vol_scouter

FDR was an important leader in the sense that he gave the country hope and some confidence that things would get better. The programs that he enacted helped to provide that confidence. But as I earlier posted, his programs did not help the unemployment. Public television did a multi-night series on FDR that gushed with praise (as would be expected from public TV). The series ointed out that FDR's programs did not work. The unemployment rate was not substantially changed until WWII. FDR gets credit for programs that ended the great depression but it was WWII. FDR deserves credit for many

Also, according to a public television series on FDR that gushed of approval, FDR's much vaunted programs of the New Deal had NOT improved the unemployment rate (~30%)! The onset of WWII finally ended the unemployment issues for the US.

Returning to GaHillBilly's initial point, NPR is clearly biased to the left. I listen to NPR every morning and most evenings. I receive much information than with most other sources. It is nice to have less shrill discussions. However, the reporting is quite biased to the left. Usually, the stories are accurate and factual. The issue is on any given day what stories are run. On any given day, there are a variety of stories that are legitimate to cover. If you pay close attention, the story about Obama will be positive (fund raising is up, the latest promised program painted positively,

There is a third possibility. We had an extremely corrupt governor who owned a trucking firm. He nearly closed the DOT scales. They operate only very limited hours still. The boys could be at some danger being at a weigh station where there are no officers.

If the only position that the volunteer has is through the unit, the most likely thing to happen is that the individual will no longer be part of the unit but will for a while retain BSA membership. Unless the unit or CO is really angry with the volunteer (assuming no YP problems), the unit/CO will more than likely let the issue go and not report it to the council. If that is the case, the volunteer will be a BSA member until the next renewal date, at which there will be no sponsor so the membership will lapse (assuming that the volunteer doesn't get involved on the district/council level).

Bob White, Do you know what the impetus was for the re-organization? Also, what is the improved communication hoping to achieve?

Bob White, I have NEVER turned down a boy - the statement is out of line. No boy that ever came to me as an Eagle advisor ever failed to complete a project that was accepted. I emphasized the leadership requirements rather than other hours etc. I have been on EBOR that considered turning someone down for 'not enough hours' and I successfully blocked that effort. You should not make accussations about people with no information. If you think that you will change human nature by some sort of guidelines, you are mistaken. The Eagle service project should be revamped at the

So what does "was the amount of time sufficient for the scout to demonstrate leadership skills" mean? How do you determine if the requirement is met? How do you help a young man to plan a project fulfilling that goal? Human nature is to deicde upon some sort of guideline that represents that abstract goal. This results in a hodge podge of different ideas as to the meaning. Some would accept 50 man hours (the hours must be of some importance or national would not require it to be reported) while others would say that 50 is never enough. We all are more comfortable with a more definite yar

That's my point. If the project does not have 'enough' man hours, then the project could be turned down by the EBOR as not be 'substantial' enough. None of the projects during my tenure actually had 100 man hours but all passed. Yet this is a problem - what is substantial enough to suit the EBOR? It can change depending upon the members of the EBOR. When a boy asks how many hours that the project should have one needs to give some guidance. I NEVER gave false guidance, said that the project ever had to have any particular number of hours, etc. All of my boys passed. I wish that

Bob White makes the statement about untrained or untrainable. Most of the problems that I have seen has been from trained volunteers. They can tend to be over zealous in enforcing rules. Is training beneficial or not to make volunteers try to help the boys to advance not to create barriers or hurdles. When I was Troop Eagle advisor for several years I used 100 hours as a guideline for the boys but emphasized that the scope of the project was the important issue. A well devised and worthy project may require only 40 or 50 man hours but most seem to require in the range of 80-100 to com

jblake47, You make good points. That may be a way to keep the boys from being crushed by rules. It is no wonder that scouting numbers are in decline when rules are more important to the adults than the youth. The program is there for the FUN and development of the youth. I earned my Eagle in 1968 before the Eagle project. Adults made the program fun. They were not overly interested in the 'letter of the law' as to advancement rules - thank Goodness! The program is should be all about the YOUTH not the rules! However we can accomplish this, the youth will be better served.

