BrentAllen

Earth to Trevorum, Earth to Trevorum... You expect anyone reading your comment to believe that? Liberals running in national elections can't get far enough away from the term "liberal!" They all try to convince the voters they are moderates, because they know being tagged a liberal in a national election will cause defeat. That is how Bill Clinton won - he convinced the public he was a moderate. His wife will try to pull the same stunt, but I don't think she will be nearly as successful. Question - is Hillary a liberal? If so, is she proudly proclaiming it? According to your post, John Kerry should have been proud when it was pointed out he was the most liberal Senator in Congress, instead of fighting to shed that label. If your point is true, then why is Howard Dean out there trying to convince his party it is ok to admit being a liberal? (I hope he succeeds in this mission!)

I never said compromise was a dirty word. I said those in the middle were "great compromisers and appeasers." (Sorry, Hunt - liberals don't like being called liberals either, but at the end of the day, that is what they are). From my viewpoint, those in the middle hail the ability to compromise as the greatest of all virtues. To them, if you can't compromise, you are an extremist. There is no principle too important or sacred which can't be subjugated in order for them to achieve compromise. I, on the other hand, have certain principles which I am not willing to compromise. That makes me a conservative and an extremists. Hey - you guys are in the Boy Scouts of America, which refused to compromise with the atheists and homosexuals (we stood on our principles), so I guess that makes you extremists as well. :-) Welcome to the club!

Ah, the virtuous middle. Great compromisers and appeasers. Able to see clearly what others fail to see at all. Followers of the infamous Neville Chamberlain. Me, I prefer extremists - like those brave souls who signed the Declaration of Independence. Now those were some extremists! Or Patrick Henry. At the time of the Revolution, there were about 1/3 who wanted independence, 1/3 wanted to remain loyal to England, and 1/3 in the middle. Luckily, the "extremists" were exactly that, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Cub Scout Day Camp is defined in the Cub Scout Leader Book (pg. 33-4). "Day camp is an organized one- to five-day program for Tiger Cubs, Cub Scouts and Webelos Scouts conducted by the council under certified leadership at an approved site. Day camps are conducted during daylight or early evening hours. Day camps do not include any overnight activities. Certification of the day camp director and program director is provided through the National Camping School. All day camps shall be conducted in accordance with established standards as provided in National Standards fof Local Council Accreditation of Cub Scout/Webelos Scout Day Camps for Precamp and Operational Accreditation (No. 13-108)." If the Washington Fall Day Camp met these requirements, it should be counted as credit towards the award. If not, it shouldn't.

FScouter is dead right on the uniform policy. That being said, our District sold and required t-shirts for our Day Camp, which was the uniform of the day. Other policies I see violated frequently include the one requiring the uniform to be worn in full - no parts. I see adults wearing all kind of pants/shorts with their Scout shirts. Another states that Packs do not have the right to set their own uniform policy, but I know several Packs that have their own "waist up" policy. Mostly they claim the shorts and pants are too expensive and uncomfortable. I can't say I disagree, but I "strongly encourage" the full uniform policy at my Pack. As for the Class B uniform, since the Boy Scouts have one, I just like to think we are ahead of the curve on the policy, and National will soon add the Class B uniform to the program, following what a lot of units favor. If that makes me a hypocrit considering my position on the full uniform, then I'm guilty.

SA, All I can tell you is we live in different worlds. BTW, I draw my paycheck as a consultant monitoring over $40 million in Community Development Block Grants, which covers around 80 projects. Each and every one of those must follow Davis Bacon, and it is my job to monitor that they are, so I am just a little familiar with Davis Bacon. "Prevailing wages" is correct, and when those prevailing wages are surveyed from a metropolitan (Entitlement) area, they are going to be union wages. In nearly 15 years, I have never seen an exception to this. Here in the South, I have also never seen non-union wages come anywhere near to matching union wages, except for the owner of the company and maybe his brother. We have trouble getting contractors to bid on jobs where the prevailing wages are at the union level. When they do, we then hear plenty of complaints after they find out the actual situation they are in, and how much they have to pay their helpers. The real problem comes when the contractor finishes the job and goes on to other non-federal work - the employees want the high wages Davis Bacon forced the contractor to pay. They can't stay in business paying those wages for regular work. If you are pro-union, you probably love Davis-Bacon. If not, you probably hate it.

