acco40

I think the National Day of Prayer was sort of like giving the keys to the city to a "hero" or clebrating a sports team. It really didn't do much but those who "got into it" got out of it what they needed. I actually really respect President Obama for having the courage to"cancel" this event, I'm sure he'll get lots of negative press & feedback. Wednesday, Obama cancelled 2010 White House National Day of Prayer celebration. The National Day of Prayer has historically been the first Thursday in May, since Harry S. Truman put it into effect in 1952, but wasnt official until the days of Ronald Reagan. For the past eight years, the White House has had a ceremony to celebrate the day, but Obama cancelled it for 2010. National day of prayer which was celebrated every first Thursday of May does not exist now. This years national prayer day that would have taken place next month that is on 6th May 2010 has been cancelled by the instructions from the president Barak Obama. Kevin Coburn, from Salt Lake City said, People shouldnt care about the National Day of Prayer being cancelled. If people want to pray, they should, but they dont need a special day set aside for it.National prayer day, first appointed by President Truman and made permanent by President Reagan, who concluded by an ecumenical service at the White House with President George w. Bush, every first Thursday in May. This morning an Internet rumor that the National Day of Prayer had been cancelled by President Obama went viral. The rumor is only partially correct, Obama has canceled the White House service recognizing the National Day of Prayer. He has not, however, cancelled the National Day of Prayer itself.

CO asset yes, income no.

I guess the Scouter should have added a few more wives to keep him "busy."

MYOB comment on a public forum?

Id go with double secret probation. It works like a charm.

During one outing we had some minor issues when trying to pack up and leave. One of my SAs approached the patrol leader of a rather young patrol (most had been in the program for one year, PL same age) about asking him to assemble his patrol so that he could address them. Well about 10 minutes passed and I, the Scoutmaster did the same thing. Again, about 10 minutes later nothing happened. Both times the PL asked but got no real response. So I, in a rather controlled but loud voice, I called the boys of that patrol. After they were all there, I asked them who on Earth elected their PL. They all stated in unison, "we did." Then why, might I ask, don't you listen to what he says? They all looked at their feet. It is a transition for that age group to go from listening to adults - parents, teachers, Scouters, etc. and from older boys - a 17 yr old SPL for instance to start listening/respecting their age peers. My expectation and lesson - you have the freedom to choose your PL but once choosen, follow his "command." I wasn't asking for blind obedience but some modicum of respect. Again, disrespect can't be measured, disrespectful actions can and should be addressed.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Sharing of a tent by youth/adults who are not in a parent/guardian relationship is prohibited in my view. Even though the tent has different "rooms" that may get you into trouble.

Should Committee Members take WB? Absolutely not. They may get the mistaken idea that they are important, said the Scoutmaster. Our troop put in rules that anyone who was going to go on events with the boys needed to have ALL the training that a SM & ASM need. I find this so humorous because the SM is about the only position that DOES NOT NEED ANY TYPE OF TRAINING TO TAKE THE BOYS ON OUTINGS! So what you are stating is that the parents and committee members should take youth protection?

A couple of quick points. 1)Yes, BOR are for both the Scout (advancement or otherwise) and also to evaluate the program. 2) NealOnWheels, baschram645 and others - you state that "you" need to schedule a BOR. I feel the Scout should schedule a BOR, not the SM, not an SA, not the PL, not the SPL, not his mother, etc. That said, the Scout could easily schedule a BOR and not have everything signed off. Going through the BOR and tehn getting written instructions on what he needs and then when the Scout feels he has fulfilled those requirements - have him again schedule a BOR is the best way to go IMO. I hate preschedule BOR times. That's geared for the adults and not in the best interest of the program.

The unit.

The reason most troops decline is that the adults don't play nice. The reason most troops thrive is because the adults do play nice. Very simple. A more complicated question is, why don't the adults play nice sometimes? The reason is because many adults are dealing with other folks "precious" children and unlike teachers and other folks who work with children, some Scouters are not really well trained in dealing with youth. Being an expert fisherman, knotsman (is that a word), camper, etc. doesn't mean you can relate well with 12 - 17 year old boys. Think of the little league dad/coach who has to choose who the shortstop, starting pitcher, lead-off hitter and who is a bench warmer. Same situation.

Google Linda Ronstadt, about 50 lbs ago, and Cub Scout uniform and you might get a picture of the sexiest thing I ever saw in person! Folks, what about the helicopter parent making shadow boxes for her Cub/Boy Scout(s). I'd hate to be the Scout Shop employee who denied her a rank patch because she didn't have an advancement report!

