HICO_Eagle

Reread them Merlyn. All the citations I provided you were about trying to deny BSA the use of public facilities. Are you now changing your story again to say you didn't mean access to classrooms, access for recruiting, etc.? I disregarded cases like the one in DC where Queer Nation recruited a dormant Eagle Scout to volunteer to be a SM or ASM so they could try to sue when he was denied. I disregarded that because Queer Nation's goals had nothing to do with what you asked for. Face it, you asked for something, got a truckload of it with little effort and then changed your story on what you asked for. Your twist now about pre- or post-Dale as a "public accommodation" wasn't what you asked for and isn't even in context with DanKroh's original charge that no one was trying to deny Scouting the use of public facilties or your defense of that claim. The bottom line is that the ACLU and other groups have tried to attack Scouting by barring its access to public facilities for nearly two decades, both pre- and post-Dale.

Okay, so we've moved from intellectual dishonesty to outright misrepresentation. Let's review shall we? DanKroh said, "No one is trying to stop scouting from using public facilities" I responded with, "Most of the participants in Scouting pay taxes. They are therefore as entitled to use available public facilities as any other citizen group, whether it's the school band or a chess club or drama club. However, AUSCS and *sexual lobby groups have taken it on themselves to deny Scouting that right rather than create their own groups" Merlyn then comes back and says, "Cite even ONE case where any of these groups has tried to deny a scout group equal access to public facilities." I cited SEVERAL cases where the ACLU and other groups not only tried to deny Scouts equal access to public facilities like public schools for recruiting but also articles that detailed their multi-year strategy to do so, including recruiting volunteers to misrepresent themselves to BSA so they could bring about a lawsuit. So then Merlyn has to change his story to say, "I'll note that you have yet to cite one instance of any rights of the BSA being denied in everything you've written above;" No you didn't Merlyn, I quoted you directly and in context. You asked for one citation where one of those groups TRIED to deny BSA those rights, I gave you tons spanning nearly 20 years of litigation and political conniving and I didn't even try hard. If it was worth arguing the point with you more, I could have dug down to try to pull all the video footage over the last 20 years where Barry Lynn and others have advocated denying BSA access to public schools and other facilities regardless of whether those facilities were open to other civic groups. Barry Lynn and Barney Frank didn't try to create a Gay and Atheist Youth organization and get it access to Fort A.P. Hill to try to show some kind of special access, they just attacked A.P. Hill being used by Scouting at all. As I cited for you, BSA's access to military facilities isn't special -- the Public Law is generic, authorizing DoD to offer use of facilities and equipment to "youth organizations". If BSA wasn't denied access it wasn't for lack of trying, it was for lack of facts and legal reasoning on the part of the ACLU and other groups. They were wrong on the law, wrong on the facts and hadn't undermined the legal profession completely yet so they lost. Pure and simple. I'm not even sure BSA wasn't denied access -- many US military bases stopped providing access to camping areas that were open to others during the Clinton administration. This may have been pure coincidence, I'm not sure. I take it this forum is for debate about issues. I'm good with that, I enjoy a good debate -- but there are rules one adheres to in a good debate. Misrepresenting what you or anyone else has said to "win" debate points isn't one of them.

Fundraising is a necessary evil. I accept that. What I don't need is them sucking up 20-30 mins of a meeting (or God forbid, a court of honor!) dropping a guilt trip on our parents. One of the troops I've worked with finally had it with FOS so we told the council to let us know what our fair share was and we'd get it done internally but we didn't want the FOS presentation. The committee then let the troop parents know what our goal was and how much we'd gotten thus far. We covered our tab, saved our courts of honor and were much happier.

Calico, I understand what you're saying except that somewhere in the 15 preceding pages I think it was said the project was approved by the troop Advancement Chair without consulting the SM, CC, etc. The SM might very well have wanted to have a discussion before approving the project. This is all kind of moot as I believe the District will probably try to find a way to get mdsummer45's son his Eagle outside his troop. I don't even blame them for it because at some point you're led to all kinds of damage for the district or council no matter what happens. They probably don't want to annoy or besmirch what is probably an otherwise healthy and well-functioning troop and troop leadership. They also don't want the negative publicity that would likely result if the boy didn't get his Eagle at this point. Easiest solution is to have a proforma EBOR outside the troop and just let everyone go their separate ways. I'm a little sensitive to this topic as I've had Scouts that I felt didn't properly display or live the Scout Spirit go through the process and be given their Eagles. In two cases I'm thinking of, no one on the committee had the gumption to say publicly they didn't think the Scout deserved it although there were a lot of fireside discussions. I think in both cases I simply said that I didn't want to sign any of his paperwork or be on his EBOR because I'd have to say 'no'. In a third case, I did hold the Scout back from the EBOR until he demonstrated better Scout Spirit -- and told him so in a meeting with the Scout, the CC, COR and his father. All three Scouts made Eagle but I feel better about the third one because he did turn himself around and fix the behaviors I saw as problems.

Never heard of this before and I think it's despicable. I'd be recruiting every Life Scout from that troop immediately ...