Suspending Davis Bacon was the smartest thing Bush has done! But this does not suspend local, state or federal labor laws - it does not remove OSHA requirements. Davis Bacon has very little to do with worker safety. The main thing suspending Davis Bacon does is remove union wages from the project, and opens the rebuilding job up to more contractors. Under Davis Bacon, there is no such classification as a "helper." Most electricians or plumbers have workers who are learning the job, but aren't journeymen yet. They do not pay these workers the same pay as journeymen, but they still make pretty good pay. Under Davis Bacon, if one of these non-journeymen electricians installs a switch or an outlet, he must be paid electrician wages, which are probably around $20 - $23/hour, instead of around $10 - $12/hour for the non-journeyman. Only union contractors can afford to pay those wages, which means higher costs. Not many non-union contractors would be able to participate in the rebuild if Davis Bacon was still in place.

"Immigration is a political issue, not a religious issue. Please don't confuse the two." Says who? Uh - that would be the Constitution. Please show me where any church is allowed to make law. I like to think of the US not as a Christian nation, but as a God-fearing nation. Churches have plenty of avenues for helping the poor - it's called missionary work. I guess you (Hunt) would use taxpayer money from Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and aetheists to fund charity work in the name of Jesus Christ. I don't think that would sit very well with most of this country - even the "Christian Right." That is why this is a political issue and not a religious one.

Immigration is a political issue, not a religious issue. Please don't confuse the two. President Bush has proposed documenting the illegals and issuing them a 3-year work permit. He has never promised waving a wand and making them legal. Controlling immigration is a good thing. Anyone else live in a fast growing county, where the schools are overcrowded, and every year more trailers are parked in what used to be the playground? Do your property taxes keep going up and up each year, to pay for more school rooms and more teachers? This is the terrible result of uncontrolled growth. Personally, I would like to see an immigration policy similar to Australia, and most countries around the world: When you can document you have a job waiting for you - a job that is not wanted by an American citizen, then you can enter the country. Unfortunately, nothing is going to change until a terrorist brings a bomb across the border and kills thousands of Americans (at which time the liberals will be the first to scream about the government not controlling the borders). Or maybe when our health system goes broke from providing free health care to all the illegals, we will get serious about it. Anyone know how much it costs for that Mexican woman to come across the border and have her baby? Do you think she or her family is paying that bill? The fact is the illegals don't have insurance and they don't go to the doctor. They go to the emergency room, where they can't be refused service, and they leave the bill to the hospital. Many hospitals in rural areas are going out of business because of this. Now, how much is that cheap fruit REALLY costing us?

The Ceremonies for Dens and Packs booklet states that Scouts in uniform should salute. It does not state they must be in Class A's to salute. I have friends who are in the Army, who salute during the presentation of Colors or the pledge while wearing BDU pants and an Army t-shirt. That is there uniform of the day; I consider our Class B (Pack t-shirt and Scout short/pants) to be the same. So yes, I instruct our Scouts to salute when wearing the Pack t-shirt uniform.

Who are these people the author is complaining about? They are the far lefties, the ones in California who complained about the Fire Departments flying the US flag from their fire trucks after 9/11, forcing the fire departments to remove them. They are the liberals who complained about seeing so many flags - on cars, on homes, everywhere after 9/11 - and claimed we were being jingoistic, instead of patriotic. They are the liberals who demonize Christopher Columbus, accusing him of genocide, and want to force the US Government to stop recognizing Columbus Day as a holiday. They are the liberals who boo'd the Boy Scout Color Guard at the Democratic National Convention when Clinton was president. They are the liberals who complain that teachers have a picture of President Bush on the walls of their classroom (but never complained when a picture of Clinton was in the same spot). I could go on and on. Check out http://www.tonguetied.us/ if you want to have your head explode.

Trevorum, Amen on the "political statement." Sorry my reply took the thread off on a tangent. Just wanted to see if we were talking about the same subject. I just happen to be planning our unit's very first flag retirement, so the subject is fresh on my mind.

Title 36, Section 176, of the United States Code states: "No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America;" Burning the flag may be protected under the First Amendment, but the question was "Do you let YOUR Scouts burn the American flag?" My Scouts? Not on your life. I wouldn't care whether it was on Scout time, or not. You don't stop being a Scout when you take the uniform off. If one of my Scouts did burn the flag in protest, they would have to find another Pack to join, or my Pack would have to find another Cubmaster. If you want to protest - fine; just find another way to do it.

