acco40

Quick a answer - no. Obviously, youth protection guidelines are different for Cubs than for Boy Scouts. Cubs all need to be assigned to an adult guardian (does not need to be their parent) and an adult guardian may have one or more Cubs (except for the den leader). Boy Scouts do not need an assigned guardian but do need to have adult leaders (two deep) present (unless a patrol outing).

A few words of caution - corporate recruiters and human resource teams now use Google and other search engines to gather information on prospective job candidates. What they find does influence their decisions if they feel the candidate does not fit in with their corporate image. Also, did anyone see the parody skit on either MAD TV or SNL the other week? They had a class for students on how to use myspace.com and all of the students were middle aged men of questionable backgrounds. It was quite humorous.

Is there any action the Troop Committee can take if they feel the Chairperson is not meeting requirements, making decisions without committee involvement, etc.? Being analytical and not the best politician I would 1) Clearly have a written set of "requirements" that both the committee, committee chair and COR feel are appropriate. Only then can one talk of not meeting the requirements. 2) Have your troop committee discuss or formulate how they want the decision process to work. There is nothing inherently wrong with making decisions without committee (or should I say, the rest of the committee) involvement. As a Scoutmaster, I make many decisions with out the SAs involvement.

Cub Scouts - have parents or other adults or older siblings do the sewing. Boy Scouts - I agree with scoutldr (or should I say B-P), "Never do anything that a Scout can do." Of course, being a Scouter, I have my wife do the sewing for my Scout shirt! Seriously, I've done some of the sewing and do it all by hand. I just take a few extra needles to pin the patch, find matching thread and make do.

First, I agree that Democrats have an image problem. So do Republicans. It is politicians who have the image problem. The media is much more polarized now than it used to be years ago. Each side has their catch phrases. I don't buy into it. For all of you that tend to use or categorize individuals as liberal/conservative or Republican/Democrat please define your terms. For example, from the 2004 Republican Party platform we have: Families & Children Families are the cornerstone of our culture. Well, duh, who would argue that? Immigration Only legal immigrants, through tightly controlled borders. I don't know of any party that supports illegal immigration. Welfare & Poverty Move more welfare recipients off the welfare rolls. Again, I don't think anyone advocates putting more on welfare rolls. Let's look at the Democrats' platform: Families & Children Family is the center of American life. Gee, where have I heard something similar? Immigration Path for undocumented aliens to earn citizenship. Sounds like our president. Now which party does he belong to? Welfare & Poverty Expand middle class. Again, sure sounds similar to something else I read! So before anyone start labelling the "other" party as the bogeyman, let's argue/debate issues instead of trying to paint the other party into a corner with tainted beliefs. (This message has been edited by acco40)

Whoa! Barry, I've got to take issue with some of your comments. You're either religious and a Republican or you are not religious? Where did that come from? There are nut cases on all sides of the fence as well as thoughtful and considerate folks. Are some folks homophobic? Yes. They do fear gays for whatever reason. Unfortunately, some do use that term in a pejorative sense to try and intimidate or justify their beliefs. But the converse is true too. Some label those who do not feel homosexuality is a sin as immoral individuals. I do not view homosexuality as inherently evil or sinful. That some religions or individuals do is okay with me to some extent. Similar to eating pork, circumcision, wearing hats, grooming peculiarities, etc. I have no problem with it until laws are passed or certain quasi-public institutions take sides on the issue. How would you feel if the BSA said that to be the best kind of citizen one should not eat pork? But I realize that if the government were to give same sex unions some sort of legal status, many who believe that homosexuality is immoral would have trouble with it. But hey, I can shave, go topless (no hat) and eat bacon. The deciding factor for me is how do other peoples actions directly effect me. Some practical reasoning goes into effect. Should it be illegal to drive while intoxicated or should it just be illegal to drive erratically? Does it make a difference why someone drives badly? Should it be illegal to drive in a prudent manner while intoxicated? Well, libertarians may disagree with me on this but yes, I feel that for practical reasons, driving while intoxicated should be illegal regardless of how well one is driving. The goal is to prevent accidents, not prosecute drunks. So yes, I do have a problem if "religious people" try to force their belief system on others. However, the conundrum is that most religions, Christianity included, are fundamentally proselytizing by nature. Now, we should all strive to abide by the Scout Oath and Law and show respect and courtesy to others. For example, regardless of their beliefs, the first ladies, both Democrats and Republicans, covered their heads and wore conservative clothing when meeting the Pope. Was that hypocritical or just good manners? Now I've heard some people argue that things like murder are religious beliefs so why have laws against murder. Well, I realize that many of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian values (some would say Judeo-Christian values are based on mans early reasoned laws) but I postulate that even Merlyn would agree that murder, rape, etc. should be outlawed for all. Some issues like stem cell research, abortion, etc. are very emotional and not black and white and yes it is in our best interests for our government to take a stand, one way or the other on these issues. But what I think is a shame is that in the case of abortion, more energy seems to be spent on both sides arguing their positions than trying to decrease the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. You'd think that common ground would be inviting for all.

