Brewmeister

To borrow a phrase, "Yah, hmmmm..." So we have Beavah arguing that th citizenry doesn't posess the military grade weapons to defend itself against a malicious state.... And basement dweller arguing that people don't need all these military grade weapons. "Sensible" is relative.

I always find it funny that the second amendment is the one that folks seem to want interpreted as narrowly as possible, whereas in other cases we stretch and bend the Constittuion to guarantee individual rights.

Why it happens is that there is evil in the world despite attempts to claim it does not exist because we cannot see it. Well, I say that we have seen it yet again.

Asking at the roundtable is fine but I'd be surprised if a lot of people were even real familiar with it. But you should really start with the unit leaders who sign the award paperwork, as specified in the Den Chief handbook. How do THEY want the den chief to "assist" in those various roles? It's the same as having them work with the den chief to decide how they want him to assist at Den and Pack meetings. There are 8 options for completing requirement 11 and the boy has to choose 4 of them. You'll note there are other "assist" options as well, including "assist in recruiting 3 new cub scouts." So what does that mean? Does it mean independently bringing 3 cub scouts to the Pack? Does it mean helping with a roundup? Does it mean being available to answer questions of the new recruits? It could be ANY of those things. It's up to the unit to decide how the den chief should assist. So start there and don't overcomplicate it.

Kathy, As I read the requirement, it is to "assist" boys to join the troop. It doesn't say "recruit 3 boys to the troop." So in the year he was den chief, did he also work in an "assist" capacity with other new scouts to join the troop, or did you only have 2 scouts join? If not, I would say that only the boys assisted during your son's tenure as den chief would count. Otherwise, why not scouts that he assisted before or long after? The award is for activities performed during tenure.

[double post](This message has been edited by brewmeister)

Requirements for the award are in the book, or online, such as at: http://www.usscouts.org/advance/boyscout/denchief.asp Also, although there is online training for Den Chief, it is basically "fast start" training. In order to be considered fully trained, he needs to attend the in-person den chief training put on by your district. (Then he also gets to wear a "Trained" patch ) It doesn't matter when he starts his service, and the award is only an additional thing. What's important is that he helps the den and serves well. The Den Chief position counts as a "position of responsibility" all the way through Eagle. It is, in my opinion, one of the more challenging and time consuming positions because of the meetings it requires in addition to the regular troop schedule. Despite the demands, my son truly enjoys this position and the den likes having him. The nice thing about having it is that it is not subject to the whims and popularity contests of troop elections. Basically, once your are a den chief, you can hold it as long as everyone is happy with what you do--it doesn't automatically change every 6 months as is customary for other PORs.(This message has been edited by brewmeister)

>>The 'Den Chief Handbook' seemed to be a good resource for our boy. It had games and activities that he could lead. Also if the DC uses the handbook as a way to track progress for the Den Chief award, it helps identify the type of activities he should be doing and the level of involvement that is expected.

Adam, sorry, yes, you did not state that, I was not clear. The GSUSA does not have a prohibition but, as a father who has had a daughter in girl scouts for many years, I can tell you that men have a tough row to hoe as leaders and volunteers. Then again, the GSUSA doesn't make headlines for abuse stories either.

Both Adam and Moose were doing just fine until this line: >>Your pedophile will not be your openly gay person. It doesn't take much searching to find news about gay pedophiles. The reason "whites" are the majority of child abuse cases in the US is that whites are the majority of the population. The reason that avowed "heterosexuals" are the majority of child abuse cases is that "heterosexuals" are the vast majority of the population. But among equal NUMBERS of different races and avowed sexual orientations, you will find equal NUMBERS of pedophiles disbursed. Got it? You really need to get past this idea that someone is more likely to be a pedophile because he is white and claims to be hetero. That attitude is the reason I have had a mom tell me, "I won't put my boy in scouts because what kind of man wants to spend his time in the woods with little boys?" It is also incredibly dangerous to simply assume, "Nah, he can't be a pedophile because he's openly gay." Also, part of the reason that pedophiles claim to be heterosexual is that it gives them cover--as Moose correctly points out, the idea is not to raise suspicion. As the gay lifestyle becomes more accepted, I wonder if what pedophiles claim to be will change?

My son is a den chief for the 4th grade Webelos den in his old pack. First of all, I recommend seeing if your district or council has den chief training. Most districts in our council do. Ours did a good job with it. My son sees his role as "activities coordinator." He works with the DL before the meeting to come up with a gathering activity that he runs while the DL is free to set up for the meeting. During the meeting he helps as needed. Because it is a 4th grade Webelos pack, he also helps with a lot of the "Boy Scout stuff"--knots and Oath and Law and all that stuff. He also helps at Pack meetings with the gathering activities, organizing ad-hoc games if some "crowd control" is needed, helping run events and derbies, etc.