Do I let my Scouts burn the flag? No! Would I let my Scouts retire an old flag? Yes. I hope you meant "burn" as in retiring an old flag properly.

TheFourGuardians, My post was not written as a direct response to you. If it had been, I would have started the post as I started this one. I follow general rules of courtesy on the web: 1. If I am typing a message to a specific individual, I will address it to them. 2. I do not hide behind an alias. I find people are much more courteous if they are speaking as themselves, instead of having to hide their true identity. 3. I try to avoid personal attacks, and try to deal only with facts and the truth. If you took my post as an attack - well, I can't help you with that. You are seeing something that isn't there.

So Scouting is not "cool." Please show me which of the Scout Laws says "A Scout is "cool."" Where in the Scout book does it teach a Scout how to be "cool?" No, Scouting is not about being "cool." It is about building leaders, and, to me, finding a higher purpose in life - much higher than "being cool." Those boys in the chess club and marching band are searching for a higher purpose in life - a higher purpose which will bring them greater fulfillment in life than "being cool." Members of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra didn't get there by worrying about "being cool" - they got there by pursuing an interest, and trying to be the best they could be - regardless of how far up the "cool" meter they ranked. Boys that excel in math and science are not "cool" but they go on to be scientist and engineers, to design and produce the very computer you are looking at. How "cool" is that? If you and your Scouts are more worried about being "cool" than being a Scout, then you are missing the whole point of the program. Anyone involved with any successful program knows you need new blood to keep the program alive. This requirement is teaching that lesson, plain and simple. If you don't think Scouting IS THE BEST PROGRAM YOUR SON OR ANY BOY WILL EVER BE INVOLVED IN, you have missed out on what Scouting is all about. If your son is involved in a unit WHERE SCOUTING IS THE BEST PROGRAM THEY ARE INVOLVED IN, then what is the problem with asking him to mention the program to a friend?

The "turning upside down" ceremony used to happen a lot, at least around here. Evidently, it used to happen other places as well, since the BSA puts the following statement in the Bobcat section of the Tiger book: "The Boy Scouts of America prohibits any Bobcat ceremony in which boys are physically turned upside down." I don't know of any cases where a boy was actually dropped and injured. I do know some dads who liked the ceremony, and would continue to do it if they were allowed.

P_S, I have my hands full dealing with the 100 boys WHO WANT to be Scouts - I don't have time to "consider" those others who can't see past biased news, and need to be convinced that Scouting is still the greatest program their son will ever participate in. If they need convincing, they probably aren't going to stick. They will find something else they don't like with the program, and eventually bail. That's fine - Scouting is not for everyone. Only those with a sense of adventure, a "can do" attitude, and a willingness to put others before themselves should sign up. We just took 70 Scouts (Tigers thru W II) and their dads (140 total) over to the Yorktown for 2 nights aboard. A 6 hour drive, cramped quarters, bunks stacked 4 high, little room to store gear. It was hot, lots of walking, steep stairways. We had a blast! I repeat - this is not for everyone. If we had only focused on the negative, we would have had a terrible time. Instead, we looked right past the negative, and focused on the positive. The opportunity to spend 2 nights on a WWII aircraft carrier, to try to see how those sailors who faught the Japanese lived, to appreciate the history. See and learn about WWII aircraft, and the men who flew them. To see the development of the aircraft carrier thru history. To tour a WWII submarine, and other ships that participated in the defense of our country. We tried to understand how all those men could travel around the world and be willing to give up their one true possession - their life - for their country. That is what makes this country so great. Yes, there would be plenty for "complainers" to complain about on this trip. Did I hear any? Not a single one. These boys and their families WANT TO BE IN SCOUTING. Would I throw "complainers" overboard? Luckily, I didn't have an opportunity to find out. :-) To my Pack, the ship is riding high, making good speed. Brent Allen Cubmaster, Pack 494 Dunwoody, GA