... that guy with the black eye in the Viceroy commercials. Ed, not Viceroy but Tareyton cigarettes (i.e. I'd rather fight than switch). Yes, my mind is full of useless information, now, where did I put my car keys? My 11 year old daughter asked me to explain the phrase "Where's the beef?" to her last week. I think it came from Wendy's and then was co-opted into the presidential election in 84 (Reagan/Mondale) and now is a popular phrase for "where is the substance." I think my 11 year old thinks I made it all up.

After reading the "Eagle Scouts" and seeing Michael Moore being debated and more political squabbling, I thought I'd stir the pot some more! :-) One of my favorite politicians, a life long Republican, is coming out with a book. I had a chance to meet him when I was in high school and he was running for Missouri attorney general. It was the same election as Nixon / McGovern. I was very leery of Republicans and thought his view on Government spending for private schools was way off base. As a side note, his brother was the Chancellor where I got my graduate degree. We need more public servants like him. Some of his thoughts on religion, gays, etc. Q: In your book you write that 'no political agenda can claim to be God's will.' That argument is not going to persuade people who believe it can. A: No, you're not going to persuade everybody, but let's have other people weigh in on this discussion, too. Let's hear from the people who do not believe that the kingdom of God can be reduced to a political platform. And let's hear from people who believe that the commandment that we love our neighbors as ourselves takes precedence over bashing gays, for example. Q: How would that look, then, if more people were interested in reconciliation? Can you give an example? A: Let's stick with the gay issue. This issue has become politicized for the purpose of appealing to the Christian conservative base of the Republican Party. It's difficult for me to imagine that, aside from that effort, that many people really think that gay marriage should be incorporated into the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is about the structure of government; it's about the relationship of the government and the people. It's not about behavioral issues. The gay marriage issue gained currency in Republican politics because only one side was heard from. It's time for other people to say, 'Wait a second.' I feel the same about stem cells. Some people say that the Christian position is against stem cell research. That's true for some Christians. But a lot of Christians would say: No, when Jesus sent the disciples out into the world, he sent them out, in Matthew's Gospel, to heal every disease. I'm not for muzzling anybody. I'm for having people who believe that America has become too polarized - and for religion to be more than a series of wedge issues - to be more outspoken than they've been to date. Q: What are your thoughts on gay marriage? A: My personal view is that marriage is between a man and woman. But that's neither here nor there. I also believe in not humiliating people, and I believe in honoring people and understanding that some people are just not drawn to people of the opposite sex. The government should recognize that when there's a committed relationship, certain legal rights should go along with it. And then let the churches figure out what they mean by marriage. Q: Has the Episcopal Church made decisions in recent years that you disagree with? A: Oh, yeah. But my view of the Episcopal Church is that its tradition is to hold within itself a whole variety of views. And I think that's good. There's a big gap between God and our understanding of God. We have to recognize that there are a variety of ideas that people can have and still be faithful people. Q: What role do books have today in shaping or moving cultural discussion? A: The written word is really important. I hope that we're not reduced to not only talking heads, but shouting heads. The subject that I'm into now - the relationship between religion and politics - is going to benefit from serious public discussion, (from) books that are written, op-ed pieces, ordinary people who think about this question. In that sense, I am very Jeffersonian: If the American people inform themselves and think about this question, it's going to turn out fine. Now is the time for moderates to think and speak. Q: What if the response is detrimental to the Republican Party? A: What's the use of the Republican Party: to serve its own aims, simply to get itself elected? Or is its aim to serve the nation and the world? I don't think creating a sectarian political party serves anything beyond helping to win an election. For a short-term strategy, this is a good one, to appeal relentlessly to a narrow base. But (in the long term), it's going to backfire.

