BS-87

While I don't want to bump the thread again, I have to. Glad to see a great example of the free market at work, thank you OGE!

Is there a way to flag this thread for moderators? The first thread was fine, this second thread is just trolling.

It's wholly within the rights of a Chartering Organization to say that they don't want a person who is leading their kids to be in possession of tobacco, smell like tobacco, or use nicotine products while performing any duty of their position. If that expectation is set, a CO is perfectly able to remove that person from their position for that reason for the same reasons you've listed. Also, while I'm a fan of exercises in reason such as this, I don't think you're presenting this issue very maturely. Personal health is a subject that is appropriate to talk about around scouts. Not smoking is a good example to set, and so not smoking is a good thing to encourage boys to do. Because this is an appropriate topic to talk about with Scouts, it's not absolutely necessary to shield the boys from the behavior (though any CO, Committee, etc in their right mind probably already do so) Sexuality is never an appropriate topic for discussion in Scouting. Because it is not an appropriate topic, adults who exemplify that topic and thereby naturally make it a topic of discussion just by being present should not be exposed to Scouts. The key to this is "exemplify", being openly aberrant in words or by action by either expressing your sexuality or being accompanied by a non-traditional partner is not acceptable. Not expressing your sexuality does not bring the subject to attention and discussion, and so then there would be no issue with such a person serving in a leadership role in Scouting. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the policy or not. I agree that maybe in the future Sexuality might be an appropriate topic for Venturers, but I do not feel sexuality is an appropriate subject for 11-12 yr olds.

Working on a political campaign shows a level of engagement and citizenship any SM should be proud to see his scouts participating at. Granted somebody's poisoned the poor boy's philosophy, at least you helped instill him with excellent passion and capacities!

Boys can use pornography to groom other boys for abuse just as easily, and probably more frequently than adults use pornography to groom boys for abuse. Understanding that, I think it's a good idea to have the situation reported, because bringing the subject to daylight will do more to deter abuse by a youth against a youth than you'd think.

Boys and Girls are different, and so they need to learn things differently. They develop different capacities at different rates, have different activity needs and capabilities, and quite plainly do not get much benefit from co-mingling until roughly middle-school age. I'm going to go look for references for these assertions, because something tells me what may seem like common sense to scouters is less common than it is sensible.

I skipped a couple steps in the gunpoint argument because I thought we'd gone over this libertarian staple in the past. In order to refuse to pay the tax, you must refuse to pay income tax, or pay an amount much less than what's due. If you do not pay your taxes, your wages will be garnished or you will acquire a lien. So in order to avoid those penalties, you must deal in cash only for work. Doing this whilst an IRS target is on your back will cause you to commit tax fraud. Fraud will get you summoned to court, and so if you refuse you will have a warrant issued for your arrest. If, when the time comes for your arrest, you refuse to be arrested because the whole issue is stupid, you will be tased, maced, and/or held at gunpoint. Don't think people go to jail over taxes? Ask Irwin Schiff.

Beavah, it takes reducing the proposition to its most absurd ends that will show best what the ruling is capable of. _________________________________________________ It is the case that Congress feels the best way to get healthcare is by owning health insurance, and so they require all Americans to have X amount of coverage and provide documentation or be taxed for not doing so. If you refuse to pay the tax, you will be arrested. If you refuse to be arrested for something so absurd, you will be held at gunpoint. _________________________________________________ Now let's apply this to something that should seem ridiculous. Congress votes that the best food for health is Broccoli and as such all Americans are required to consume X amount and provide documentation of the consumption or be taxed for not doing so. If you refuse to pay the tax, you will be arrested. If you refuse to be arrested for something so absurd, you will be held at gunpoint. It is therefore possible by this interpretation to say that Congress could move to make citizens eat broccoli at gunpoint.

It's actually a pretty gloomy day for individual liberty. I can't wait until fat people are getting taxed for the burden they place on healthcare providers and therein the taxpayers. Maybe we can get taxed/held at gunpoint and forced to eat a menu designed by the First Lady. It's perfectly constitutional apparently. I'd say I'm upset by the decision, but I'm more just disappointed that so many people are willing to overlook the implications of the mandate because it's the engine for some common sense regulation on insurance providers in the name of consumer protection. This is an historic decision, and the ruling today could possibly bust the door wide open to tyranny if any current or future legislators or executives feel emboldened by the possibilities this ruling creates for a government engineered "utopia".

