Rick_in_CA

As explained to me by a former federal law enforcement officer, yes it does. A lot of people when under pressure will forget such false details. Plus, most criminals are not very bright.

I think Lehmberg should resign; drunk driving is nothing to sneeze at. And it wasn't as if she was just a hair over the legal limit, she was blotto. Should the governor (and others) put on pressure to get her to do the right thing and resign? Yes. Should he use illegal or unethical means to do so? No.

This is unreal. What next? An official written policy on underwear (the only underwear shall be boxers, unless the scout is of 14 years of age in which briefs may be substituted with written permission of the parent. Material will be 100% cotton unless the expected average night time temperature at the camp out is expected to drop below 40 degrees...)?

One of the things to remember about leadership, is for the boys to be in charge, they have to have permission to fail. If adults step in to prevent them from failing, they weren't really in charge in the first place. Boy led can be messy. What it might take for the boys to learn, is a couple of "disasters". That camp out where they didn't have anything to eat because the food was ruined, got wet because they pitched the tents in the wrong place, and didn't do half of the planned activities because "someone else" was supposed to bring the required gear are great learning experiences. You have to let such things happen. Only step in when it becomes a real safety issue. I noted your quote: What was it you were supposed to do? There is very little that the boys shouldn't be handling.

Before you go and start making demands, you need to get your facts straight. So the one leader says that the SM was drunk, but the others didn't mention it. Maybe they didn't because it isn't true or it's exaggerated? You are at a disadvantage because you were not at the camp, and those that were feel the situation is being handled appropriately (except the one that couldn't be bothered to show up at the meeting). It appears to me that you are making a lot of assumptions. Make sure you check those out before you do anything. If you bring up the charge "the SM is an alcoholic!" and he isn't, then you are the one that should be bounced from the unit. I think you should leave "Mr. Couldn't be Bothered" to lead that charge since he was at the camp - of course if he doesn't, maybe there is a reason? Hearsay sucks. It can drag you into the depths and drown you if you let it.

How about storage sheds for the archery and rifle range equipment, canoes and boats (life jackets, etc.) and other camp supplies (need paper for that orienteering class? You have to store it somewhere)? A cabin for the Camp Ranger (unless you expect him to live in a tent all year)? Sanitary facilities (you can't expect all the campers that come through each year to use catholes)? Perhaps an outdoor amphitheater for presentations, skits and other group events (you could always use a meadow, but after several hundred scouts use if over any period of time, it's a patch of dirt/mud, not a meadow)? Hey, this looks like most scout camps. The only thing not in the above list that most have is a dinning hall.

I agree that the news report is rather light on details. It's hard to judge who was in the wrong here. As for the BSA spokesman, his quote is bad, but is it taken out of context? I have no idea. As for why the officer drew his weapon, I agree that in most cases a law enforcement officer won't draw his gun without a good reason. Unfortunately, there are exceptions. We don't know which one this was. As for the US Border Patrol in general, unfortunately there have been problems for years. US citizens being detained with no reasons given, excessive force being used on persons, etc. I am not surprised that a group of boy scouts could have run into a problem with the CPB. As for Eric Holder, I agree it's unreasonable to assume he is aware of this specific minor incident. However, what is not unreasonable, is to assume that he is aware of the general problems in the CPB and DHS. As for taking a picture being illegal, here is what the ACLU says: I don't think it's unreasonable to consider taking a photo falling under the definition of "videotaping or recording anything".

I still can't get over what one person posted somewhere on this forum how their troop brings a big screen tv and a generator with them camping so they can watch movies. Almost makes me want to cry. I grew up camping. That is what my family did for vacation, and I loved it. I remember my first primitive toilet, it was a corrugated steel pipe, no seat. I was only six, and I thought I was going to fall in! Pit toilets with seats? Luxury!

I remember a talk I had with a troop leader at a round table. He said that the biggest obstacle to getting the boys out camping in primitive sites, was that most of the boys refused to use catholes (plus several parents that were completely horrified at the idea and wouldn't let their "babies" go on a trip where that was the only option). He said when his boy joined the troop, they would do two or three wilderness trips a year. Now they don't do any. Of course some areas require you to pack out your waste. I can see that one being a hard sell! When I was a boy scout, my old troop used to go backpacking in the Desolation Wilderness (near Lake Tahoe). They stopped just before I joined because of the then new pack out your waste rules.

You do know this isn't true anymore right?

