cjmiam

I went 3 times in program and management. There are a lot of variables with NCS staff. They should be "the best", but sometimes they are just some person filling the spot. You could have a blast and you could be let down. The good thing is even if you have a less than stellar instructor, there is still a lot to learn from the others in your session. Take things that your camp does well along with you to share with others. Be ready for some long days and like others said keep an open mind. Your session will probably be a lot more fun than my last couple management sessions were. I do envy the program guys

Packsaddle, were you asking me for that tax clarification? I have no clue what taxes are being paid by the corporation. I was referring to the Scouts, parents, volunteers, and potential new members of the program. All tax-paying Americans, even the little Cub Scout that bought a candy bar at the local gas station and paid an extra 6% on his purchase -- entitling him the right to set his little fanny on that beach and build the biggest sand castle imaginable and then ask the parks committee if theyd like to swim in his moat. But I agree, let's wait for a decision.

And before you get a chance to alter my meaning and intent and insinuate I am advocating a troop ran by buffoons... let me remind you that when I use the term training I am referring specifically to the courses offered by possible quality BSA personnel such as Fast Start, Basic, Wood Badge, ect., that allows us the honor of sewing that prestigious Trained patch on our shoulder.

Bob,

You wrote, Nowhere did I say that being trained was the same as being a quality leader. No and that is not what I was inferring. But you do seem to be quite set on the fact that the ONLY way we can achieve quality leaders is through training. And that is where we differ.

Your equation is:

Leader + Training + successful at aims and mission of Scouting = Quality Leader = Quality Program

And Im saying:

Leader + or - Training + successful at aims and mission of Scouting = Quality Leader = Quality Program

And while Im sure you have seen many examples where your equation works, I have seen many examples where my equation has worked as well. I would mention their names, but it wouldnt matter because you wouldnt know them. So then I started to think about some people you might know. I thought about your comparison to other professional activities that need training like how to be a teacher, firefighter, or any other job.

Don Shula for example, the winningest coach in NFL history. What coaching school did Mr. Shula go to that made him so good? I didnt find it in his biography, but I did find his philosophy on winning. To be the best, you have to have passion and dedication. Seems like he know what he was talking about with 347 victories.

I wonder about Steven Spielberg that dropped out of film school, Harry Truman that never got past high school, Thomas Edison with only 3 months of formal education and Bill Gates that dropped out of Harvard.

Remember, Im not against training. I just dont think its always necessary to get quality.

And with regard to the Quality Unit award Its because the leaders haven't gone to training or don't follow the program. That may be ONE reason, but Id bet just as many if not more just don't fill out the application. And they dont fill it out because:

1. its usually done during charter time when they already have enough headaches.

2. can't find their commissioner or dont know who their commissioner is to have them sign it

3. because it requires record-keeping and paperwork and people get enough of that at work

4. because there really is no benefit to it is there? I mean look at the requirements. Anyone with a Quality Program knows it and they dont need a patch to show it especially if the way of getting that patch is meeting requirements that they did in the first half of their Scouting year.

Bob, this is where I think weve reached an impasse. It seems that you feel training provides quality leaders. While I agree that training is an important part of being a quality leader, I dont think it opens any magical door to make a quality leader or guarantee a quality program.

You cant train a person personal motivation, passion, love, personal sacrifice, commitment, positive attitude or a personal desire to make the world a better place. You cant train a leader the drive that SR540Beaver exhibited when trying to find a place to meet and a charter for his unit. I believe it is these traits and many others that give us quality leaders willing to provide time, money and many other resources to the children in our program. I believe that quality training helps them to learn more about our program and how we as leaders are best utilized in the Scouting organization. But see, I now need to qualify even our training.

Im not sure how many hours Ive sat through training at every level, but I can guarantee you that not one of those hours gave me a badge saying that if I successfully utilized what I learned I could call myself a quality leader. Unfortunately after some training sessions, I had to wonder whether everyone wasnt just a little dumber than when we started. Most of the training that Ive enjoyed has allowed me to share and learn from others as I think that is what much training should be about. The know-it-all trainer does the entire group a disservice by not allowing the assets of the group to be shared. Granted there are times for policy and safety issues when instruction is essential, but most of the Scouting workshops and training seminars come from sharing. Learning the aims and methods of Scouting doesnt have to occur only through Fundamentals, Fast Start or Wood Badge. I can picture hundreds of leaders that Ive met through the years many with no beads around their neck, yet their 20, 30 and 40 or more years of service to our organization are heralding examples of quality leadership. I cant imagine considering them inferior leaders because they have not been officially trained.