If the rationale for excluding gay leaders is that Scouting is not the appropriate atmosphere for the subject of homosexuality (or probably all explicitly sexual subjects) to be brought up and discussed, then this individual coming camping with a boyfriend is directly contrary to that aim and needs to cease immediately. I think that's the same reason a Crew doesn't allow 19 yr olds in a Venture Crew of opposite genders to share a tent. Scouting is not an appropriate atmosphere for anything sexual. When you consider discussion of the explicitly sexual is a method of grooming or desensitizing a youth to prepare them for abuse, then you have a whole other reason to remove that element altogether. Sex and Scouting don't mix, that's why subjects that bring up discussion of sex (like orientation) are not appropriate for Scouting.

Is he a registered leader with the Troop? The answer to this question doesn't matter I would say the same logic that the BSA uses to exclude homosexuals from leadership is the same logic that would dictate that this practice of bringing a boyfriend along cannot be tolerated. On another note, it shouldn't be tolerated if a young man is bringing his girlfriend along either.

Tokala - Chartered Organizations pay the charter fees each year at rechartering time. That along with all membership fees collected at the same time all go to National.

Bobwhite89 - I realize fundraising and membership are the ugly things that a DE is basically required for in order to make sure they happen, but are those necessary to the mission? What can the BSA do better than anyone else? - Are there better youth programs for citizenship and values? - Are there better run camps to provide outdoor programming? - Is there another youth program in the country with the brand recognition and resources capable of letting them recruit the raw numbers each year that Scouting is able to? If those are the things that BSA can do better than anyone else, we need to ask ourselves if professionals are necessary. I think looking at that list that the first two can be accomplished without DE's. However, that third cannot. Without DE's a Council will lose resources quickly, which will drop off the number of boys joining. Lose the recruiting campaigns and you lose a lot of brand recognition within even a few decades. Look at what's happened since the Dale case and BSA backing away from the spotlight on most fronts. If it's not necessary for Scouting to bring its program to as many youth as possible, there's no point in having DE's.

Sounds like a good plan on both counts. Council offices as call centers/customer service. Volunteers who aren't in it for recognition or knots taking ownership of the Districts back from professionals. It sounds excellent in theory. If it fails, the program will be carried out forever by the grassroots, but just won't be a powerful national movement.

TT: I think I might have been the scout you're talking about back in the day... If that's any indication, teaching the other patrol members how to ignore that kind of manipulation or bullying instead of following along with it will help more than trying to address the kid or the parents directly. He'll stop doing it if people stop giving reinforcement to the actions. Consider his attitude as a product. If you react to the product, you've purchased it from him. If he cannot sell his product, he will adjust it until it sells or will leave the market.

I have to admit when I'm wrong, and I was wrong that two-deep is required for all activities, when in fact the standard is for outings. "Two-deep leadership is required on all outings. Two registered adult leaders or one registered leader and a parent of a participant, or other adult, one of whom must be 21 years of age or older, are required on all trips and outings. The chartered organization is responsible for ensuring that sufficient leadership is provided for all Scouting activities. There are a few instances, such as patrol activities, when the presence of adult leaders is not required and adult leadership may be limited to training and guidance of the patrol leadership. With the proper training, guidance, and approval by the troop leaders, the patrol can conduct day hikes and service projects. Appropriate adult leadership must be present for all overnight Scouting activities; coed overnight activitieseven those including parent and childrequire male and female adult leaders, both of whom must be 21 years of age or older, and one of whom must be a registered member of the BSA. The chartered organization is responsible for ensuring that sufficient leadership is provided for all activities." However, if I were a COR, I would probably require two-deep for all Scouting activities. Why would I do that? I refer to scenario three of the old "A Time to Tell" A culture of secrecy can create an opportunity for abuse of many kids at one time. That culture of secrecy is most easily maintained with only one adult. The two-deep leadership for only outings combined with a no one-on-one is great if the objective is to be able to corroborate accusations. However, if the objective is to prevent abusive situations, enforcing two-deep at all scouting activities is not an unreasonable stretch.

Contact the leader in violation directly. Make the whole of the Troop Leadership retake Youth Protection Training. Check in periodically to make sure policies are being followed. Remove those leaders resistant to policies after retraining.

Best advice has already been said. Call the SE. When someone is not following policy, it has to be reported. Abusers are extremely adept at explaining away their transgressions to people they know and trust. An SE just sees things in black and white and if the errant behavior does not fall back in line with policy, he drops the ax to err on the side of caution as must be done when objectively looking at any case of suspected abuse.

I understand the 'official capacity and liability', & I get that friends of the family are most often the offenders in abuse cases....but come on.... We're supposed to treat each other like strangers? You don't have to treat him like a stranger, but you said it yourself about who the most common abusers are. Following the guidelines protects your child, your CM friend, and your friendship with that individual. If your child made an accusation, you would immediately have to trust your child no matter if the accusation is true or not. Following the guidelines means that somebody's story is going to be corroborated, which protects everyone but the person in the wrong.