In reading the posts on what advancement committees are requiring for Eagle projects I was struck by the absolutely needless requirements. It has to be typed (if readable, why not hand written), it has to be ~100 pages (so we encourage verbosity), it has to have a budget, it has to have signatures, it has ... This requirement has become onerous. The original reason was for the boy to direct a service project. The current result is a project that many of the adults would find difficult to fulfill all of the requirements. I realize that there is much to be gained from any of the different r

acco40, Your reasoning and logic is sound. The argument is something of a chicken and egg argument. The only way to resolve that argument is to somehow 'know' whether or not God exists. At this time, that is entirely a matter of belief which shades how we interpret data. Anthropologists who claim that they 'know' that values came first causing religions to be formed for various reasons are essentially doing the same thing that we are doing though better studied on early cultures. Until we know that there is a God or not we can never answer these questions. I do not think that ar

Packsaddle, Some policies were changed and others were not. No matter how much the next president (whoever that will be) tries to change things, most will likely remain the same. I agree - that makes the system great. I would like to see the Congress step up to the plate and address some of the social issues that plague the body politic. For example, the abortion debate should be in the Congress rather than the courts. That way the laws can better reflect the sentiment of the public (which numerous poles indicate do not coincide with either of the extremes). The Congres

Beevah, Thanks! That confirms my suspicions that the ACLU forces entities to settle or is able to outspend them. In the first case, it is a form of coercion and in the second it is an unfair advantage for the ACLU. A 57% winning percentage given those advantages does not overly impress me either. Beevah, your idea that the feds should only guarantee fees in cases against the federal government does seem like a good solution. IMHO, the ACLU too often picks on smaller entities and bullies them issues without real harm. Getting back onto topic. I agree that the BSA is allowin

My apologies to the list and thanks to NJCubScouter. I was wrong that the ACLU gets paid even if it loses. Hopefully, anyone who read that is still reading this thread. The ACLU still has a distinct advantage in suing a small community, a church, or whoever else because they know that if they win they will get paid. I wonder how many of these suits they would file without a federal guarantee of payment? A question for the attorneys, does this mean that the ACLU can out spend the defendants (for legitimate charges) because they will be assured to be paid if they prevail? If so, that gives

Yes, it requires a deity.

Well said Beevah!

Merlyn, I do understand analogies and implied meanings! I do not even dislike most atheists that I know. I have not seen you admit that you may be wrong in your beliefs but in my previous post I admitted that you mat be right - so who is blinded by dislike. To insinuate that the BSA foments hate and discrimination becaise of its' membership standards is ridiculous. It shows that your intolerance to others beliefs. If you respected others, you would not continue to be agitating people on this website - I doubt that they are going to atheist sites and irritating the people on the sit

Merlyn, If you read my post carefully, I did not denigrate atheists. Also, my beliefs have nothing to do with the BSA values. Your dislike of religion makes it difficult to accept other viewpoints. I did not say that atheists are depraved, immoral, or in any way bad. Though I have personal religious beliefs, I cannot prove that you are not correct in your beliefs and I admit that a supreme being may not exist. I do believe that society's value system comes from religions (even if from false beliefs) and not from basic human nature. We may differ on that point. If I am correct,

After thinking about acco40's query further, I will provide my feeling about essentially getting rid of the 12th point of the Scout Law. I my opinion, all of the other laws hinge upon the 12th. All moral and ethical systems on earth have their roots in religious teaching (I am referring to all major religions). Acting civilly to one another is not innate (unlike the secular humanists wish to believe). We are all animals and thus we wish to procreate with the fittest and we wish to survive. Working together, getting along, etc have little to do with those urges. Criminal behavior (that wi

acco40 While I do not entirely disagree that some consideration to atheists might make some sense, I believe that in many sections of the country that making that change would lead to a mass exodus of CO's. Scouting is not about how many but what is taught but there must be enought places to teach it.

I agree with Mr. Boyce that political correctness is VERY dangerous. I disagree that it damands tolerance - it demands acceptance. It demands not that society tolerate all life styles as is largely done now but that society endorse those lifestyles as perfectly acceptable 'alternatives'. Some speech is now banned as 'hate' speech - some of the comments here are less than polite should we be picked up? I have a legal responsibilty to tolerate my fellow citizens but I do not have to like them or say nice things to them. I have the right to assemble and as a private group exclude any group t

I think that the CO's provide meeting resources that would be difficult to replace. Often the disinterest is better than meddling in unit affairs. Due to the DRP, many other potential meeting places could be off limits. With the draconian requirements for consumer checks on all members, the BSA would certainly mot like the idea of units meeting in homes. Also, the Troops get exposure on Scout Sunday that improves positive visibility and community involvement. I am afraid that the short term effect would be a largely negative one.

Those other organizations are not about building character, leadership, etc. 4-H is growing partly because it is looking for chidren outside of farm communities. I wonder if the founders of the YMCA and the YWCA would approve of the lack of Christian teaching? The BSA should have standards and try to stick by them. We may disagree what those should be but nonetheless the standards ought to be there. Religious denominations that grow are those that have strict standards of belief. The denominations that allow for a broad set of beliefs tend to be relatively flat in growth or losin