In regard to A.P.Hill, you will find if you go back and look, that over the years the BSA has paid large amounts to cover various costs at the Jambo. While the above is true, they did not pay the US Army. That was paid for by me - via my tax dollars and by my attendance fee for myself and my two sons. THE US GOVERNMENT HEAVILY FUNDED THE NATIONAL JAMBOREE in 2005, just not in direct payments to the BSA. There are no two ways about it and I think folks like Merlyn and other have a legitimate beef about why the US Government would spend so much. I know they claim "mutually beneficial" as a reason but I personnally think that is a stretch. Reading about the fatal tragedy at the Boy Scout Jamboree, two things struck me. First of all, the death of four people in front of their entire troop really is a horrible tragedy, and given the way that it appears the four died, I cant imagine itll be all that easy for some of the kids to recover from that. In an entirely different vein, though, I also realized that the Jamboree is taking place on federal land the Armys Fort A.P. Hill which means that our government still feels it appropriate to give access, funding, and support to an organization that specifically excludes gay, athiest, and agnostic people. I honestly dont understand how this can still be occurring. Doing a little reading this evening about the state of our governments Boy Scout support, I discovered a few interesting things. First, I learned that a judge in the Northern Illinois U.S. District Court issued a ruling earlier this month which bars government support of future Boy Scouts Jamborees. The decision is available (in PDF form) from the ACLUs website; it contains a thorough description of how the Boy Scouts meet the standard of a religious organization, and as such, how explicit government support thus violates the Constitutions prohibition of a link between government and religion. Seems logical to me, and would seem to put this whole issue to bed. Oh, if it were only that easy. The other thing I learned tonight demonstrates why its not that easy; it revolves around an argument made by the government in the Illinois court case that has set the stage for at least one future attempt to maintain government support of the Boy Scouts. Essentially, the U.S. claimed that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit people who, as federal taxpayers, brought suit under their right to exercise oversight over the way their tax money was being spent lack standing to claim harm because the money wasnt spent pursuant to the clause of the Constitution dealing with taxation and government spending (Article I, section 8, clause 1). Instead, the Department of Defense claimed that their support of the Boy Scout Jamboree derived from the specific powers vested in Congress over military affairs (Article I, section 8, clauses 12-14), and as such, taxpayers wouldnt have the same right to question the way the money is spent. The District Court judge found ample evidence that the money was spent at least in part under Congress taxation and spending authority, and dismissed the argument. The reason this is interesting to me is that it appears our Senate took note of this, and passed an amendment to the Defense Department spending bill yesterday, an amendment which explicitly allows the Secretary of Defense to support the Boy Scout Jamboree on the basis of it being required for defending our national security and preparing for combat. (To see the amendment, you can follow this link to the Congressional Record documents, click the link to page S8686, and then scroll down two or three screens to SA 1342, the relevant text.) Now you see why I find this so fascinating? Its clear that the Constitution forbids our government from supporting organizations that mandate religious faith (like the Boy Scouts), and its also pretty clear that theres no way the Senate would get the country to amend that ban out of the Constitution. So in order to get around it, the Senate is trying to pass laws that aim to prevent ordinary taxpayers from having sufficient standing to bring suit what we do might be unconstitutional, but you dont have the right to file a court case to demonstrate that, so we can do it anyway. And as the final straw, they did all of it by declaring that the Boy Scout Jamboree is vital for national security. Ignoring fundamental prohibitions built into our Constitution is pretty bad but getting caught doing so, and then responding by passing laws which aim to restrict oversight of the unconstitutional actions, is worse. - Jason Levine By Dan Caterinicchia Associated Press A federal judge has ruled the Pentagon can no longer spend millions in government money to ready a Virginia military base for a national Boy Scout event typically held every four years, the American Civil Liberties Union announced Thursday. U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning's June 22 order stems from a 1999 lawsuit by the ACLU of Illinois that claimed the Defense Department sponsorship violates the First Amendment because the Scouts require members to swear an oath of duty to God. Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said Thursday the government was still considering its options. The order doesn't cover this year's National Scout Jamboree, which start July 25 and is expected to draw more than 40,000 people to Fort A.P. Hill, Va. A Scouts spokesman said he expects the Pentagon's lawyers to appeal. "We are confident that an appeal to the 7th Circuit will return everything to the status quo," Bob Bork said. ACLU of Illinois spokesman Ed Yohnka said no other youth organization receives millions of dollars in government support, and that the injunction is the latest step toward ending the Scouts' unfair advantage. The Defense Department notified the Chicago federal court in April that it would support this summer's jamboree, despite a ruling by Manning in March that the department's aid was unconstitutional. The government argued at the time that the ruling wasn't final. The government aid, which amounted to $6 million and $8 million respectively for the jamborees in 1997 and 2001, was used to transport military personnel and other goods there, according to Manning's March order. The government expected to pay about $7.3 million for this year's jamboree. Jamboree activities include archery, biking, a confidence course, environmental conservation programs and kayaking, according to the Scouts' Web site. The Rev. Eugene Winkler, a Methodist minister who is one of the plaintiffs in the case, said he got involved because he did not agree with the use of taxpayer money to support the Scouts. "We're not attacking the Scouts and neither is the ACLU," Winkler said. "This issue is not about the Boy Scouts at all. It's about government funding for religious purposes. It's about separation" of church and state. Coincidence or not, the National Jamboree is moving away from the US Army/Federal Government and on to West Virginia on BSA owned property, starting in 2014. I'll say one thing I like about Jambo. Seeing cocky, disrepectful teenage boys (13 - 17) who are used to pushing the buttons of their scout leaders get a faceful from a 19 year old private with an M-16 (who never took youth protection training!) to "get the hell out of the road" was worth the price of admission!

