SR540Beaver

Rooster, Regardless of whether or not someone has been affected yet or not is beside the point. The trouble is that the government is taking an inch.....that could eventually lead to a mile. What is next? What if they decide they need to know about the counseling your pastor did with you? Are you OK with that? As a Christian, I know you are aware of how one small sin can turn into a life altering monster in someone's life. Eroding our civil liberties are no different. Just because it doesn't affect you today does not mean it won't grow and affect you tomorrow. After several years of precedence, it will become "just the way we do it" and no one will care when you complain that your liberties are being infringed upon. As I asked in my previous post about when can you declare a victory in a war on a concept, when will the civil liberties being infringed be given back? I fear that the answer is never. When the line gets crossed, there is no going back.

John-in-KC, Thank you for your comments and your service to our country. I'm a conservative independent who never bought into GWB. My father was a Marine in WWII. My being diabetic kept me from being able to serve. My 13 year old son says he wants to be a Marine. While I consider myself a patriotic sort of guy, I have deep reservations about encouraging my son in that direction. Bush had my full support in Afghanistan. He lost me with Iraq. Regardless of which version I hear of why we went, none of them work for me. I never saw Iraq as the threat the administration said they were. If so, they could/would have hurt us when they were stronger over the last dozen years. I fear that this "war on terror" will be like the war on drugs. It will be an ongoing effort that our grandchildren will be saddled with. When will we ever be able to claim that we have won a war on terror? About the same time we declare victory in the war on drugs and poverty. While I love this country and our freedoms and take neither for granted, I would be hard pressed to sacrifice my son for the overthrow of a dictator of another country on the hope that they "might" become democratic. I do not believe that our government's actions are consistent with the intentions of our founding fathers. Shedding blood in defense of our nation is a totally different thing than shedding it for another country.

Interesting! Barry, I had not heard about our neighboring council doing the Sunday-less WB course. Barry is staffing our council's spring course and I'm staffing our fall course. Two of the staff on the fall course are LDS. One of them is being awarded the Silver Beaver at the end of this month. Both are on fire for BSA. I really don't know their personal history. I have a feeling that their involvement in BSA has nothing to do with a "calling", but is voluntary. In other words, they are part of LDS units, but are in it for the long haul as volunteers. In fact, one of the guys is course director (SM) for an upcoming two weekend supplemental council course we call Outdoor Skills Training....not to be confused with IOLS. Evidently they have convinced the LDS powers that be here locally to allow them to attend and participate in courses that go into Sunday. In fact, they are doing some heavy recruiting of their fellow LDS scouters to attend our fall WB course.

Rooster, I'm not quite sure how you can take the reasoned and legitimate concerns of conservative patriotic citizens and see them as rants and hysteria......but you are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else. I've detected your comments and responses to be directly in line with the talking points of pundits such as Rush, Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Tony Snow, Ann Coulter, etc. I suspect that you take most of your information from those kind of sources since you repeat their points almost verbatim. I know because I listen to them almost daily, but do so with a critical ear. Again, it is your right to develop your opinions from sources that support your views. That doesn't really do anything to support your claim of no proof in the pudding however. It just means you limit yourself to one brand of pudding. I suggest that you do a Google search on "patriot act abuse" to find that there are indeed proofs to that which you choose not to believe. Yes, you'll find stories from the ACLU, but you'll also find stories from sources such as Fox News.

Rooster, I'm not quite sure how you can take the reasoned and legitimate concerns of conservative patriotic citizens and see them as rants and hysteria......but you are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else. I've detected your comments and responses to be directly in line with the talking points of pundits such as Rush, Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Tony Snow, Ann Coulter, etc. I suspect that you take most of your information from those kind of sources since you repeat their points almost verbatim. Again, it is your right to develop your opinions from sources that support your views. That doesn't really do anything to support your claim of no proof in the pudding however. It just means you limit yourself to one brand of pudding. I suggest that you do a Google search on "patriot act abuse" to find that there are indeed proofs to that which you choose not to believe. Yes, you'll find stories from the ACLU, but you'll also find stories from sources such as Fox News.

Miki101, Any chance we can get a teaser about your book?

Eagle-Pete, The SE - Scout Executive is the top paid professional in the council. He is THE man. He and he alone is the person who makes the final decision on whether or not an adult's registration can be revoked at the council level.

Region 7 Voyageur: I thought that my new laptop and my DSL connection were so fast that I was seeing posts before they were posted. Did you know that if you put instant coffee in a microwave oven, you'll go back in time? You might want to use that little trick the next time your fast DSL connection throws you forward in time.

Trev, I didn't realize you had "closed" the survey until I finished taking it around noon CST on Monday, 03/13. It allowed me to take the survey, so I don't think it is actually closed.

I agree with others that I have never, ever been questioned about BSA politics, issues or policies by a single soul when I've recruited boys......and I've done a fair amount of recruiting. In fact, I've never been asked about these issues by anyone. I think it is fair to say that those who have little to nothing good to say about the BSA have a burr under their personal saddle and go out of their way to search out all of these individual council issues and tie them together in one big package.