• Girls? Yes • Boys over or under the current age limits? In general no, but I think there is a valid exception: when dealing with developmentally challenged youth. Should a 14 year old that is developmentally an 8 year old be allowed in cub scouts if the unit wants them? In some cases I would say yes. • Atheists? Yes • Transgenders (a girl who says she identified as a boy, or vice versa)? Yes, but only if the unit is coed. Just because a girl says she is a boy, doesn't eliminate all of the issues around having boys and girls together. • Adult leaders who were previously convicted of a child sexual offense, but are no longer required to register as a sex offender? This is a hard one. Like everything, it depends on the details. There are registered sex offenders who's offense was playing doctor when they were ten years old. Not many, but there are a few. You also have the 18 year old that had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. I would expect the majority of ex-offenders to be unfit as leaders (or to be around children at all), but I am willing to recognize that there are exceptions. Should COs be allowed to recognize those exceptions? I don't know. • An adult with a DUI who wants to drive kids to camp. Again, it depends on the details. If you are talking about someone that had three DUIs in the last ten years, then absolutely not! If you are talking about a 50 year old that had one DUI when he was 19 and hasn't had a problem since? Then yes. I don't like zero-tolerance rules, as they are usually about avoiding judgment and responsibility. Part of the idea with local control is trusting the COs to do the right thing. In theory at least, the CO know their leaders better then we do. Mistakes will be made, just like they are under the current rules.

CNN? Really? Probably the biggest example of "lazy journalism" in the country? All they do is parrot what others say with no analysis (Person A says the world is round, Person B says it's flat - I guess that means that the experts disagree on the shape of the Earth). You will never hear CNN say "this is what happened". Just "this is what that person says". At least FOX has a clear agenda they push, CNN has basically given up being journalists. As for dismissing the NYT, it's still one of the best well balanced sources for news in the country. Much better than any of the sources on cable or tv. Look, the IRS messed up in how it handled the BOLO lists, that isn't in dispute. Did the IRS target conservative groups for political reasons? No. Did they only target conservative groups? No. Even the articles you linked too agree with that. I however think you are right about the emails. Lots of questions there: Why doesn't the IRS have a system for automatically archiving their emails (depending on each employee to print and file each email is their current system)? There were seven hard drive crashes, out of how many hard drives (if it's seven out of eight or something like that - that doesn't pass the smell test. If it's seven out of a eight hundred - that could)?

The whole "this was a political conspiracy targeting conservatives" thing. That has been completely debunked (except in the world of paranoid conservative talk radio). You said: It wasn't only conservatives, all kinds of groups were targeted, and not just political groups (open source groups, pro Obamacare groups, etc.): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/us...1&ref=politics As for the IG report, it only talked about "Tea Party" groups because that was what the republicans told the IG to do: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/30...a-party-groups So no, it wasn't "only conservative groups" getting targeted. And no, the White House didn't have anything to do with it. Yes, the IRS did mess up with these BOLO lists, but it wasn't a political thing. Though I do agree with you on the missing emails. I think there was some ass covering going on there.

Spoken like a true conservative. Who cares if this isn't true? We are going to repeat it anyway! After all, facts have a well known liberal bias.

But if you are leading a group in prayer, you are speaking too them as you speak for them. Otherwise why speak out loud?

Here is what the BSA's Guide to Advancement has to say: So basically the BSA requires a "belief in God", but leaves what that is up to the scout, his family and his religious leaders (if any).

An interesting article. Thanks for sharing it.

fred johnson brings up some good points about how society attitudes have changed. Look at attitudes toward bulling and hazing. I remember reading about how a century ago in English boarding schools, having the upperclassmen beat up the underclassmen was an officially sanctioned form of discipline. Or how about public nudity? It used to be that nudity among single-sex groups was no big deal (it depended on the context). In my high school locker room, public nudity was something you saw every day. Whether in the showers, changing next to the lockers or several hundred naked teenagers lined up for their health checks ("... now cough.") it was SOP. Today schools are installing individual shower stalls and changing alcoves. Boy scout troops used to go skinny dipping. Now days, nudity is assumed to be sexual. A troop going skinny dipping would not only be a complete YPT violation, but I wouldn't be surprised if such an incident generated criminal charges. I have talked with a parent that was convinced that nudity in school locker rooms was a form of sexual abuse ("there is no reason for them to be parading around like that! It shouldn't be allowed!"). That is one of the problems when applying today's standard to the past. There are things that today we "know to be true" that in the past would have been disagreed with. As others have pointed out, while not perfect, the BSA was ahead of the curve on this issue when compared to what other groups were doing.

One of the reasons the BSA didn't release the files earlier, is that they could be libel for anything in those files that is incorrect. My understanding of what is in those files ranges from police reports and first person accounts, all the way to newspaper clippings and rumors. If the BSA published those files and damaged someones reputation with bad information, they could get sued, and deservedly so.