Rooster7

Barry, I was addressing the example that Bob gave in his first post ("Jimmy is a nerd"). And yes, I have seen boys in real life tear down another boy (not present) in a PLC. It was stopped before it got out of hand. However, I'm confident that had an adult not stepped forward to stop the inappropriate comments, the conversation would have continued in a downward spiral. Now, I guess an arguement can be made that perhaps the adults (SM and ASMs) should have allowed the conversation to continue...to see how the boys handle the situation. But I say - the potential cost of this lesson would be too high. I understand that learning can occur through mistakes. I also understand that BSA encourages us to allow the boys to make mistakes. But we can't use that mantra for every situation.

While the SPL runs the meeting, I believe it is important that the SM be present. Bob's last example highlights this fact. If the PLC is discussing a boy's personality and marking him for social outcast, I'd rather see the SM "nip it in the bud" before the conversation goes too far. It doesn't do the boy in question much good if the SM has an end of the meeting debrief with the SPL - the damage is already done. There are some mistakes that we shouldn't allow the boys to make. Allowing the PLC to turn a boy into a pariah is not the actions of a wise SM or an opportunity for a learning lesson. The cost is too high. Its an opportunity for the SM to act like an adult leader and to set some boundaries.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

A) Ask the boys if they are going to have enough support to make that trip happen. Do they think there will be enough willing adult drivers to carry the boys and their equipment to and from a river 5 hours away? Also, they need to investigate the river. Is it too dangerous or too sedate for the boys? B) Without any other specifics, this sounds reasonable. C) Remind the boys that summer activities should be designed with all Scouts in mind. A high adventure trip is fine, but they need to provide an alternative for the younger boys. D) This doesnt sound like a problem, but the younger boys should be included in the decision process (since they will be the ones attending). Ask the PLC to poll their patrols and find out what the younger boys want to do. E) Tell the boys that this change will have to be approved by the Troop committee. They need to ensure that the Troops account will have enough funding for the normal costs associated with the Troop and the yearly re-chartering fee. F) Sounds okay, but they should be asked How do you plan to make up for the lost sleep? Are you planning to have a siesta in the afternoon? Are you going to have an early lights out the night before? G) Great idea. Now, lets talk about how realistic that is, and what we can do if anything to make it happen. H) Probably a bit over the lineeven for me. So, I agree its a form of hazing. But Im willing to argue with you and others about singing Im a little tea pot. But lets not start that debate again. I) Unless Jimmys behavior hinders the way the troop functions in some way, Id never let the boys discuss an individuals personality at a PLC. The conversation went too far as soon as someone labeled the kid a nerd. Id ask anyone who had an issue with an individual to discuss it with me first before presenting the issue at the PLC. As soon as it became apparent that it was a clash of personalities, Id address it with the individual scouts involved. The PLC would not become involved unless there was a real issue that affected the entire troop. Even then, Id want to know more before allowing it to become a PLC discussion.

I tend to agree with Bob on this issueStill, I believe there could be a rare instance in which I might not tell the parents. But let me take a stab at Twocubdads question Otherwise aren't you making a judgment as to what you do and don't tell a parent? I think Bob would agree that we dont tell the parents everything. Realistically, 99.9% of what we hear the parents already know or the information is seemingly inconsequential to the childs development. And besides, if we did inform the parents of everything, wed be spending 50% of our time or more talking to them. For example, a boy reveals in a BOR that while he finds balancing Scouts and school to be difficult at times, My grades have not suffered. My guess is - Bob isnt suggesting that we have to run to his parents and feed them verbatim quotes or even advise them of this particular disclosure. Theres no earth shaking revelation being made by the boy. There is no reason to suspect that the child is over his head or in danger of suffering any kind of harm (physically, mentally, emotionally, or spiritually). On the other hand, if the boy reveals in a BOR (or in a Scoutmaster Conference, etc.) that school has been extremely difficult and/or displays some emotional distress about his grades, then I think we owe it to the parents to advise them of the same. I think we need to ask ourselves, if this was my son would I want someone to talk to me about it. Unless I know differently, I have to assume the parents are sane, reasonable, and will treat their sonwell, like a son. I expect all of the adults in my troop to view me in this light. Furthermore, I would be enraged if something bad ever happened to my son because an adult in the troop deemed me an irresponsible parent and kept information from me. But to be fair to Ed and some of my old friends - I reserve the right to make my own moral decisions, even if it means BSA would frown on me (or even revoke my membership). I think perhaps this is what some of the other folks on this board are implying. Right is right. You do what you have to do. Its a risk that I have not yet had to take. However, I will take that risk if I ever deem it to be appropriate. Although, to be sure - I would not take this risk, the implications, or the consequences associated with it lightly. As I said, if I was the parent, I know what my reaction would be.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

