acco40

Demogogues exist in both parties. Just because Rush Limbaugh is a pompous ass doesn't mean that I have to view all Republicans with disdain - and I don't. Idiocy also doesn't have a monopoly with either party. Phrases like "It was stupid of 59 million people to call to call 59 million people stupid and try to win an election." makes it appear that all who voted for the same candidate think in lock step with one another. They don't. Heck, John McCain may have voted for Bush - but I am sure they don't think the same. Even, Cheney couldn't come to admit that he supports the President's view on homosexuality. He just stated that he supports the President. Rooster's statement: "Today, it is what is, not because democrats have evolved or grown, but because they have digressed from our countrys foundation (Judeo-Christian values) and embraced an amoral attitude." As Ronald Reagan would say, "There he goes again" - lumping all Democrats as amoral. The audacity for anyone to state that Republicans, Democrats, Indendents or any other major party is amoral is beyond my comprehension. We are not politicians, we are Scouters and should share many of the same values. The debate is not should we allow our citizenry to become destitute, should we fight terrorism, should we kill babies, etc. but what are the best policies to carry out what we all believe. Peronally, I am confounded that some who put massive amounts of their personal energy into trying to ban abortion seem to fight any program that tries to reduce unwanted pregnancies to begin with. Each side has the same goal, just different modes of operation. That does not make one side immoral or amoral. Dropping 500 lb bombs on Fallujah may kill "innocent" Iraqis and those who wish the worst for America. Marines engaged in urban fighting will be maimed and killed fighting terrorists. Those are facts. Is it worth it or the right policy? Those are the details that are worthy of debate. Don't belittle those who disagree with your view point. That is what I am upset with, especially from Scouters and possibly Scouts who should know better. Feel free to squash the politics thread. But please, quit labeling those who may disagree with your view point as intolerant. If you don't want to argue, call names, get mad, throw bombs, insult, or anything else anymore - just don't!! No need to squash the threads. I know it is sometimes easier to call others names than to engage in rational thought but it is worth the cost.

Bob, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you meant to say "on-line" not "off-line." Getting a copy of G2SS on-line will aid in assuring that it is up to date. http://www.scouting.org/pubs/gss/