There was a reason they were called Den Mothers and they met right after school - when many schools chartered units! They all met once a month with a male Cubmaster presiding over the Pack meetings. That system had its faults and benefits. Now with working mothers and hopefully working fathers (for those who want to work) meeting after school is problematic. Boy Scouts does it. I put a lot of weight on what Oak Tree stated - if the adults males perceive that those positions are womens roles - good luck! I was a leader for Tigers, Wolves, Bears and Webelos and interacted with about 25% of the male parent and 75% of the female parent. The females needed to get used to my 'style' - amd so did the boys. Most have more contact with their mothers than fathers (although much less now than even 10 - 15 years ago) and most elementary teachers are female. So, for some, interacting with another adult male is a new thing. One thing to beware of is to overly 'recruit' a male leader who fills a position on paper but not necessarily in reality. Good luck.

The ASPL. The SPL and ASPL are not members of any patrol and because I like to have as much 'patrol method' as possible, I decided that they would have the option of eating with the adults. This improved a couple of things. Many times, I'd either sit down and eat with him, cook with him or clean up with him and that gave us some one-on-one (no YPG violations mind you) to discuss things. The SPL, usually an older Scout, liked the fact that we, the adults, usually had more interesting food. When I thought the SPL was getting a little cocky about this perk, I'd assign him (I acted as PL for the 'adults' and thus set the duty roster) to clean-up. This also kept the SPL from overshadowing the PL of which ever youth patrol he may have eaten with thus building up a stronger PL. This worked fairly well until my son became SPL and eating with Dad was not such a perk sometimes I'd invite myself to eat with a youth patrol that I thought may need a little undercover supervision. Then my son/SPL had the best of both worlds - eat with the adults and as an added cherry, no dad!

BadenP - a COR should not remove a volunteer without cause. A COR may remove a volunteer without cause. No need for me to get a clue, reread what I posted or garner further logic. It's quite simple.

No, I wasn't trying to equate Buddhists with Klansmen except to point out that regardless of "good deeds" - some would take issue with certain groups based on their core beliefs.

So Beavah and Merlyn are in agreement. Both agree that the BSA should allow local / CO option of allowing atheist into units! Congrats! Count me in with you guys. Merlyn - Meanwhile, he has no qualms advocating that atheist kids be left out in the cold. Beavah - If they are, it's only because fellows like yourself who could provide 'em a strong program don't step up to da plate. I'd support yeh, I'd give yeh what advice I could, I'd argue yeh should have access and school sponsorship. Now, how should the three of us get together to try and persuade the BSA to accept this change? Any other takers?

Does anyone remember the Andy Griffith show where Opie was a victum of bullying? A kid kept taking his lunch money. Sheriff/Dad Andy told him he needed to confront the bully. Yes, that was back in the days when bad guys were ugly, goodness always triumphed over evil, sex was only between married couples (of opposite genders) and blacks hardly existed - so yes, I know it was not reality. However, I do think for the most part it helped influence youngsters in a positive way, much like Scouting even with some of it's faults today. Overview Opie has to deal with a bully as he learns about standing up for what is rightly his. Season Number: 2, Episode Number: 33, Aired: October 2, 1961 Episode Summary Andy discovers that Opie is getting extra money for school. When he questions Opie and doesn't get a real answer, Barney sees a chance to put his detective skills to use in order to get to the bottom of it. He trails Opie to school one morning and discovers that Opie is being threatened into giving up his nickel every day by a bully named Sheldon. Despite Barney's insistence that he intervene, Andy decides to let Opie handle the situation himself. Andy explains that Opie has to learn to stand up for himself, even if the consequences might be a little painful. Later, Opie and Andy are fishing. Andy tells Opie the story of his encounter with a bully named Hoadie Snitch. It turns out that Hoadie followed Andy, when he was a boy about Opie's age, to his secret fishing spot. He demanded that Andy never fish there again. Andy explains how he stood up for himself, even though the results were painful. This gives Opie the courage to stand up to his own bully. (This message has been edited by acco40)

I agree that the city, which has an anti-bias policy, should not rent subsidize organizations that go against that policy. I also agree with the BSA's position, or more accurately the C of L council's position that the affidavit in question has no relevancy to the litigation at hand (i.e. the suicide reference).

Mother Theresa questioned her faith and her belief in God at different periods in her life, yet heaven forbid a 15 year old do that! Let's give them the boot!

Q) Why did Jesus and all his disciples sit on the same side of the table? A) To fit in the picture.

Shucks, given today's world I thought I was going to read about nude camping with boys. (RE: Cub Scout Camping - Pantless?) To answer the question posed - yes, a Cub Scout, Tiger included, may go on a Pack overnighter without their parent(s) present given that other criteria are met.(This message has been edited by acco40)

The COR is a rep of the CO who signs off on volunteers or can remove them with cause. I think they can remove them without cause too.

Castrate? Maybe that's why troops don't allow female scouts.