Motivating kids to join our program and stick with it is our challenge. We have little value if we cant understand the ever-changing needs of the kids we serve. While our program stays steadfast to its founding principles and our Mission remains the same, our marketing has changed as well as many aspects of our program. Selling kids on the idea that well help them achieve their full potential isnt going to fly. So we have the opportunity to help them want to be in Scouting. And the assets available to us are only limited by our imagination and resources. Its a proven fact that Scouts that attend summer camp are more likely to stay in Scouting and Scouts that reach 1st Class in their first year are more likely to stay in Scouting. I also believe that troops with active outdoor programs will keep their Scouts interested therefore more likely to stay in Scouting. I think its clear that high adventure activities will keep kids in Scouting. I argue that all of these things and many more contribute to the quality of our programs and our ability to recruit and retain our members.

SR540Beaver, That was a nice story. And thanks for sharing. I have no doubt that your efforts were the reason you now have a charter and place to meet. I dont think I was suggesting the exclusion of a certain type of organization. Sorry if thats how it appeared.

But Bob was trying to ask me what I felt was more important than quality leaders or something of that sort, when I never asserted that there was a substitute or equivalence. It was then that I used some fundamental items needed to have a troop. Bob asserted that a quality leader would overcome those obstacles and you just proved it to be the case. But that wasnt the point. I was using it as equal importance. Im guessing five kids could probably find a quality leader if they had the desire to do so as well. Im guessing a local organization could find five kids to join Scouting. Its simply the point that you must have a charter, you must have a safe place to meet, you must have quality leaders, and you must have kids that want to be in your program, they arent mutually exclusive.

My original argument never was meant to trump the importance of a good leader. However, I believe many aspects are involved in a quality program that will gain a childs interest and keep him involved in our program. And based on a units resources, these aspects may grow or lessen.

Yeah the heck with equal access. Its not like they pay taxes or anything. Its not like they are members of the public. Its not like theyve probably had work days to clean up that beach. To put is simply, if this happened in my neck of the woods Id do everything humanly possible (lawfully of course) to get those individuals out of office.

The good news? I think our country is fed up with this kind of garbage from people that shout for tolerance from the mountaintops yet dont tolerate any opinions differing from their own. That are so concerned with a freedom of choice as long as it coincides with how theyd chose. I feel a growing momentum in our country that is revealing these individuals for the frauds that they are.

Have faith and fight the good fight.

Actually I believe the highest cause of crashes was found to be rubbernecking. Eyes wandering off on something more interesting than the road. But thats beside the point. Dave originally was asking how the camp director should respond. And I believe that the camp director has a legal duty to respond with more than just reporting. Again, it probably depends on how it is worded in their guidelines. But the camp director may have no clue who the guy is in the car. It might be the Scouts dad or anyone for that matter. But that too is beside the point.

I believe that if laws are being broke on BSA property the camp director has a legal obligation to remove the child from that situation. I dont think things are as clear cut for volunteers at camp. The most significant difference comes down to whos liable. Right after the corporate entity, comes the administration which includes the camp director.

Also, its much easier to prove the four elements of negligence against the camp director than it is the volunteer or another bystander.

1. The camp director has a duty to provide a safe environment. In a camp setting the camp director has a legal duty to act versus the moral duty.

2. The duty owed must be breeched by not performing the standard of care required for that environment and activity.

3. Proximate cause- the injury must be the result of the act or failure to act.

4. There must be actual damage sustained.

So if a camp director does allow a law to be broken in such a way as some of you have described, he needs to hope and pray that nothing bad happens. Cause if there no number 4 they cant be sued for negligence. He could be fired, but thats probably about it.

If you were the Scoutmaster on an outing and something like this occurred, you would probably be second on the list of liable right after the corporate entity. Something to think about I guess

Well, that truly is a breakthrough Bob. Have you considered sharing this idea with Rod Paige? I really think the Department of Education could learn a lot from this concept. All theyd need to do is train teachers so that they learn the methods of teaching and we wouldnt have any more kids that dont know how to read. No more high school graduates unable to pass college entrance exams. No more kids being tardy or skipping school No more apathetic teenagers! It wouldnt cost a dime either, because as youve proven social and economic factors are not a factor. We all can get all of our tax dollars back for what we spend on education. Well, except for the cost of properly training those teachers so that they finally figure out how they are suppose to be teaching kids. And to think, all this time weve been worried about putting up new schools, replacing old textbooks and asbestos wrapped around the heating pipes.