I just want to share a few articles that are somewhat germane to this topic. A couple of blue men from a red state were having dinner a couple of nights after the election, and one of the blue men, a fellow who worked for Kit Bond many years ago, said something like this: "Back in Kit's early days, he never described himself as a conservative. In those days, nobody did. After the Goldwater debacle in '64, conservative was a dirty word, kind of like liberal is now. It wasn't until Ronald Reagan came along and defined conservatism in a new and positive way that people began using the word again. That's what the liberals need to do now. Right now, we let other people define us." And just how would we define ourselves? Let me try. I'm a liberal, and that means I believe in responsibility, both personal and collective. Collective responsibility? You betcha. I believe that society - that's us - has a responsibility to take care of the less fortunate and those who can no longer provide for themselves. Social Security, for instance, is a liberal idea. Both for retirees and the disabled. If a working person becomes disabled, he or she will get a monthly check. It's not going to put a person on Easy Street, but that person is not going to have to sit on the sidewalk begging like you see in some countries. Back when the whole Social Security program was being founded, many of our conservative friends were against it. Our friends, I say, and I mean that. I believe that the people on the other side are our opponents, but not our enemies. They are mostly decent and patriotic. I believe in civility, and I am dismayed when people on my side of the Great Debate lose sight of that. It especially annoys me when people on my side assume a condescending attitude toward other working people. You see, I'm a liberal and that means I support working people. In the struggle between labor and capital, I lean toward labor. Our conservative friends call organized labor a special interest, but this particular special interest is the reason we have a 40-hour workweek, paid vacations, health care benefits and decent wages. I believe in responsibility so, yes, I'd raise taxes if I had my way. I believe that it is wrong to put current expenses on a credit card that will be passed down to our children. That may be good politics, sure, and our current president, a conservative, has cut taxes while presiding over the greatest increase in nonmilitary spending since the days of the Great Society. Under the watch of a conservative president and a Congress controlled by his party, we've gone from a surplus to a deficit. I'm a liberal, and I find this irresponsible. I excluded military spending from that last argument, but I'd like to deal with it now. Because I believe in collective responsibility, I would never wage a war while cutting taxes. Shared responsibility means shared sacrifice. If we're going to ask the working-class kids of an all-volunteer military to put their lives on the line, we can at least make a small financial sacrifice ourselves. Maybe we'd pay a special fuel tax to fund the war. However we did it, we would do it together and we would do it now. We would not pass the debt down to our children. What we would pass down to our children is a healthy planet. I'm a liberal, and I believe in the environment. The Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were both liberal ideas. Many of our friends on the other side support industry and call our environmental laws onerous. They want those laws relaxed. I'm a liberal and I support the Sierra Club. The ACLU, too. I support the rights of the accused. In so doing, I stand on the shoulders of the Founders of this country who were distrustful of governmental authority. I believe that a person who has been fairly convicted should be punished - I have served as a state's witness at an execution - but I believe that a white-collar criminal who loots a company should be punished as severely as a kid who robs a convenience store. I believe that if drug addiction is a disease for the rich, it should not be a crime for the poor. I believe in fairness. I'm a liberal. (Bill McCLellan, St. Louis-Post Dispatch). _____________________________________________________ I have to thank Jimmy Carter for saving my sanity. Granted, his was not a presidency one looks back to with fondness. Gas lines stretched forever, Iran took our people hostage and there was disco, besides. But Carter's ex-presidency has been a model of that unofficial institution. He has built homes for the poor, mediated wars, helped feed the hungry in Africa, fought disease in Latin America. In so doing, Carter, a deacon of Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, Ga., has obeyed a directive Jesus issued one of his disciples. Do you love me? He asked Simon Peter. Peter said yes. Feed my sheep, said Jesus. Remembering Carter's example, his very public embrace of that command, is what has gotten me through the last week without a facial tic. If one more person tells me "morality" guided their decision to vote for George W. Bush, my head is going to pop like a balloon. One is hard pressed to find morality in Bush's ineptly prosecuted war, his erosion of civil rights and the loss of international credibility his policies have caused. Unless, of course, one has been quaking in one's boots at the prospect of same-sex couples making a commitment straight couples have avoided like SARS. In that case the vote probably reflects one's morality just fine. No political tactician am I, but I think Democrats made a fundamental mistake when the Christian right rose as a political force: They watched it happen, ceded God to the GOP without so much as a beg your pardon. Democrats, fearful of unsettling the secular West and Northeast, only shrugged as the Almighty was packed up and shipped South, where He is to this day routinely trotted out to endorse various would-be governors, senators and school board members. Small wonder faith has come to seem inextricable from voting the straight Republican ticket. And if you are, as I am, a Christian who remembers what Jesus told Simon Peter, it is galling to see Him reduced to a GOP shill, wrapped in a flag and used to advance a conservative agenda. Which stands the Bible on its head. After all, the book says Jesus consorted with lepers and prostitutes. It says He talked with women -- which was beneath a man of His time and place -- and washed the feet of his followers. And it tells us He said things that seemed to make no logical sense. If someone takes your shirt, let him have your cloak as well. If someone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the left. Love your enemies. This was crazy talk. There was nothing conservative about this man. So I look at the success conservatives on the so-called Christian right have had in claiming Him as their exclusive property and I wonder, where in the heck is the Christian left? Where are the people who preach -- and live -- the biblical values of inclusion, service, humility, sacrifice, and why haven't they coalesced into an alternative political force? Instead of a movement like that, we have an old peanut farmer building houses. You wish there were Christian people shouting from the rooftops that the faith exemplified by the politics of exclusion is not the faith the rest of us celebrate, not the faith that lifts us and makes us whole. But nobody's shouting these things. It occurs to me that maybe they're all too busy building houses for poor people. And that maybe I should be as well. God bless you, Jimmy Carter, wherever you are. (Leonard Pitts - Miami Herald). Now, Rooster, TrailPounder, and others, when you try to slam posters on this forum by labeling them as "liberals" as if it was a dirty word - it doesn't work for me. It may work for Carl Rove and others but I proudly wear that label.

Congratulations for "working your ticket." In my council, one district holds virtually 100% of the WB ceremonies at their monthly roundtable. In my district, I have not seen one "beading" held at roundtable in eight years. Regardless of where, have a great time and remember the great times. Back got Gilwell ... I used to be a bear ...

I know some may take this the wrong way but ... Don't honor our veterans who have passed away, honor those who are living. We have many who have difficulty finding work, difficulty handling the financial burdens brought on by their service, difficulty dealing with the psychological and physical disabilities brought on by their service. Volunteer at Veterans hospitals. Help the families of servicemen who are out on assignment. Let our politicians know that we want our service men and women to have the best equipment, intelligence, and training that we can possibly give them.