The devil is in the details. If this was a charitable event for some organization and your unit was not in charge of it, how could you have "fundraising impropriety"? What you describe sounds like your boys were doing a service project instead of fundraising. Now, if you were making money while doing service and had not filed a fundraiser form, I can see where a problem might exist. I know it all makes sense to you since it happened to you, but you are alluding to things that we can only guess at.

ATCprofesr: Looking for clarity and reassurance that the BSA has not truly diminished to such a petty, political abhorration. From where I sit, no it has not. From where you sit, who knows? All you've told us is that you had an unjustified revocation of your BSA registration and you consider it an injustice. How would we know if that is true? It is really none of our business.....but since you brought it up, why was your registration revoked? It usually takes a pretty bad transgression for something that rare to happen. Something along the lines of finding you have a hidden criminal record or youth protection issues. I'm afraid no one can answer your question based on what little detail you have provided.

Greying Beaver, A boy who only shows up for one week of summer camp will never move beyond the Scout badge to the Tenderfoot rank. If the camp provides wall tents and a dining hall, the boy will never sleep in a tent he helped pitch or assist in preparing and cooking one of his patrol's meals. Now, if he were to go to a camp where the troop uses their own tents and cooks their own meals, he still wouldn't be able to show improvement in push-ups, pull-ups, sit-ups, standing long jump and 1/4 mile walk/run after 30 days. Why? Because he was not "active" before or beyond the one week at camp....even if he is paid up for the year. If he had made Tenderfoot earlier, he'd never make Second Class because he has to attend five separate troop/patrol activities, two of which include overnight camping. Why? Again, because he was not "active" other than the one week per year at camp. You can call a boy active because he has paid his registration, but he will never advance without really BEING active.

Kahuna, You are correct. Technically he is not a criminal....even though he did commit crimes. He was indeed convicted and then the convictions were overturned because of limited immunity that had been granted to him for his pre-trial Congressional testimony. I wonder if he and OJ play golf together? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North North was tried in 1988 in relation to his activities while at the National Security Council. He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4, 1989, he was convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall, on his instructions). He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service. However, on July 20, 1990, a three-judge appeals panel overturned North's conviction in advance of further proceedings on the grounds that his public testimony may have prejudiced his right to a fair trial. [2] The Supreme Court declined to review the case, and Judge Gesell dismissed the charges on September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of the independent counsel. Essentially, North's convictions were overturned because he had been granted limited immunity for his Congressional testimony, and this testimony was deemed to have influenced witnesses at his trial.

I appreciate anybody's service to this country.....but that does not excuse current or future transgressions. Duke Cunningham of California was a Vietnam fighter pilot hero and well respected politician. He let the power go to his head, took advantage of it and is now headed to prison in disgrace. Ollie North took an oath to follow the law and did not. He sold arms to known terrorists to secretly fund fighters in another war. Congress had expressly forbidden what he was doing. While he covers himself in the flag and patriotism and tries to use the excuse that the ends justified the means, what he did was criminal. He escaped prison on a technicality. He disgraced the Marine uniform he wore. He has traded on that notoriety for fame and money. He continues to be rewarded by being hired for speaking engagements and by Fox News using him as an anaylst and host. He did nothing to be proud of or to be praised for. I am always amazed at folks admiring him as much as they do. OJ was guilty and so was Ollie.

Playing the devil's advocate and bring ing up the "I voted for it before I voted against it" quote again. Here is a perfect example of why Presidents want line item vetos. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701229_pf.html House Agrees To Vote On Ports Efforts by the White House to hold off legislation challenging a Dubai-owned company's acquisition of operations at six major U.S. ports collapsed yesterday when House Republican leaders agreed to allow a vote next week that could kill the deal. Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) will attach legislation to block the deal today to a must-pass emergency spending bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A House vote on the measure next week will set up a direct confrontation with President Bush, who sternly vowed to veto any bill delaying or stopping Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steamship Co........... So if Bush wants to fund his war, he has to sign or veto legislation that harms his port deal. Will he be forced to say, "I voted for funding the war before I funded not to fund the war"? In my opinion, rule changes should be made that do not allow attaching legislation to a bill if that legislation has nothing to do with the original bill. Then you vote on individual items and not packages and a line item veto is not needed.

Longhaul: They formed a plan to make sure "the people" were heard and could affect the laws governing them. That seldom happens today. I find that few politicians really represent my needs. I don't think our Forefathers had to deal too much with PAC's, Lobbyists and special interest groups bribing congressmen to circumvent the will of the people.

We always make it well known that parents are always welcome on any of our campouts. That being said, we also educate them that the adults camp as a model patrol. Boys are not allowed into our patrol area without asking permission and we don't enter their witout asking. We explain the patrol structure and that we expect them to honor it as they undermine to authority and structure of the patrol method. Can we keep a parent from interacting with their child? Of course not. Can we counsel them if they are gumming up the works and trying to set up or break down Junior's tent for him? You bet. Our boys do a pretty good job of planning out and scheduling the time on campouts and there is really very little down time. We keep them busy enough (as well as the adults) that it kind of becomes hard for them to interfere.