scoutldr, For the most part, the Scouters on this forum are all parents (with a few exceptions). So, just for giggles, let's personalize your state's mandate - I think it becomes a little clearer, or at least, a little less sterile: We were PROHIBITED by law from telling YOU and we had a legal obligation to interview, test and treat YOUR CHILDREN WITH OR WITHOUT YOUR knowledge and consent. You may feel good about this mandate, but I for one, think it stinks. In fact, it's just another example of how some state's have stripped their citizens of parental rights. I find it very sad that so many are willing to embrace these kinds of laws. Personally, I still believe that most parents are more competent than what some states give them credit for being. And likewise, I think most kids, when confronted with a tough situation will do the right thing - so long as society doesn't make it easy for them to do the wrong thing (i.e., pick up your free condoms from your local high school counselor, or if you missed "free condom day" - try 'Abortions R Us' a.k.a. Planned Parenthood). If I can't trust an organization to be honest with me - the parent, I don't want my children to have anything to do with them.

I haven't posted in a while, but I can't resist the urge today. I have my foot partially in both camps: 99% of the time, I would defer to the parents. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. For example, suppose your son tells the SM in confidence that he visited a friend against your wishes. The SM begrudgingly agrees to keep the secret, but gives the boy a proper lecture for disobeying his parents. The problem is, the SM doesn't know what you know - that this particular friend is heavily into drugs and other bad influences. So, while the SM may have provided a good lecture, perhaps a more serious problem than lying or being disobedient is being hidden from the parents. That's the whole issue at hand...the parents are THE parents, and they should know their son better than the SM or any other adult in the kid's life. I feel, we as adults and most especially as scouters, have a moral obligation to keep the parents informed. That being said, we should advise our scouts of this fact before they decide to place their confidence in us. ON THE OTHER HAND, I have an obligation to myselfto my own moral beliefs. That being said, if a boy revealed something to me and I had good reason not to trust the parents, I might refrain from advising them. This is purely hypothetical and Im sure it would be an extremely rare occurrence. Also, if I choose this course, I would do so knowing that I might have to pay a price for it (i.e., lawsuit, banished from BSA, etc.). I wont attempt to describe a specific hypothetical because there are always numerous permutations that can be derived from such an example. Id probably have to write another a dozen or more posts just to answer questions about a made-up example. My point is simply, as rare as it might be, I can envision a potential situation where I might not advise the parents BUT only if I was CONVINCED that it would be detrimental to the boy. If you chose the latter, you better be right (because youre probably not in the best position to know the boy as well as his parents and/or to know all of the facts) and you better be willing to pay the consequences (legal and otherwise). My gut instinct tells me, youre better off trusting the parents unless you have incredible evidence to do otherwise. And if the evidence is that overwhelming, you probably should be getting law enforcement or social workers involved. Regardless, my biggest argument for telling the parents, is this If I were the parent, Id want to know. AND Id be more than hopping mad if something happened to my child that I could have prevented had the SM advised me of the situation.