A Scout is Trustworthy. Bob, please recall the conversation we had over lunch on Saturday, June 11th, I believe. Did you not tell me the purpose of your group meeting with David Larkin was to try to open the doors to Home Depot, so Scouts could raise money for your mentoring group? Did we not discuss this, and agree that Scouts could not be used to raise money for any other group? If I misunderstood, then please explain the reason your group went to meet with David Larkin. What was the purpose of the meeting, and why did you need his assistance? Another question, if I may - Why doesn't Joe Beasley's church charter a Troop? There were other ways to fix this problem. One of the DE's in our District found ghost troops and inflated numbers when he took the job. Most were there because of sloppy record-keeping, not some deep sinister plot. He went in an cleaned the rolls, which is what the other DEs should have done. Why they didn't, I don't know. I do know some like Tullis who lied about the numbers got fired, while the DE in our District (a black man) who cleaned the rolls was promoted. Put that into your current AAC problem paradigm and tell me how that computes. You say you can't find any Scoutmasters who will vouch for the number of black Scouts in the AAC. Tell me, how many Camporees has your Troop been to in the past, say, 5 years? How many summer camps have they been to? How many other council events have they participated in? Remember, a Scout is Trustworthy.

It is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS you know nothing about the Atlanta situation, except what you have read at bsft.com - you have their talking points down pretty well. Do you have any other source of information on the subject? I didn't think so. Come on down to Atlanta, and I will show you all the Scouts you want to see. Notice I'm not so afraid of the truth that I have to hide behind a screen name. If you are so big on transparency - "Again, openness and transparency are not to be feared when there is nothing to hide." - then why not use your real name and location?? What do you have to hide?? I'll respond to you again when you follow your own words, requesting openness and transparency.

They DID have an independent law firm come in and check the numbers. The bsft.com group didn't have a problem with the audit, until the numbers didn't come out the way they wanted. Since they don't agree with the numbers, they now claim the audit was politicized. This is Joe Beasley's (Rainbow/PUSH coalition) 15 minutes of fame, and he is riding it for all he is worth. This guy writes David Larkin a personal letter, in which he admires our new Service Center/Scout Shop, and then turns around and says it was a racist act to build the new center just outside the perimeter (where most of us live, and can get to it) rather than downtown, where the "disadvantaged" youth can walk to it or take the bus (and none of the majority of the population ever travels to). The only reason anyone goes downtown is to see the Braves or Falcons. In Atlanta, all you have to do is CLAIM racism, and you can get plenty of coverage in the Journal-Constitution. From the AJC: "A former Boy Scout executive said the practice of inflating African-American membership in Atlanta was common among staffers who feared being fired for not reaching assigned quotas. Kevin Tullis, who worked for the Boy Scouts of America-Atlanta Area Council for 2 1/2 years as a district executive, said staffers were under pressure to increase Scout membership and boost charitable donations. In an interview this week, Tullis said the methods for inflating rosters ranged from recruiting black kids from summer activity camps with no intention of getting them involved with a troop to resubmitting previously registered membership rolls. Tullis, who is black, said he was forced to resign last July because he didn't achieve membership goals. Another district executive, he said, also was asked to quit last year because he fell 68 youths short of his goal, despite reaching his fund-raising target. Tullis said he wasn't aware of a written policy requiring employees to fabricate the numbers." This guy has admitted he lied and falsified and inflated numbers. He admits others did the same. Here is your problem, plain and simple. The false numbers came from the bottom - not from the top. How does this turn into upper management inflating the numbers to get more money from United Way? Someone please answer that question! To the bsft.com people, Tullis is a hero. He is a liar, and should have been fired. I used to be a stock broker, and when I didn't reach my numbers, I was let go. If you don't do your job, and don't produce the numbers, you get replaced - it is that simple. David Larkin trusted people like Tullis to honorably do their job. They didn't, and Larkin suffered because of it. David Larkin wasn't out there at the housing projects, promising single mothers Braves tickets if they signed their son up for Scouting. It was DE's like Tullis who did that. Should upper management at AAC have done a better job supervising their DE's? Yes Did upper management falsify and inflate the numbers to gain more funding from organizations like the United Way? Sorry, I just don't see it.

Funny - I'm in the dreaded Atlanta Area Council, with all the bad news, and our numbers just keep going up. You want facts? 65 Cub Scouts 2 years ago, 75 last year, up to 102 this year. Our District Day Camp was sold out at 150 boys this summer. The AAC owns 2 camps used for summer camp - Bert Adams and Woodruff. Wait a week or two after registration for summer camp opens, and see if you can get into Woodruff. 22 camp sites, serving approx. 1,000 boys each week. They run 7,000 boys through camp each summer - sold out. The council runs 3 Wood Badge courses each year. You are trying to tell me the bad press is causing our numbers to drop? Fortunately, most of those in Scouting here in Atlanta recognize the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is a liberal rag, and don't pay it much attention. It is the only paper here, so it does get read, but with the understanding of the political leanings of the editors. The AAC does have some problems they are working through, but THEY DO NOT AFFECT MY UNIT. This is not just happening at my unit. At Roundtable this past week, there were many stories similar to ours. Sinking ship? No, the glass is half-full.