Whoa... I really hope these are hypothetical, because if these are all taken from real examples of behavior, there's a HUGE problem. All are False, and here's why. What's worse is you could show these explanations to a predator and they'd say I'm paranoid and that you're paranoid and crazy for being so over-protective. 1) Youth Protection Coverage starts and ends with the event's open and close. SM taking an unrelated youth home with him to unload the car is ok. False, Youth Protection is always, in all contact with youth of the program in any setting. This would even include things like birthday or graduation parties. 2) Driving unrelated youth to / from events is ok since roads are public, plus youth protection coverage has not started. Insurance is in place because we are in Class A's, but Youth Protection is not. This is only true if there's multiple youth in the car, but only because that eliminates the one on one issue. 3) Arriving at camp alone with unrelated youth 30 minutes ahead of the Troop is not okay, but just an unfortunate result of poor planning. Again, one on one would be key here. If there are other people/Troops at camp already, this becomes a non-issue so long as the leader and youth stay in common area with the other people or units. 4) Inviting an unrelated youth over to a leader's house alone to work on gear, advancement, youth leadership is acceptable since it is not an official event. No, that is not acceptable. That is not acceptable at all. A predator would use the rapport built in the program of Scouting knowing the opportunity to seclude a youth in a situation like this would arise. 5) Inviting two unrelated youths over to a leader's house to work on gear, advancement, youth leadership is acceptable since it is not an official event. It is an official scouting function, it requires two-deep leadership. 6) A written note from parents will allow SM to waive one on one youth protection coverage. This is the old "friends of the family" thing. I do not drive my friends' kids who are Scouts that I've known for 7 years around one on one. I get that it is odd that "Uncle Joe" can pick up a kid but the SM or other leader can't drive him home alone. I dislike this note thing because now we have the Scouts that can drive with the SM alone and those that can't. Again, this can be a tool of the predator to seclude a youth that trusts them. Not ok. 7) As part of mentoring the SPL/ASPL or other Youth Leaders the SM can go one on one. For example, 15-30 minutes alone with the Scout before or after a PLC. So long as their "alone" conversation takes place with an open door to the common area or within sight of other adults so that the two-deep qualification can be met, there's nothing wrong with the SM advising the Scout. 8) OA follows different Youth Protection than Boy Scouts or Cub Scouts. It is a brotherhood, and the distinction between Arrowmen is not as clear as regular adult leaders and Scouts. Plus it is the honor society, and as such more trustworthy. No. OA follows the same rules, and OA advisers should be MUCH more vigilant in watching for abuse because of that brotherhood, mystery, and trusting environment. 9) If any of the above are false, the District Executive can adjust Youth Protection so that things are ok. This is not the guy you'd usually bring Youth Protection issue to. No professional can alter or adjust the Youth Protection standards. Any professional that receives a request to "bend the rules" would or should immediately hold a great deal of suspicion for the requester. 10) A parent being "around" (ex: readily available on cell phone just a mile up the road) makes it not one on one. No... just... no.

Here we go.

It's become apparent that the founders and major shareholders needed a way to cash-in the shares of Facebook before the bubble bursts. I think the IPO signifies what everyone is realizing, and that FB is at its peak. This could start the feeding frenzy that kills Facebook. A lot of folks who took stock instead of regular pay at Facebook are going to have a lot of capital really soon to leave and start their own projects...

Sorry for the word order, I'll clarify because I forgot to explain the results of that law. Because of that law; and the limited supply of chairlifts, long waiting lists, and long manufacture times, many public pools and hotel pools will not be opening this summer for public use. This means the law has said that because everybody can't use the pool, then nobody should be able to use it.

When laws get passed requiring all public use pools, including hotels, have a permanent chair lift installed for handicap accessibility, this is touted as a great victory for equality. What it does is prevents people who enjoy something from enjoying that thing because it's not something all people can enjoy. At least with marriage there's the option of just not letting anyone have the tax and legal goodies instead of banning the whole institution. What I don't get is how in the wrong cases, the government will take the "If everyone can't enjoy it, nobody can" mentality like with the pools, yet is afraid to take that approach in cases like marriage, where it would be much more appropriate.

Come on Merlyn, is it really such an emotionally charged argument that you have to disingenuously misinterpret what everyone's being perfectly clear on and then go on a tantrum/rampage? I hope a mod cleans up your post a little to; a) make the page easier to read and b) show you that kind of behavior isn't acceptable