He will need a "verifiable" email address. Is he using the Join SCOUTER.com window in the frame on the right? Hard to help from afar.

For a lone female on an outing how does one implement the buddy system? Are adults immune to the buddy system concept?

JetBoil and I am happy with it.

I'll confess. I'm a societal deviant. I can easily hide my affliction if I'm careful. You really can't tell just from looking at me or talking with me. Some religious texts speak of my actions as immoral. Schools and society have attempted to change my ways with instruction and punishment - it has not proven effective. I've witnessed employment discrimination because of my deviant behavior. What is my 'affliction' - I'm left handed. Who sits at the left hand of God? What is the opposite or right? I am a certifiable, 100% sinister person. I punt a football with my left foot. I write with my left hand. I throw a baseball with my left hand. Now, do you know that doors, power tools, scissors, can openers, cars, books, and just about anything man made is made for right handers? Police officers have been dismissed from their jobs if they insist on holstering their guns on their left hip. The military has weapon systems that throw spent rounds across the face of left-handers. Ed, yellow-hammer - do I have the same rights as right handers? Am I looking for special privileges? Was I born this way or did I develop this deviant behavior on my own? Neither of my parents or siblings were born with this deviation from the norm. Is this just a "lifestyle choice" for me? I don't make any attempt to hide my affliction. However, if society did not allow me to marry, restricted my membership in such organizations as Scouting, etc. I may have chosen to hide my deviant behavior. Would the act of trying to hide being left handed make me dishonest? Would it cause me to develop neuroses? Would it harm me psychologically? If so, how would one separate the act of being left handed as the cause or the act of trying to hide it as the cause of my mental problems? Questions, questions, questions.

Here's a twist. What if the boys in the troop prefer not to have women go on their outings? When my oldest son was looking for troops, one had a "no women" type policy. Talking with the Scoutmaster he made it clear that if having women on the outings made any of the boys uneasy he would not hesitate to ban women from the outings. Does this violate the "open" meetings and events clause? Anyway, my son decided not to join that troop (that wasn't the reason).

As Scoutmaster, I treat the Scouts the same way the District/Council treats me. I have a "cage" where I have put in a pendaflex file folder (hanging slot) with each Scouts name on it. It is up to the Scout to check it at each meeting. Into this go the permission slips (at least one month in advance) and other paper documents. I haveto constantly remind parents that the folders have their son's nomae on them, not theirs. Why on Earth have them handed out or burden patrol leaders with that task? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

One of the reports that I read (USA Today? - I was on travel) stated that one of the boys was a Webelos Scout and described at as a junior Boy Scout.

Q) How come Baptists don't have sex standing up? A) Someone might think they're dancing! Catholics have it figured out. You go to the church depending on your location. No shopping involved. Now, if they could only find some Priests under the age of 65.

Since he is acting as part of the SM's staff ... That's just it. Is a volunteer parent, who is not a registered leader, who goes along on an outing part of the Scoutmaster's staff? If so, in what capacity?