Yes, I agree. You can't judge people by their race or what they purport to be. My point exactly. Thank you.

I do not agree with Huzzar and want to be clear in my comments. The point is that what a person CLAIMS to be is irrelevant because pedophiles and deviants are liars. It is what that person actually IS and what that person is capable of DOING that we should be concerned about. That is a much more difficult nut to crack but it is what our current YPT practices and training hope to do. Deviants will naturally look for easy opportunity, and the best prevention is therefore reduce that opportunity through proactive youth protection practices because we cannot know what is in a man's heart. But again, to claim that "white, hetero sexual males are the most likely to molest children" is inaccurate as I proved above. Unfortunately, though, it is a prevalent myth.

Adam, first of all your comment about race is totally irrelevant as I mentioned. But since you bring it up, your citation is correct regarding whites in the DOJ study, which included Hispanics in the definition of white, amounted to about 70%. According to US HHS data: http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm, which separates Whites and Hispanics, rates of "child abuse" by whites was 51%. Add 15% Hispanic and it's reasonably close to the DOJ figures. Wow, that's a huge percentage....except that Whites are 78% of the U.S. population: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html So compared to demographics...well you can draw your own conclusions. As to the rest, my point is that for you to claim most molesters are heterosexual (in the context of this discussion about the BSA) is wrong. I don't care what they claim to be, or even whether they were married. The point is when a man perpetrates sodomy on a young boy, that man is NOT heterosexual, despite what he may claim to be or the life he may ostensibly lead. He is something else and it's evil.(This message has been edited by brewmeister)

Adam opines: >>...you do know that white, hetero sexual males are the most likely to molest children, right? Wow, nice racist toss-in there...it just so happens that pedophilia rates pretty much match the population demographics...making most races equally "likely" to have these criminals among them. I also must've missed the part in this whole discussion where males were having heterosexual intercourse with boys...

Moose, I think you should seriously consider upping the fiber intake in your diet.

>>you are certainly blind & thick headed enough to fit in wonderfully with them. Yeah, there we go. Let's not discuss it, let's just start tossing out insults. Thanks for the confirmation. The "motor voter" law dates back to the Clinton Administration and was intended to give people easier access to voting. Surprised you didn't know that. But since you can't make your points without name calling, I'm done with you.

Hey Moose: >>You angered people who took their voting rights for granted until it was threatened. They probably would not have voted, definately would not have stood in those long lines tp vote except for their anger and determination to prove you could not take their rights away from them. Ummm...what the heck did I do? I wasn't standing on the corner with billy clubs...in fact I was at work on Super Tuesday. And what makes you think I'm a Republican? You know what happens when you assume...

Well that's a typical "dialog," isn't it. I point out some facts and figures and the ol' Fox News/tea party/pick your cliche gets trotted out.... Anyhoo, I'd be all for internet voting, or some other method to make it easier to vote. I don't particularly like standing in line for hours either (maybe I'm being oppressed...is there a way to tell?) However, such a time-saving measure would need to be coupled with a guarantee that the voter was entitled to vote (i.e., citizen voting in his/her correct district). You know, some sort of ID...or something...now that would be revolutionary.

In 2012, 13% of the vote was cast by blacks, up from 11%. 10% was Latino, up from 8%. 19% was cast by voters under 30 years of age, up from 17%. Those old white GOP-ers are doing a bangup job of "suppression," eh? Simply repeating something over and over and imagining it to be true does not make it so. But perhaps I'm too "boneheaded" to make the leap necessary to believe it...

When we create about 150k jobs in a month it is cause for celebration. Meanwhile 600k were added to the food stamp rolls in a month...

Oh, ok, sorry Moosetracker, I didn't realize there was one super-streamlined ballot for voting GOP and one ultra-complicated ballot for voting for all other parties. And of course, there's the fast-track voting lines that are just for card carrying Republicans, en so? Like I said, it's a patently ridiculous claim that is disproven by your own admission of voter turnout.(This message has been edited by Brewmeister)

The myth of voter suppression is hilarious. Voters were so suppressed that by your own admission they turned out in droves to vote...ridiculous.

I wonder if qwaze's experience would have been any different if they put down prayer blankets instead of lawn chairs.....

And yet everyone is avoiding my question... At what point is a human life worth protecting?