Who recalls the now famous line of "I voted for it before I voted against it" that was used to paint a politician as a flip flopper? That is why President's want line item veto. A bill starts out with great intentions and by the time it gets to it's final form, so much crap (pardon my French) has been attached to it that the original intent is lost. As an example, attaching legislation that makes it legal to pitchfork kids tacked onto legislation that helps pay tuition of children who lost a soldier parent to war. Sure you want to help the orphaned child, but you can't in good conscience approve pitchforking kids. A line item veto allows the President to cut out the tacked on crap and approve the worthwhile stuff. Of course, it only counts if your guy is holding the pen. You know, another way to fix the problem without a line item veto is to not allow the pork barrel and pet project riders to be attached to a bill. Each has to stand or fall on their own.

As a former sports parent, I have learned to employee my God given right to say NO and/or to make my son make choices. He played competitve baseball from kindergarten thru 3rd grade and was on two state championship teams. We practiced 4 to 5 times a week, had tow league games a week and played a tournament about every other weekend. When he was in 2nd grade, he played 76 games over the spring and fall seasons. I don't say that proudly anymore. I realize the foolishness of it now. Don't get me wrong, he gained a lot from playing. He learned a lot about teamwork, doing his best, good sportsmanship. etc. But it was a lot of pressure too. The coaches were like drill instructors. They could smell a weakness in a kid a mile away and ostricize him. If a kid didn't play every inning of every game. the parents either got in the coaches face or started sweating that their son's days were numbered on the team. It is no way to treat children and I see it for the mistake it was now. There are good programs that teach fundamentals and make it fun instead of cut-throat competitive sports. I remember one kid we had in or Webelos 1 and 2 den. He played baseball, basketball and football. He wanted to do it all. His dad kept telling him that a time was coming when he was going to have to pick "A" sport to play, as he could not do them all in Jr High and Sr High. His crossed over to the troop we did and he fell far behind his peers just like he did in Webelos because sports came first. That was his and his parents choice and right. I don't mind my son playing sports if he wants to, but he has made a commitment to Scouting and I won't let him low it off on a whim. He wanted to join the 7th grade golf team that is just forming. Dad told him NO. He has a responsibility as an APL and dad is spending $400+ to send him skiing over spring break with the church youth group and $800+ to send him to Northern Tier with his troop this summer. That follows on the heals of $1900+ for Jamboree last year. Daddy isn't buying him golf clubs anytime soon. Choices were made and choices will be stuck with.

Merlyn, I'll be gracious enough to congratulate you on "achieving" one of your desired goals in life. All I ask is that you be gracious enough to not come here and whine five years from now when some bored video gamer slacker and his buddies vandalize your home for a little excitment. Fair enough?

Oh, let Bush have a line item veto. It won't make a whit of difference since he obviously doesn't have the slightest inkling of what the word means. What makes one think he would employee it anymore than he has a regular veto?

PS, Don't get me wrong, I take child molestation seriously. If it were my kid, I'd probably get arrested myself for metting out my own justice with a baseball bat rather than using law enforcement and the courts. From the story, the boys told their dad what happened in the camp parking lot when he picked them up. I agree that the guy got off way too lightly. I just fail to understand why the problem is being addressed a decade later. With up to 24 boys molested just at that one summer camp, you'd think "something" more would have happened over the last 10 years.

Obviously the molestor admitted his guilt. The odd thing is why the parents in this story have waited almost a decade and after their sons are legal adults to make a claim against the council. What were they waiting for? The boys told their dad in the parking lot when he picked them up from camp in 1997. http://www.journalnet.com/articles/2006/02/23/legislature/news16.txt

ASM59, Our troop does something a little different.....at least I assume it is different from what other troops do. At election time, we have a packet that goes out to each scout. It lists each POR and the "troops" qualifications for each position. Each scout also gets an "application" form. This application is where they apply for a position. They list their name, age, rank, current position, previous positions and rate their attendance of perfect, regular or intermittent. Then they list three positions they are interested in. For the first position, they have to explain why they want the job, how they will do the job and why they feel they are the best person for the job. The scout then sign a pledge that he has read the job descriptions and will carry out the duties to the best of his ability if selected. The parent also signs a pledge agreeing to the son's commitment and promises to support his training, troop meetings and troop activities attendance as required to fulfill his obligations and to provide encouragement at home. From the list of qualified applicants, the SM makes ballots for SPL, one of three ASPL's and PL's. Elections are held. The SPL selects two other ASPL's and the PL's select their APL's. The SPL and ASpl's use the list of applicants for other positions such as QM, Historian, Librarian, etc. to select those positions. All positions get one absence from meetings, outings and activities. While I'm sure some will look at this in disbelief, I can assure you from experience that this gives us a very dedicated boy leadership. Every boy and their parents walk into their POR knowing exactly what is expected in that POR and what the attendace requirements are. Occasionally, we do have a boy who does not fulfill his obligations. They have been replaced if it is chronic. I do understand that your Council Advancement Chair claims to have national standards of what constitutes active. Until I see them in black and white as stated policy from a readily available BSA publication, I think we will stick with determining what active means within our unit.