1000 POSTS! I'm going to try to "retire" from this forum. It's been fun, but I think I've spent enough time here. Notice how I emphasized the word - try. That's because the last time I made a big deal about leaving, I hung around for another 700 posts. Here's what I've tried to convey in my previous 999 postsif I failed to relay these ideas - I apologize. I like the BSA. I really do. I love the fact that it at least attempts to be a faith-based organization, and yet welcomes as many as possible from different faiths (that recognize and will adhere to the BSA's values). Churches and other religious organizations aside, the BSA is the only organization I know that is standing up and defending traditional values. They are not caving in to the liberal culture. I pray that they continue to take this stand. I don't feel the BSA is perfect. In particular, I think they're a little preoccupied with liability (although - for understandable reasons). Still, as far as I can tell, they're the best organization around for a young boy to join. Frankly, while many leaders are engrossed by issues pertaining to camping skills, high adventure trips, and the like (not that there is anything wrong with this facet of the program), I appreciate the character building aspect of the program more (i.e., "Duty to God, country, and family"). Many folks are critical of the discussions featured in the "politics and issues" threads. However, I feel that these issues ultimately will shape the BSA of the future. At least, for people who are like me, who fully appreciate the traditional values embraced by the BSA - these debates are well worth having. I don't hate people who don't embrace traditional values. I do feel that those who oppose the values taught in the Bible and elsewhere are in danger of losing their salvation. I also feel that many folks twist what is taught in the Bible for their own purposes. They too are very much in danger of losing their salvation. Actually, to be perfectly honest, unless you accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, I feel salvation is not obtainable. If you've done that, then you can be wrong about a lot of thingsbecause God forgives all who believe in Him. I never claimed to be perfect. In fact, I am far from perfect. I have sins that I struggle with constantly. Yet, I would never tell you to accept my sins as normal behavior, which is what the homosexual community is doing. I don't believe girls belong in the BSA. Girls and boys are different. There is nothing wrong with creating an organization and a program that recognizes those differences (i.e., the BSA). I would prefer to see the BSA focus on those differences a little more - but I guess for reasons of political correctness, they've opted not to do that. This is a minor criticism that I have of the program. I guess this post could go on forever, because there have been so many captivating debates. I'll try to close this out. To those that share my values and my faith, while I may not have always said it in a post, I truly appreciate that you're out there fighting the good fight. I pray that one day we will meet, perhaps in HeavenIt would be neat to see a face and speak to you in person. You know who you are - or at least you should. To those that are convinced that I am something that I am not (i.e., an ideologue, a bigot, homophobic, woman-hater, gay-basher, a "fundamentalist", or some other misguided and/or simplified label), I truly wish you well. We may disagree - even passionately so. I may have even mislabeled you. Nevertheless, while I do believe sin is sin, and truth is truth, I have always tried to focus on the issue and its relation to truth, not the person. I am in no position to judge you in terms of your standing with God. Nor would I want to try. However, I do suggest that you examine your own soul and try to determine that yourself. I try to do this everyday. If by implication, you believe this to mean that I think my deeds and words make me more righteous than youthis is not so - my righteousness comes from Christ alone. If you don't understand, I pray one day you will. Grace and peace be to you.

2

3

4

5

Sunday School classes contain people from all walks of life and political stripe... Yes, but not all "walks of life" and/or "political stripes" are Christ-like. I'm not condemning Democrats or cheering for Republicans. I'm just saying - issues such as abortion can and should be discussed in Sunday school. Furthermore, it shouldn't be approached from - "What do you think?" The Bible has something to say about all of these things and a good church will teach those things unashamedly. Whether or not that was happening in your old Sunday school class, I couldn't say - I wasn't there. But as always, I digress.

I use to pray for Clinton. Unfortunately, I never saw him repent publicly for his behavior (aside from what seemed to be a political maneuver to control damage caused by his affair with Monica). I'll probably pray for him again. Regardless, whether I pray for him or not, his deeds, his words, and his attitudes are what they arethey're not worth defending - they ARE condemnable. The President is the President regardless of his party affiliation and our personal views. This is true. He's also a man. I respect the office of the Presidency - I don't necessarily respect the man who fills that position. And since Clinton left office, I have no inspiration to defend him whatsoever. BTW, politics and religion are not mutually exclusive. Homosexuality, abortion, welfare, justice, racial equality, war, etc. - These are some of the major issues of the day. They're also covered in the Bible and addressed by many other faiths. If your church doesn't challenge the way you think politically, then they probably are not challenging you at all.

He was a very popular president and history will treat him well, much to the dismay of the Republicans. And much to the dismay of those folks who believe it was wrong for a President to... fire people from low level federal jobs because he didn't like their politics. take potential evidence from the office of a high level official who committed "suicide". commit adultery. use his position to hide from inquiries concerning his financial dealings. use the Lincoln bedroom as a bribe. lie to cover up his many "indiscretions". smear the reputations of others to protect his own. use the oval office for sexual encounters. pardon criminals for a buck and/or because they were related to his wife. steal costly furniture and other artifacts from the White House and Air Force One. justify his lying by lamely redefining words like "is" and "sex". send U.S. troops in harms way to distract the public from the national embarrassment he created. I'm sure there are countless other shameful acts that he's guilty of, but my memory can no longer recall them all. Just imagine - if he's not a complete dunce, there's probably a few things he didn't get caught doing. Despite Jimmy Carter's many failing as a President, I understand why liberals like him. His heart, if not his brain, was definitely Presidential. I'll never understand why any liberal continues to publicly support a cheesy, despicable, and self-absorbed person such as the likes of Bill Clinton. Yeah, Bill Clinton was a real honorable guy. If American history does treat him well, shame on us.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