Easy... The quality program came first, then the leaders who learned how to do it, then the leaders who learned from them.

Well, I didnt ask about a quality program, because I thought that is what you stated is the result of quality leaders. Somehow I think you jumped a step. So how did we get a quality program without quality leaders?

What I am proposing isn't that "definition" of a quality leader is one who creates a quality program, but that the result of quality leadership is a quality program.

The definition of a quality leader is one who is has taken training, learned the methods and apply them to achieve the aims and mission of scouting.

So an untrained leader can never be a quality leader? And a Scout troop can never have a quality program if they dont have a trained leader?

And if a Scout troop does not achieve the aims and mission of Scouting then it is the fault of whoever trained the trainer that trained the trainer that trained the trainer that trained the trainer So it must be Baden Powells fault because he did not train the person that trained the person that trained the person that trained the troop leader right?

Id really like to get this straight, because the next time one of my Scouts guilty of unbecoming a product of the aims and methods of Scouting I want to know who to blame. It certainly wouldnt be the Scouts fault, because I was suppose to teach him better, but it couldnt be my fault because I was supposed to be trained better, so it must be either my trainers fault, or the guy that trained him fault

Bob,

You asked, And what element do you believe affects a quality program more than the ability of the unit leaders? And I responded that I never claimed such a thing exists, but there are several factors of at least the same importance. If you do not believe that having an organization willing to sponsor a unit is at least as important as quality leaders, I cannot help you. Granted, humankind has shown us its ingenuity, creativeness, and ability to overcome some of the most insurmountable tasks imaginable. I never claimed that we dont have the ability to cope, fix or reason. I am pointing out that you must have an organization within your community willing to sponsor a Scout troop before you can get a charter. No organization willing? No charter. You can say that a quality leader would find a sponsor, but what if he cant? Is he then not a quality leader?

By golly by gosh, I knew our BSA training is pretty fantastic, but I never imagined that it would be responsible for training the quality leaders that would find the cure for cancer, A.I.D.S. and world hunger. Someone needs to get this to the A.P. ASAP B.W. Finds Cure to Fix all Problems: Quality Leaders.

By the way Bob, Im just curious which came first the quality leader or the people that trained them?

Laurie, quality leaders are a part of what I consider a quality program.

Hunt, teaching friendliness to the Scouts and having them practice it is what Id consider a part of a quality program.

Bob, Im not sure what you are talking about regarding a fun trap. I dont recall mentioning it, but since you did, Ill agree, fun is indeed a part of a quality program.

And yes, Bob, I too agree that quality leaders are a part of a quality program as I did with Laurie.

And what element do you believe effects a quality program more than the ability of the unit leaders?

I dont think I recall stating that any certain thing was of the greatest importance. However, since you phrased it that way, Id have to say that several factors are at least of equal importance or greater. First, having an organization willing to sponsor the unit has a paramount effect on the quality of the program. Without a charter we dont have a unit or a program. Another element that Id say is paramount is having a safe meeting environment. If the unit has no place to meet that is safe the program would not be able to run. Of course as you stated, the unit leader. And finally the most obvious that affects the quality of a program is whether it has any Scouts. Its kinda difficult to run a quality program with no boys. I think the minimum to start a unit is five.

Oh and one more thing I almost forgot, since our program is run by the PLC and SPL, Id have to say the quality of the SPL and PLC might be even more important than the quality of the unit leader when it comes to the quality of our unit's program.

Well, first I didnt see an exclusion of Venturing in your original post. I saw simply Scout units. Can we offer a quality Venturing program without High Adventure? Bob, I believe Ive agreed with you in your original premise that quality volunteers are the key to achieving the Mission of Scouting. If you read my post, youll note that I did explain that even if our Scouts or we dont have the resources to go to summer camp or on some high adventure activity we can still achieve our Mission of instilling values in young people and prepare them to make ethical choices over their lifetime.

Well, I don't have the publication number, but if you look in "The Building Blocks of Scouting" under Outdoor Program, you will find summer camp and high adventure both listed with large paragraphs about their benefits. I think it's clear that the BSA finds these important aspects of our program, as do I. Outdoor adventure could simply be camping in my back yard I suppose, but it certainly would be difficult to teach or learn a whole lot doing that all my life.