My advice is to interpret "Scout related" to "Scouting appropriate." Most of the boys have T-shirts that they have bought at summer camp, jamborees, camporees, etc. Some have "commercial" shirts that may have an American Flag depicted. Instead of trying to define what is acceptable, it may be easier to define what is not - political, slang, offensive, etc. type slogans would not be appropriate in my book. Now, when dealing with teenagers ... My son's favorite t-shirt is one he picked up in Chicago on a school field trip. It is plain black with white lettering on the front that reads (I think) in large bold letters - HOMICIDE and then in slightly smaller print, "When your day ends, ours is just starting. - Chicago Police Dept." Why his fascination, I don't know. I don't like it, but part of growing up is asserting your independence so I don't make a real big deal out of it.

It can be difficult to tell which way to put the square knot insignia on the uniform. The loop of the embroidered square knot that comes in front/top of the standing part (the part to the left as you are looking at it) is to the wearer's right. FOr "pretzel" knots, it is much easier. Now, I admit, that even when armed with this information, knots that are uniform in color (e.g. Webelos Leader Training Award) it is difficult to tell which part is in the front. With knots that use multiple colors, (e.g. Scouters Key) it is easy to see that the green rope should be to the observers left (wearer's right) and the white on the observers right (wearer's left).

Bob, when I look at .gif files of the actual 1st Class Badge (is that what you mean by "the award") and blow it up, the resolution is so bad that I could be looking at a noose for I know. I guess I peruse the handbooks tonight to find out.

First, my knowledge of knots is "knot" good. A close-up of the knot on the Scout Badge (not really THE Scout Badge which is all brown) can be found at: http://www.troop7.org/Ranks/Images/ScoutBadge.gif A close-up of the knot on the Eagle medal can be found at: http://www.sageventure.com/eagle/copy/index.htm Both have that little "lose" end on the upper right side. Not really sure what knot it is but they sure look the same to me.Other Eagle medals are shown too with slightly different knots.

I would like to see the whole BSA program bumped up to what it use to be age wise. Don't let boys join Cub Scouts until the second grade or age seven and do not let the boys join Boy Scouts until age 12 or the completion of the sixth grade. And I would like to see a big change in training. When children and adults attend academic "training", alias school, they are not considered trained just because they attended - they are required to show some level of comprehension. Not so in Scouting. Why do so many of the adults who have been trained show a complete lack of knowledge of the program? Bad trainers? Stubborn Scouters? Thick skulls? Who knows but if the Scouter can't demonstrate a rudimentary knowledge of his/her position, via a written test, oral test, or whatever, don't consider them as trained.

Eagle BOR are organized by the Troop advancement chair - not the district, not the Scout. A district advancement representative is required to be present. Eagle BORs are the only BORs that may have non-troop committee members (i.e. non-registered Scouters) sit on the board. However, no Scoutmasters sit on the Eagle boards of review although the Scoutmaster may witness the Eagle Board of Review IN SILENCE if the Life Scout under review is NOT his/her son. Parents may not sit on BORs for their sons at any level.

Sorry Ed, I just tried to inject a little humor, something this forum lacks some times. Hey, I was raised a Presbyterian. I sure glad our moral candidate who never wavers in his beliefs and who is a devout Episcopalian, oops I mean Presbyterian, oops I mean Methodist won the election.

Ed, you go all the way to the Upper Peninsula to vote? That is a long drive!

Here in Michigan, I also vote at a local community clubhouse - not a public facility. The Detroit branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, meanwhile, complained that President George W. Bush's poll watchers had harassed and intimidated Detroit voters. But the NAACP backed off a threat to sue Tuesday evening in federal court. What did the Dubya poll watchers do? They requested to see IDs from selected voters. In my community (not Detroit proper) we fill out a piece of paper with our name, address and birthdate and hand it to a volunteer. They compare that information with that on a computer printout and if it matches, give you a ballot. Those voting slips are saved (for review I guess).

Nice reminder. Now to paraphrase BW, "After much thought, wise men have laid out a program - now all we have to do is follow it."

On top of that, the BSA makes my sons re-register every year if they still want to advance in rank! What nerve!

As they say in Motown, I second that emotion! As a Tiger den leader, don't try to do it all. Concentrate your efforts on your Tiger den. When I presented awards to the boys in my den, I had all of them come up at once and face the crowd. I stood behind them and read what awards they had earned as my assistant den leader physically presented them with the awards. It saved on time - not having each boy come up and sit down as some leaders do when they call out each boys name. By standing behind them, the audience got to see the boys, not me (which I'm sure is what they wanted!).