littlebillie, Good analogy. However (and perhaps we don't disagree here...I'm not sure...its not clear by your post), I think there is plenty of evidence that Sadam Hussein is "going for his gun". As President Bush noted the other night, we know this - He's employed an evil military-like police who tortures innocent children in front of their parents to gain confessions and cooperation of the same. He refuses to account for thousands of weapons (missiles, biological and chemical, etc.). We have defectors (scientists) who have testified that Hussein had created mobile labs to develop chemical and biological weapons. He's already shown a willingness to use these weapons, even on his own people. Iraq entertains friendly relations with terrorists who are intent on doing us harm. The same terrorist group that killed over 3,000 Americans less than two years ago. The list goes on...and I'm sure there are things that President Bush cannot say because it could put intelligence people and/or future operations at risk. Just how evil and dangerous does Sadam Hussein have to prove himself to be before we act militarily? Are we going to repeat the same mistakes of WWII? Adolph Hitler created an evil empire and it was right that we waged war against him and his regime. Sadam Hussein is doing his best to imitate Hitler in the Middle East. If we sit back and watch, what can we say about our collective character? We were fearful? We were selfish? We were foolish? Wise doesn't seem appropriate. If we allow him to get any closer to that gun, we may be sacrificing thousands of lives (perhaps millions if he obtains a nuclear bomb).

Why not consider the Bill of Rights flawed? Lets rework that, after all it was put together a long time ago, surely things are different now. I know you meant the above statement to be "tongue in cheek", but don't be surprised if a chorus of liberals respond by saying- 'Yes, you make a valid point. Let's do that.' It never seizes to amaze me- how much wiser each new generation seems to think they are above and beyond the previous generations. "The Constitution is out-dated. 'Flawed men' wrote the Bible. Today's society is different." On and on they spout about "the times", the culture, and newly found wisdom as if we are evolving into some kind of new super speciesthe blather never stops. As long as God restrains his hand, evil and imperfect beings will have a hand in society. This fact did not escape our forefathers or the authors of the Bible. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are well-crafted and timeless documents. We should fight hard to keep them in place - as written.

troop_358_potlatch, The counselor did this merit badge at a few troop meetings Another small point It's not the MB counselor's badge. Obviously, she was doing some work with the troop (i.e., "a group merit badge" discussion). This is done for the MB counselor's convenience. It allows him/her to meet with several boys at the same time to verify requirements are done (or will be done) properly. The MB counselor should be willing to meet at other times with individuals.

troop_358_potlatch, The counselor did this merit badge at a few troop meetings. My son missed part of the discussion one night, but he finished the requirements at a later time. He did a work sheet that I had gotten off the merit badge website. It was turned into the counselor, but she would not accept just that. He worked for 3 hours to finish this. I would think that it would be proof that he had done what he was supposed to do. A merit badge counselor's job can be broken down into three parts - 1) Verify that the requirement was done (i.e., the boy gave a 5 minute speech, did chores for 90 days, etc.). The MB counselor doesn't have to personally witness the event unless its specifically spelled out in the requirement. 2) Verify that the boy has a proper understanding of the requirement (i.e., per the requirement, explain how this works - this being whatever the requirement dictates). The MB counselor doesn't have to teach the requirement (although some do). 3) Verify that the boy can perform a certain skill as dictated by the requirements (i.e., can tie a square knot, etc.) The MB counselor does have to teach the skill (although some do). If the counselor in your post is refusing to accept your son's work because it was not done at a previously arranged meeting for the troop, then I say the counselor doesn't understand his responsibility. He should be willing to meet with him as an individual (but accompanied by another per the G2SS) and accept reasonable evidence that the work/requirement was met. If not, he's just being stubborn. It is not the MB counselor's job to teach, demonstrate, or even bare witness to specific events (unless specifically stated). He certainly can - and it definitely should be appreciated if he does, but that is not his responsibility. His responsibility is to verify that the boy has a proper understanding and that he met the requirement. In short, if I were in your shoes, I'd ask the troop advancement person or the Committee Chair to consult the MB counselor to verify that he understands his responsibilities properly. If your son met the requirement, he should get credit for it. It doesn't matter that he was not at some prearranged meeting for the MB counselor. Now, the MB counselor, if he wants to get "silly", has the freedom to refuse to meet with a boy. But, this has nothing to do with "proper verification" of requirements. It sounds more like - the MB counselor had a plan and doesn't like boys straying from it. You realize, your son is free to meet with other MB counselors? Having said all the above, I defer to Bob White on this subject. I may have overstated my point, but I think not. Regardless, Bob White knows more about it than I. K9gold-scout, Has anyone told you that you're repetitive?