While I agreed with the other thread as it was written by B.W., I had an expanding opinion that I wanted to share, but did not want to steer the thread astray. I do wholeheartedly agree that achieving the Mission of the BSA comes down to quality adult volunteers. However, I also believe that a quality program encompasses many other factors, many of which DO involve having the means to fulfill them.

Further I believe that kids do not care about the quality of the leaders when they are deciding to join our program. Parents might care, but more times than not there has to be a desire from the boy to join before we get a new Scout in our program. And I believe only part of that desire is fulfilled by the leaders personal traits or qualities.

While I believe that delivering our Mission should not be based on Scouting as a commodity, I do believe that to judge the effectiveness of the Scouting program we have to look at the number of children we serve and the way in which we serve them. Even the greatest and most noble Mission is meaningless without members to follow or achieve it.

So I will keep my premise simple as well.

The ability of a Scout unit to recruit and retain Scouts is based on one thing and one thing only. The quality of its program.

Building character and instilling values in young people doesnt cost a cent. No amount of money will teach a kid how to make ethical choices over his lifetime or achieve his full potential. The ability of a unit to achieve its mission does rely on the quality of the adult volunteers. However, I do believe that part of the quality of one the building blocks of Scouting does rely on the ability of the unit to afford its costs. Specifically outdoor adventures. The cost of summer camp and high adventure activities can be a lot of money for some families. Is a unit achieving its mission if less than 50% of their membership attends summer camp because they cant afford it? Well, its difficult to instill anything in a Scout if they arent there. A lot can be learned on a high adventure trip, but what if only 1/3 of the troop can afford that? In my opinion, it doesnt lessen our ability to deliver our mission, but only creates an opportunity for us to work harder. Maybe it will be that sub-zero campout where we teach the Scouts strong personal values and character or the desire to learn. Or maybe its the 10-mile hike that doesnt cost a dime that teaches the Scout about caring and nurturing relationships with adults and peers.

We have to look at Scouting not as a commodity, but instead as an state of being and way of life. Its our mission to provide our world with young men of character that will be our future leaders. If we have the resources to take them to neat places while we do it, great! It is ironic however that most of the posters and marketing materials I see for Scouting involve rock climbing, backpacking in some exotic land, sailing a big boat, etc. If thats how we entice kids to join are we not false advertising if we dont deliver? Ive asked that question many times whenever I get some new Join Scouting poster. I think incorporating these activities into the units program will certainly make it more rounded and give the boys some excellent experiences. But is is still my opinion as well that achieving our mission is indeed based on quality leaders.

Far more accidents occur in Scouting because of dull knives. Thats why we have toten chip. And Im quite sure that how to deal with sleepy people isnt in the NCS binder either. Making sure campers get enough rest is however. There are probably thousands of hypothetical questions that you could insert after your what if statement. Of course as trained leaders in Scouting we are suppose to reduce risk and prevent loss. That is the primary reason we become trained. If a shooting sports director feels that someone on his range is not mentally alert, he has every right to not allow the person to use a firearm. If the Handicraft director finds a Scout using a knife without their Tote`n Chip, they can take away the knife and give it to the Scoutmaster. If I as a Scoutmaster felt that one of my leaders was not fit to drive my Scouts safely, I would not allow them to drive. Im not sure my response as what the camp director should do would change a whole lot. It is still the camp directors responsibility to make sure that Scouts are being released from camp appropriately according to M-5. If I found the person to be half asleep, I believe I would have serious reservations releasing the Scout. But that is quite a leap from having a high BAC. Plus it entertains a certain level subjectivity that may not have the same accuracy or legal ramifications as BAC. I think it is important to inform any adult in Scouting that if they do not follow the policies that they may be found negligent or liable if anything happens. It is the individual units responsibility to make sure that they are following the tour permit guidelines. If a camp director found out that a unit was not following the guidelines, it is his responsibility to inform the Scout Executive about the BSA policy violation. And on a side note: I believe in most states inattentive driving is a crime.

Bob,

I respectfully disagree. I have been on national visitation teams and Mandatory Standard 5 DOES specifically pertain to the release of campers. I simply stated one of the main reasons it was implemented. However, all occurrences of Scouts leaving camp outside of the normal hours of departure should be following these guidelines. And once again, if you consider this a non-policy be my guest. However, I can guarantee you that if your camp sees it as the BSA not having a policy on the matter, they will be conditionally accredited or shut down. So does the BSA have a policy on the matter or not? I think it is clear they do and I informed Dave that he would need to ask for Mandatory Standard 5 from his local council to see how they are implementing it. Geesh, I think Im remembering why I took a vacation from this board.