Scott Peterson is an Eagle Scout. Gary Hirte, a Wisconsin high school senior, Eagle Scout and former star athlete, shot a substitute teacher in the head and stabbed him in the back and heart. Both of these men were share the same trait of believing they were smarter and better than others.

One of them went like this: on the way to swim tests, one boy attempted to "pants" another, to which this dad said something like "try it again and I'll take a picture." Think about it like this. Your 11 year old is attending camp for the first time and is somewhat apprehensive about it. A sixteen year old Scout attempts to "pants" your son. Your son feels humiliated especially because one of the leaders, someone he thought he could trust, is laughing and instructs his son to do it again. Is that abuse? Intent is irrelevant. Now, if this adult leader, who in the youth's eyes is part of the SM leadership, exhibits this type of behavior, why would the youth feel he could trust the SM. Why not wait until mom or dad come and bring it up on the way home? I have no idea if the events described above have anything to do with what really occurred but nothing in the statement in the original posts precludes that it could not. This is not about the SM. This should be about appropriate behavior by the adult leaders. In my estimation, the leader acted inappropriately. I would encourage the troop committee to chat with this individual (actually, preferably the CC, not the whole committee). Not a witch hunt, but a simple explanation to the adult (in private) about expectations the troop has with leaders. P.S. This reminds me of why I don't like "parents" in leadership positions necessarily but like Scouters with training.

Much will depend on how much of a shadow you cast on the new SM. Ask him/her what position they would like you to take in your unit - if any. Sometimes you need to step away to let the new SM take hold. Sometimes, they want you to stay close. I'd give you the same advice I give Webelos leaders whose sons join our troop. Don't sign up right away for a position in the troop. Watch and observe for six months or so and then decide what you want to do. Step back (avoid DEs for awhile!) and smell the roses and then let yoru heart lead you. Good luck.

Sadly, teens today don't get a chance to experience drive in theatres. I actually saw Star Wars at the drive in. In a surreal moment, I saw M*A*S*H at the drive-in and when they do the speaker announcements over at the camp I at first thought is was an announcement from the theatre!

Aquila calva, I think the suggestion was to donate, via FOS, a portion of their alternative fundraiser, not because they have to but because by switching from Trails End to another type of fundraiser, the Council has a net revenue loss. For what it's worth, in our Council, and our district specifically, we tend to sell popcorn out the wazoo but seem to be a little low on FOS donations.

Cheerful Eagle, not sure I understand your post. Honestly, acco40, your posts in this thread are the most acrimonious of all. This would be ironic, but we're Americans, and everyone knows we simply fail miserably at irony. I don't really want to debate whether or not my posts are acriomonius or not but why would it be ironic if they were?

Public institutions sponsor and support private organizations all the time! Student loans, Pell Grants, and other scholarships go to students at private, even religious colleges and universities. Billions of dollars of research grants go to private and religious universities and companies. As a result, our higher education system and research are the envy of the world. That's just it - Pell grants and other "need" based funds go to students (i.e. the public) which can use these funds at public and private Universities. Back in the day when Pell grants were not named after a politician, (BEOG Grants - Basic Education Opportunity Grant) I was on the receiving end and they allowed me to complete my undergraduate education at a major public university. The result of which made my income grow to such an extent that the USG has reaped back that investment over one hundred fold. It is true that such Government institutions as the National Cancer Institute, funded by congressional appropriations (i.e. taxpayer dollars), doles out research grants to Universities. Heck, I work for a private organization funded by Government dollars (I'm in the defense business). But, we have to meet certain "tests" to be able to win contracts (Equal Opportunity Employer, etc.). Now I don't have a problem with the Government giving out dollars to be spent by private persons or companies. But, like Merlyn said, if the Government maintained that nobody could grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and therefore withheld Medicare and Medicaid support to those that did not declare a "God obligation" I would have some heartburn with that. The BSA can't have it both ways.(This message has been edited by acco40)

We must catch the vision of finding the means to deliver the program we want rather than trying to live within our means. Your SE must be a Democrat (not that there's anything wrong with that!)