical weapons to be used to stop our invasion. Many were suprised when chemical weapons were issued to them or used by other units. Essentially Saddam managed to convince everyone both in and out of Iraq that he probably had WMD hidden away somewhere. Saddam was sort of like the guy that robs a 7-11 with a fake gun. It looks real enough to the cashier so that they give up the money, and real enough for the police to think it was an armed robery on the survaliance tape. However, if push comes to shove, (or shooting in this case) the truth becomes quite clear. There are also some unanswered questions about a large convoy of likely Iraqi government trucks that left Iraq prior to the war and went to Syria. No one is really certain what exactly happened to their contents, or even what the contents were. While it seems unlikely it is possible Saddam thought he would somehow be able to return to power if no WMD were found, and so he sent his WMD to some other place. It is also possible they just buried or burned the things out in the middle of the desert. Now to me it makes perfect sense to have an investigation into what went wrong. However, there are several other investigations and inquiries under way. The findings of those investigations (such as the Iraq Survey Group) are going to be important for conducting a meaningful investigation into the intelligence situation prior to entering Iraq. It would therefore be best to start the investigation with these critical pieces of information, rather than gaining that information at the half way point and causing much other work to be wasted. The independent investigation into why our intelligence system failed us for so many years in regards to Iraq's WMD would logically lead to investigating why our intelligence system failed prior to September 11th, prior to the USS Cole bombing, prior to the Kobar Towers bombing, prior to the African Embassy bombings, prior to the invasion in regards to Iraq's economy and infastructure, and about the far more advanced than believed Iraqi missile programs, and in other such cases. Now the most problamatic thing about the investigation is that there is a great misunderstanding by some people as to what the ivestigation should do. One portion of the population believes the proper inquiry should be into how and why the Bush administration were able to manipulate and falsify intelligence information to support the objective of regime change with the objective of carrying out their own so called "regime change" here. The rest of the population is now interested in finding out why the intel was so bad with the aim of fixing the intelligence system. Incidentally there are a great many governments that should be launching such investigations, because it certainly appears from the private observers stand point that everyone had bad intelligence on the matter. Now the matter of intelligence information being sexed up is pretty well been laid to rest, at least in regards to our comrades accross the pond. The inquiry led by Lord Hutton (not certain of the spelling) concluded that the Blair government (in most parliamentary systems the "government" is what we would call the "administration") did not sex up the public reports about Iraq. That finding would also seem to support the theory that Bush did not sex up American intelligence, since so much of what was publicly reported was so near to the same in each country. Anywase, the response from our Canadian friend seems to indicate that he hasn't quite figured out the United States, particularly with regards to its politics. Most near everyone I know guessed that Bush would eventually support an investigation, but that he was waiting for both a more advantagous moment from the political and operational standpoints. Oh, and about that lying. Clinton deliberately purgered himself and lied to the public. Bush, it would seem, passed on information he was given that it seems was incorrect. Let me provide a similar but unrelated example. Who would you think does the greater wrong, the SM that uses the program incorrectly because they don't fully understand it, or the one who understands the program and willfully uses it incorrectly ? I would place greater blame on the the latter SM because he intentionally abused the program. He may only cause small harm, but he is abusing the system and lying to the parents and boys. The first SM may in fact do far more harm to the boys and program, but he at least can honestly claim to have acted out of ignorance. The first SM may even be able to be trained in the BSA program and become a good SM. The second SM will not likely respond to further training because of some flaw that is in him.

My troop is going to Philmont this summer. Currently I am not part of the group going, though I would certainly love to. It is quite likely that one guy may drop because of a trip to Europe, and another because of a broken leg. That could open up a slot, but unfortunately I will have to make alternative plans well before I am ever asked to go to with the troop. So I am now trying to make my own plans for the summer. I currently am looking at these posibilities: summer camp staff OA Trail Crew OA Wilderness Voyage Philmont staff NOAC contingent NOAC staff I think I could do any of those things without a problem, so it is really just an issue of making a choice and sending in application(S) before it is too late.

I would have some concerns about members of a BOR not being in uniform. Committee members may, and should, wear the uniform. Those on the BOR certainly should since they are working directly with youth in a way that makes them a potential positive/negative example. Another concern would be how well aware of the Scouting program is some one who doesn't understand it well enough to wear the uniform. Generally speaking most of those that don't wear the uniform are unfamiliar with the way Scouting works. Those same people may be great at balancing the troop check book, or ordering material for a fundraiser, but you need someone who knows the program sitting on BORs. Now what do you do if the Committee doesn't know Scouting well enough to actually evaluate the program? The long term answer is BSA training, greater involvement to see how it works, and some Q&A and what not with the SM and other leaders that do know what is supposed to be going on (assuming some leaders do, if none do the whole troop needs some work). That still leaves the problem of what to do with the Scout that needs a BOR next week. It will not do the Scout or troop any good to do a BOR without anyone knowing what they are doing. At the same time you can't just hand it over to the SM/ASMs. So that leaves the choice of coming up with something "creative" like having the Committee Members be the BOR, but have an ASM or two on hand to advise and assist, but not decide. The other possibility is put off the BOR until the committee members figure out what they are doing.

Well, FOG, you know just because something hasn't happened is no reason to think it might not. You never can tell when there may be a freak accident with the laser tag equipment. Something like a bolt a lightening coming through the building, hitting the laser device while someone is trying to tag someone, causing a power surge, and vaporizing the poor victim instead of tagging them; is just the sort of thing that BSA must protect us from.