"This was changed for all groups last year so now a $25 fee per hour is charged to all groups. That's fine as long as they do it for ALL groups. The modification says that cannot charge some groups less but Scouting groups and other simialr programs MORE than the least amount it charges others. They do not do it for all groups. The PTA is not charged to meet. However, most are. "Should an aerobics instructor who wants to use the gym for her high priced clients be treated the same as a Cub Scout Pack for the use of the gymnasium for 1.5 hours?" That is not what the rule says, you need to read it again. I'm was not arguing what the "rule" (proposed legislation stated) but what was desired. Now, I have an unrelated question. Is the CO of a CS Pack obligated to provide a meeting place for den meetings? For Pack meetings? For Pack committee meetings? If you force schools to allow recruiting to all groups, the schools may not have any time to teach! Again, the language if rife with "gotchas." What is a youth group? What does similar organizations mean? What is a patriotic organization? Should the non-profit Merlyn WWJD (what would Judas do) atheist group be allowed to recruit? {Sorry that was in bad taste for all. } How about the young republicans? The list can go on and on. I say, let's have some faith in the school administration (which we vote on by the way) to have their own guidelines.

Just curious John, who approves the service hours in your unit, y ou (advancement coordinator) or the SM? I know the book answer is the SM but I suppose the advancement coordinator could handle that function if they were heavily involved with working and interviewing the Scout about his activities.

I'm still confused. "Let's not equate rank advancement requirements with OA eligibility or deservedness." For rank you need to show Scout spirit. For unit leader approval: Unit Leader Approval. To become eligible for election, a Boy Scout or Varsity Scout must be registered with the Boy Scouts of America and have the approval of his unit leader prior to the election. The unit leader must certify his Scout spirit (i.e. his adherence to the Scout Oath and Law and active participation in unit activities). The unit leader must also certify that the nominee meets all specified requirements at the time of this annual election." Now for Star rank the following requirements apply: 1. Be active in your troop and patrol for at least 4 months as a First Class Scout. 2. Demonstrate scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life. So how can a unit leader say the Scout was active and demonstrated scout spirit for rank but not for the OA? Are not these standards the same?

I think we all agree that whomever can teach leadership the best - should go for it! I will admit that if the SPL can teach leadership as well as me (or better) I'll encourage it. As B-P stated (paraphrasing I think): Never do something for a boy that he can do himself.

In our area, the public school system has to provide public transportation to the private schools! If schools and other organizations want to be private organizations they should take the good with the bad. "In general it ties government funding of public facilities to equal access to all organizations regardless of how the management of the facility "feels" about that organization." I don't think this is true. The legislation specifically calls out "patriotic organizations" and mentions the BSA by name. Our public school district already does this. We (Scout groups) used to be able to use their facilities for free. As a den leader, I would request, with the proper paperwork, the use of a classroom (usually my son's) for a specific night of the week. I promised to keep the room clean (no snacks was my rule and we left it cleaner than when we entered it). This was changed for all groups last year so now a $25 fee per hour is charged to all groups. Is a public school building public property? Yes and no. I believe residents of that school district should have preferred access to use the facility. They school districts should have some say in who they will let use the school facilities. Non-profits, private businesses, private organizations, charities, student organizations, etc. - all should not be forced to come under the same umbrellas. Should an aerobics instructor who wants to use the gym for her high priced clients be treated the same as a Cub Scout Pack for the use of the gymnasium for 1.5 hours? I say let the school administration decide that question, not a federal law.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Sorry, double post.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Barry, I agree with your observation about going with the youth leaders to training. However, I requested to attend our council JLT, as an observer only, so that I could understand what the boys were being taught so that I could help them implement what they were taught when they brought it back to the troop. I was told that the policy was that SMs should not attend. C'est la vie. As for the SPL teaching the PLs leadership, I respectfully disagree. That task should fall primarily to the Scoutmaster. The SPL can teach by example and offer his advice but the responsibility for training the junior leaders does not reside with the SPL. If any youth leader was responsible for training youth leaders it would be the ASPL. He oversees the historian, librarian, scribe and quartermaster. I don't think the Scoutmaster should abdicate his training of these youth leaders, he should let the ASPL guide them. Just my thoughts.

Where do you get that being at least ten years of age is a requirement for earning the AOL? Be active in your Webelos den for at least six months since completing the fourth grade (or for at least six months since becoming 10 years old), and earn the Webelos badge. I do not interpret the above as a hard and strict age requirement. If one completes the fourth grade at least six months prior and has earned the Webelos badge - no age is required.