According to the Scripps Howard News service (see article at http://www.s-t.com/daily/11-00/11-12-00/a11op044.htm), the electorates in these states are legally bound to vote for the winner of the state: Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, D.C., Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennesse, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Five states threaten to punish unfaithful electors - New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Washington.

Oh, by the way the Electoral College is not bound by the popular vote of their State. They are free to vote their conscience. Actually, as I understand it...some states do legally bound their representatives (the electorates) to vote as the popular vote of the state dictates. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, but I seem to remember hearing it from a credible source.

OGE, I'm not that big of an Oriole fan that I should be trying to defend Cal Jr. However, he has been a big community guy. He gives back. To my knowledge, he doesn't get drunk in public, beat his wife, do drugs, or give long speeches as to why he should be considered the greatest player ever, etc. I realize that these are things that many of us can claim, but my point is - boys do look up to him and he has not been a bad influence. Unfortunately, boys also look up to Mike Tyson and others as well. As per my original point, one does not choose to be a role model - or not to be one (i.e., Charles Barkley). Circumstances dictate who is and who is not. While Barkley may be "honest" concerning his desires, he's still setting an example for others (young and impressionable kids) to follow - whether he wants them to follow or not, is irrelevant. Kwc57, You make valid points and I agree. Yet, I still feel those in the spotlight will be held accountable for their behavior. Furthermore, while we can agree on what good parents ought to do - not everyone is blessed with a good parent. Consequently, those role models can and do make a difference - for the good and the bad.

To my knowledge, President Bush never said, "war in Iraq is not inevitable". He's certainly not happy with Sadam Hussein's response, prompting the President to say that America will not back down. Nothing in your post denoting Schwarzkopf's comments seems to contradict these sentiments. Furthermore, I accept that the President may know that what he's able to say. For example, if the Iraqi's were hiding a nuclear lab of some sort, which contained materials to make a bomb, it would be foolish for the U.S. to tell them that we are aware of its location. This would merely prompt the Iraqi's to move the materials and to deny it. There's no guarantee that our satellites or our intelligence people would be able to track its movement successfully. Consequently, the President would be putting American military personnel at extreme risk by making certain facts public. I trust him and our current government officials to analyze the situation properly and to act accordingly.

Cal Ripken Jr., while he probably never proclaimed himself to be a role model, has and will continue to inspire young boys. He, by virtue of being a successful professional athlete, became a role model for millions. No one told these boys to follow Mr. Ripken; they just did because he acquired and excelled at a very enviable position - all star, professional shortstop - a dream come true for thousands, if not millions of young men. In the process, he taught kids to work hard for a goal and to never sacrifice their integrity to get there. Likewise, a Cobb or Mantle inspired millions in their generation. Unfortunately, that inspiration probably included rudeness, womanizing, and drunkenness. That is their legacy and they cannot escape it. Mike Tyson is trying to evade a similar legacy by claiming he "never asked to be role model". Yet, I say, that's a lousy excuse. If you're successful in life, part of the price for that success should be that you set a positive example for others to follow. Public exposure and the eyes of the younger generation will establish who are the role models. Its not something someone can chose to be or not to be. Some folks, who live in the spotlight, like to wash their hands of this responsibility; Often they are able to pacify and/or convince the public that they are unaccountable as role models. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that one day they will be held accountable. But since they think no one pays them any attention or cares, I'm sure they will be surprised when they are asked, "Why did you behave in such a manner, leading so many young people down a path of ruin?"

Despite Charles Barkley's declaration (and he may have meant it in a positive way), I don't think he or anyone else can claim or disclaim the position of role model. By virtue of being a professional athlete, children will look up to him. Likewise by virtue of being an adult leader, some boys will try to emulate us. The job of "role model" cannot be abandoned because you did not seek it or because you think the burden is too heavy. Charles and other athletes may like limiting theirs obligations to playing a sport and collecting a multi-million dollar check...however, I submit that pro sports teams' owners and their employees have a greater obligation to society. Likewise, an adult volunteer may like to limit his responsibility to some narrowly defined position, which he holds within a troop. But, BSA volunteers owe the boys much more - to be a person of good character and someone worth emulating - a role model. That's my two cents.

Eagledad, I can relate. I grew up in the 70's. I used to like Elton John a lot...then I found out he was bisexual. I could never listen to his songs and appreciate them in the same way after that...suddenly, I questioned if "Daniel" was really his brother...it was very disturbing.