I am in the Atlanta Area Council, and I have had first-hand conversations with the parties involved. I am Cubmaster for Pack 494 in Dunwoody, Activities Chair for the Hightower Trail District, and serve as Cub Scout Chair for Scouters Academy for the Atlanta Area Council. I am a volunteer Scouter. I have done my own investigating, and from what I have seen and heard from both sides, I don't believe anything posted on boyscoutsfortruth.com. The AAC may have some problems, but these guys are just out trying to pull a Jessie Jackson-style shakedown. As they say, follow the money... This all started when this group went to the AAC CSE and asked for permission to use Boy Scouts, in uniform, to raise money for a mentoring group. If you know anything about Scouting, you know this is a huge no-no. The group didn't like the answer, and started a war. Yes, there were inflated numbers. One of the DE's who was directly involved in reporting false numbers is made out to be a hero by boyscoutsfortruth.com, when he is anything but. This is a simple problem of DE's trying to keep their jobs, by lying about the number of Scouts in their area. Is the CSE supposed to go out and verify the number of boys in each Troop? I don't think so. David Larkin was a very honorable man who loved Scouting. When he found the numbers weren't accurate, he resigned. He fell on his sword to try to protect the organization. The bsft.com group thinks only inner-city black boys can be "disadvanteged" and don't understand that is an economic term, not a racial term. They only see what they want to see - race. There are plenty of "disadvanteged" kids in Scouting in Cobb, Dekalb and surrounding counties. This bsft.com only sees things through their district, and can't seem to grasp the concept that the AAC is made up of 13 districts, covering probably around 15 counties. They are in downtown Atlanta, and think everyone in the surrounding areas are rich, white folks, which is certainly untrue. The BSA does not track Scouts by race. The United Way asked the AAC to give a break down of numbers by race. The AAC explained they did not require this information, and did not have the numbers. The UW asked the AAC to make an estimate, so the AAC took census tract information and overlaid it with their membership numbers, and came up with an estimate. This was acceptable to the UW. The AAC, to my knowledge, has never made any other claims about the racial numbers other than this estimation. The bsft.com people do not know anything about my district, based in Dekalb County. For those that don't know, Dekalb County is the most racially diverse county in the entire state. My still-unanswered question to this group is why are they trying to set up Troops at housing projects? There is no successful model to follow going in that direction. Where are the inner-city churches, and why aren't they chartering Troops? This model has been successfully followed all over the country. To me, this is the only solution to the problem of getting inner-city youth involved in Scouting. If you want to discuss the situation in Atlanta, please do so from a knowledgeable standpoint, and don't go quoting this group, who has NO RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH! I know more about brain surgery than they know about Scouting in the AAC, and I never even took college biology.

Ed, I know of review boards who have turned Eagle applicants away because the green pants they were wearing weren't official BSA uniform pants. I guess you better hit the speed dial button on your phone for the ACLU - these boys' rights are being violated! This sounds like a perfect case for those clear thinkers and defenders of liberty. (/sarcasm off)

Ed, Requiring a uniform for certain events is not adding additional requirements. The policy states "A boy is not required to have a uniform in order to be a Boy Scout." Being a Boy Scout, at the simplest level, is attending Troop meetings, nothing more. A boy could join a Troop and never advance, never attend a campout, never attend summer camp or any other activity, and they are still a Boy Scout. The policy does not state a uniform cannot be required for some activities. It only states a uniform is not required to be a Boy Scout. Here is another example for you. The BSA does not require a Scout to own a backpack and a sleeping bag. Can the Troop require the Scout to obtain a backpack and a sleeping bag to go on an overnight hike? The concept is simple - for some additional activities, there will be additional requirements. Prairie - I inherited a Pack just like yours. The "policy" was for waist-up uniforms. I'm sure that is what you tell every new Cub Scout who joins. The day you start telling them the Pack is following BSA policy - full uniforms - is the day you see the change. You are the leader. They are going to follow the attitude, direction and expectations set by the leader. I know - I've been there, done that. (This message has been edited by BrentAllen)