Bob,

Dave asked if there are guidelines and I advised him that the camp director should be following the written procedures of Mandatory Standards 4 and 5. At least I view the situation as falling under those standards. Not as much 4 as 5, unless the council has it written specifically under 4. You can interpret my response as you wish, however, I do believe that I indicated that Dave would need to find out what 4 and 5 say for his council. If you interpret that as national not having a policy, be my guest. Maybe Dave can inform us all if he found my thoughts relevant or beneficial. But Im guessing that Dave didnt know about either Mandatory standard before I informed him of such.

Dave,

Pardon me, but I havent posted to this board in a long time and I may get a little long winded, but I noticed your cry for and answer and Im here to provide one.

I have referenced my National Camp School binder for camp management and have not found any training materials on the situation that you encountered. I looked for your benefit, but knew it would not be there. Your question as far as what the camp director should have done I think can be answered in a few different ways. What he should have done in good conscience, legally or as a matter of BSA or council policy. I could answer it for what I would have done as a camp director, but that really wont help you much, because Im not the camp director that you are questioning.

Each camp as a matter of national accreditation is required to pass certain mandatory standards. There are two mandatory standards that I think your situation may encompass.

The first one is M-4, which states The camp administration has written procedures in practice to address possible intrusion of unauthorized persons onto the campsite that include: Periodic review of security concerns of the site. Training for staff, and campers when appropriate, about steps to take in such instances.

While the intent of this standard may have primarily been to prevent child abduction and endangerment, I believe persons under the influence are not authorized persons. I would consider those that become under the influence on camp property to fall into this category as well. You might consider asking your council executive to consider including such situations into future written procedures.

The second is M-5, which states There are written procedures to be in practice regarding: Release of campers who are minors to a parent or to person other than the legal parent or guardian. Verification of absentees or no-shows with the camp leader at check-in/registration time.

I believe this standard was to protect the child from being released to non-custodial parents and to ensure that no-shows are not in an abducted situation. The ultimate goal however is still to protect the child. I believe many camps have a release form that needs to be filed with the camp director whenever a Scout leaves camp prematurely. You will find that this varies from camp to camp. Notice that the policy does not state how it is to be implemented, only that there are written procedures to be in practice. Did the camp director follow the written procedures? You can easily find that out by asking you Scout Executive for the written procedures to Mandatory Standard 5 used to pass national camp accreditation. All these procedures and standards are kept on file during the operation of summer camp and should be made available to you upon request.

I doubt whether your council has a policy to address this particular situation. In my opinion the camp director should have intervened, because he is ultimately the one responsible in the Scout Executives absence. The camp director has the responsibility to protect the safety of each and every camper. Hands down that is his/her number one priority. State laws will vary on the camp directors legal responsibilities and liability. However, in the operation of summer camp, the BSA has designated the camp director through the Scout Executive to protect the welfare of the campers. These responsibilities are vast and include everything from basic health and safety concerns, to the dispensing of medication, proper food handling and a safe swimming environment. These concerns are not left up to the individual unit leaders or anyone else. It is the camp directors responsibility to make sure that ALL BSA policies are adhered to at ALL times. Thats not to say that the volunteers shouldnt take the actions they are required to take, but they are not the ones responsible when it comes to summer camp operation. While it may not have been advisable to physically restrain the person, every attempt should have been made to make sure the campers were removed from the situation. I can see the potential for a possible confrontation especially if the Scouts were his kids (which I dont believe you specified). You also didnt state what his BAC which may or may not have been a factor.

I hope I have somewhat enlightened you on what was required of your summer camp administration. For your information I was referencing BSA Publication M&P for 02, 2001 Printing. M&P stands for methods and procedures.

I dont personally see much use for a middleman, in this case the United Way. To be thrifty I usually try to buy directly from manufacturers. Yes, I realize this could put my local computer dealer out of business, but that really is not my problem. Some organizations might not have the capability to raise funds, but I have to question why. Especially in todays world with paypal Granted, the UW has a great avenue and a lot of knowledge in the fundraising arena. I just think that its better to give directly to the organization rather than have a committee determine percentages based on their own biases. The more hands on the money the more chance there is for mischief. Plus, the UW must have some overhead for administration. To me it just doesnt seem to make sense to give my money to someone else so they can figure out where they will donate it.

However, Im sure this could really befuddle some non-profit organizations and might even put them out of business. But once again I wonder if that is necessarily a bad thing. A legitimate needed organization should be able to persist on its own merit. If they cannot one has to wonder whether the community really needs or wants the organization in the first place.

You say:

My assertion that forming a new group doesn't make sense was because it does not make sense relative to this debate. It is akin to "I don't want you on my team, so why don't you go form your own team...but you still can't play with us."

No, it is akin to You have different values than we do that would interfere with us delivering our organizations mission. Therefore please respect our rights to deny your membership. We wish you the best of luck and encourage you to develop a program more suited to your interests while not demanding us to change our values and sacrifice our civil liberties.

And I disagree with your fear of open competition. The BSA is a business. We are in the Character education business. We need to sell our program and we need people to buy our product aka Scouting. We need to make more money than we spend or at least break even. And when we put our marketing plan together, whats it gonna say?

Were just a bunch of everyday people that dont have any firm set of beliefs, go with the flow, bend to political pressure, that camps out once in a while and sells popcorn

or

We instill character in young people and help them make ethical choices over their lifetime allowing them to achieve their full potential. We have a strong set of rules and high expectations of our members and demand that they live by the Scout Oath and Law.

Theres a reason Scouting is what it is and its not because of what others think we should be. It is because we have the courage to say who we are and what we believe regardless of what appears to be popular or politically correct.

I joined the BSA for what it stood for and continues to stand for including strong traditional family values. I dont want the organization changed. Some would like it to change to fit their needs. Again, what if unhelpful people want to join? What if untrustworthy people want to join? What if You can call it exclusionary, prejudicial, closed-minded, or whatever you like. The facts remain the same. The BSA is a private organization that has established rules for membership. Many members join the organization explicitly for the fundamentals it teaches.

You state, The BSA is a wonderfully beneficial organization and should not exclude any boys for any reason. I agree that it is a wonderful organization, however, it must be able to exclude boys. For instance I will not allow kids that vandalize property to be members of my troop. That is my right as a Scoutmaster. They have chosen to not live by the Scout Oath and Law. Scouting has a reputation of providing the world with strong leaders of high moral integrity. The term Eagle Scout has meaning for a reason. Chipping away at the fundamental principles of Scouting by allowing anyone to be a member lessens the value of membership and diminishes the high respect that the organization has attained. Would it make sense to allow a felon to be a police officer? No, it would diminish the credibility of all police officers. No one has been denied any civil liberties by being denied membership in the BSA. They are free to start their own organization or join one that fits their individual needs and standards.

And by the way, what you call starting another exclusionary organization is what many people would call the free enterprise system and competition. It is the reason our country is so great.

SR540Beaver writes: No, we don't see conservatives suing the BSA. We do see them spending years and millions of dollars to overthrow a twice elected popular president. We do see them sue to determine who will be president in a closely contested election. We do see them initiate recalls to throw out elected officials. All power grabs due to not being able to accept the will of the people. Those are as much an assualt on our guiding principles as booing Boy Scouts.

So I write: Are you talking about a guy that had sex with interns and committed perjury while in office? Yep, I wanted him fired. That would never be accepted in the business world. Why is politics different? Hmmm, thats funny, I thought Mr. Gore was trying to conduct a recount in only three of the most democratic counties? Was that the same election that the state supreme court knowingly ignored state election laws? Was that also the same election that democrats wanted to change rules in the middle of the game? Hmmm, something just doesnt seem right with all that. Yep, I think Id sue someone too. At least the U.S. Supreme Court in that case knew how to judge from the bench and not legislate from the bench. Recalls? Are you talking about the recall in California? Cause if you are, Im sure that you are aware that was done under California law. I think its even in their Constitution. The will of the people? You are joking right? The will of the people is exactly what the recall showed. Did you see Arnolds numbers? He blew everyone clear out of the water. Seems like the people spoke quite clearly. And no, those arent an assault on our guiding principles. These are examples of LEGAL methods to uphold the law and keep our country in the hands of the PEOPLE and protect our democracy. And far different from someone that should be a mature adult booing a kid.

SR540Beaver also writes: It must really feel great to belong to a party that portrays people like my father who was a life long Democrat and Marine veteran of WWII as a traitor because of his party affiliation. How big it is of them to dishonor his service to his country that way. Maybe theyd like to come here to middle America and try calling my dad a traitor or would they be too afraid?

So I write: Not sure where that came from. I never called your father a traitor, questioned his patriotism or anything of the sort? I dont think you can even imagine how much I respect and admire our veterans. We owe everything we have to them and God. However, if he left our soil and went to a foreign land when our fighting men and women are in harms way, and spoke unkindly about our commander and chief, I might have to reconsider. Yes, you guessed it, I do see the actions of Natalie very close to traitorous. I wonder what your dad would think about that if it happened during WWII.

SR540Beaver writes: Ive heard some republicans say this isnt the party that they grew up with or that they believed in. They talk like its been hijacked. It has been hijacked by the neocons just as the democratic party was hijacked by the far-left. If thats true, fine take it back if they want to, otherwise they can always become an independent like I did as long as they dont cause a ruckus.

So I must write: How many republicans have you heard say that? I must admit that I find that really amazing, `cause the Republican Party really hasnt strayed from its principles or changed. However, the Democratic Party appears to be quite lost. Id actually be interested in hearing some of their ideas, however, all they ever seem to do is attack others. Maybe if they would be a bit more positive and not so hateful all the time theyd be received a little better and not alienate their constituents. By the way, Id say the Republican Party is very strong and united with a leader that knows what keeping his word means.

SR540Beaver writes: Neither side fully represents me or speaks for me. They have both become full of backbiters who waste this country's time spouting rhetoric. I prefer to weigh each candidate and issue on it's merits, judged by my personal values and then vote accordingly. Both sides have faults and both sides are hurting this country by their partisan activities. The democrats/liberals do not have a monopoly.

So I write: Im not going to argue with you on this except for where you said its hurting America. I believe strongly in the two-party system. I believe strongly in public debate or rhetoric as you call it, however, that seems to have taken on a negative connotation and it really shouldnt. Differing opinions do not weaken our county; in fact that is what makes us strong. Partisan activities are supported by constituents. It is by the will of the people that our laws are made, elections happen, and our governing officials operate. This process does not hurt our country.

Bob, sorry if it appeared like I was continuing joint thoughts. I should have put a line there or something. I just really appreciated how you fairly evaluated the situation.

---------------------

twocubdad,

I wasnt saying that all democrats necessarily have these attributes, but that many organizations that make up the DNCs supporting cast seem to. And once again, we dont see the conservatives or right-wingers suing the BSA all over the country now do we?

It must really feel great to belong to a political party that boos children. And no it wasnt symbolic, but it did show the current DNCs true colors and hatred towards the BSA and everyone with beliefs different from theirs for that matter. How big it was of them to boo kids. Maybe theyd like to come here to rural America and try booing my Scouts or would they be too afraid?

Ive heard some democrats say this isnt the party that they grew up with or that they believed in. They talk like its been hijacked. If that true, fine take it back if you want to, otherwise you can always come over to the other side as long as you dont cause a ruckus

Bob, Very well said.

When I see Scouts getting booed at the DNC, one has to wonder where their party has sunk. Just the mere fact that the BSA promotes traditional family values goes against numerous liberal organizations. Conservatives have tolerance for inequality. We call it individualism, but it is at great odds with the tenants of Socialism that the liberals hold so dear. Conservatives also have a resistance to changes that affect our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. However, this too goes against the lefts socialist agenda. The BSA as an institution has these principles founded in its ideology. The BSA has spent millions of dollars defending its constitutionally guaranteed rights. Is it conservatives that are suing the BSA? I think not. And what organizations support the DNC? Sure enough, overwhelmingly the same ones that dont support the BSA or in some cases sue us.

Scouting teaches personal responsibility

Liberals teach government dependence

Scouting teaches personal integrity

Liberals teach moral relativism

Scouting teaches respecting others views

Liberals demand others change their views or else try to silence them

Scouting teaches a duty to God

Liberals want God removed from our lives

Scouting teaches a duty to country

Liberals believe our country is suppose to serve us

Scouting teaches a duty to self

Liberals believe others are to blame for personal failures

Scouting teaches standing up for what is right

Liberals will only stand up for what supports their political agenda

Scouting teaches conserving our natural resources

Liberals use these resources for personal gain and political agenda through disseminating misinformation like global warming. I hope none you Scouters out there are driving SUVs!