Clearly you have an axe to grind Merlyn. Let's see if we can clear up some of the intellectual dishonesty in your claim these groups haven't tried to deny Scouting access to public facilities available to any other civic organization. Your claim is that any voluntary membership organization can't be a private organization with its own by-laws and membership criteria if 10% of their affiliates are sponsored by public schools. I suppose then you support girls joining Boy Scouts and boys joining Girl Scouts. High school GLBT clubs would have to admit Christian or Muslim fundamentalists who want to join in on some of their activities. As to the ACLU attacking the Boy Scouts as a public accommodation, you're trying to have it both ways by assuming BSA is in fact a public accommodation but then trying to claim the ACLU hasn't attacked them as such. Okay, let's travel in the Way Back Machine to 1980 when the ACLU first sued the BSA for excluding a troop leader who took a male date to his prom. Jump forward to 1999 and Winkler v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees when the ACLU sued to end government "support" of Scouting (this time claiming BSA was a religious organization and therefore in violation of the Establishment Clause). In fact, the Nov/Dec 99 article by Margaret Downey at http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/Downey.html outlines the strategies the ACLU used for years to consciously attack BSA. The ACLU themselves talk about their attacks at http://www.aclu.com/lgbt/discrim/11962prs19990804.html and http://www.aclu.com/lgbt/discrim/12263prs20000426.html . In fact, the remedy the ACLU sought from the city of Chicago in settlement was withdrawal of sponsorship of 28 scouting programs. BSA promotes civic development. The Supreme Court has held the inherent public interest in promoting civic development for two centuries. Allowing BSA to recruit at school or use classrooms or DoD facilities on a non-interference basis like any other civic organization doesn't prevent other organizations from trying to do the same. You have presented no evidence that atheist or *sexual organizations have even tried to set up similar organizations and been denied permissions given to BSA -- or Boys and Girls Clubs or 4H or ... Jeffrey Archer, President of the San Diego Atheist Coalition, wrote an article on Jan 9, 2004 titled "Mr. Foley was Right" stating, "When a group meets at the local police station, or public school, taxpayer dollars are used to support it. In addition, the U.S. military sponsors many Boy Scout activities; again using taxpayer dollars." He then advocated withdrawal of BSA's ability to meet at these locations. Guess what? BSA using classrooms after hours is no more of a drain than TOEFL tutoring, chess club, Key Club, etc. The DoD rules that authorize BSA use of DoD facilities aren't specific to BSA, they are applicable to a wide variety of youth groups. These rules are in fact public law as a part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and are entitled "Support for Youth Organizations" not "Support for the Boy Scouts of America". The ACLU of Oregon advocated withdrawal of "government sponsorship and financial support" for BSA in its Apr 22 2005 article, "Civil Liberties and the Boys Scouts: What Are the Issues?" The ACLU of Southern California says (http://www.aclu-sc.org/attach/g/Gov_Ties_BSA_QA_Guide.pdf) "... the Boy Scouts ... requires all participants to affirm a belief in God and excludes members who are non-religious. Government sponsorship of such a program also likely violates constitutional requirements of separation of church and state as well as requirements that the government not discriminate on the basis of religious views. As an openly discriminatory organization, the Boy Scouts of America has forfeited any entitlement to the special privileges and close relationships with local governments that it has enjoyed for many years. Having decided to discriminate, the BSA should not expect to continue receiving government sponsorship and other special privileges." The fact of the matter is that several extremist organizations especially the ACLU are attacking the BSA on an ideological basis. It has been a pillar of traditional society so they attack it. Their current strategy includes trying to deprive BSA of access to public resources that are freely available to other similar organizations including ones gays or atheists could set up themselves if they wished. The ACLU, Lambda Legal Defense and other organizations don't set up alternative organizations, their chosen strategy is to try to undermine and otherwise destroy BSA.

Ah, you seek meaning. Then listen to the music, not the song.

Eagle92, my experience is the same. Admittedly I have only served in 4 councils but I have never seen -- or heard of until now -- a troop that DIDN'T treat the TnC as a "license to carry" with the fourth offense leading to revocation and relicensing. It's a useful training technique as it reinforces the safety training without pulling the license immediately (unless the offense was extremely serious). For those against using it this way, think of it as a driver's license in a state using the point system for moving violations. Would you automatically revoke the DL on first offense? Would you never revoke it no matter how many times the driver has been unsafe?

Vicki, the point about the ACLU and the Second Amendment is that it proves the point that the ACLU is NOT about protecting civil liberties in general but rather about picking and choosing which civil liberties they agree with. The ACLU is also rather lax about defending the Tenth Amendment or Congressional abuses of the Commerce Clause as the root of federal regulation because they generally agree with the idea of increasing federal powers except when they interfere with using recreational drugs, open sexual conduct, etc. The Second Amendment was so well understood as an individual right that it didn't need "clarification" until the National Firearms Act was passed. US v. Miller was NOT "widely understood" to endorse a group right interpretation -- it has in fact been argued vigorously which belies a "wide understanding". In fact, taking the group rights interpretation would cause you to throw away historic precedent and contemporary accounts to accept the idea that the Second Amendment was the ONLY amendment in the Bill of Rights to be framed that way. This is a perfect example of the wild contortions various parties take with the English language in order to say something is "unclear" so they can come up with an interpretation they like.

I'm a bit of a die-hard old fart in attitude but your stick-in-the-mud no-women ASM needs to grow up a little. The mom needs to get registered and trained properly but there shouldn't be any issue with her going on the campout as long as she behaves properly. If she goes, she goes as an ASM or CM, not as Mom. It's not her fault if he has so little self-control that she might present some kind of temptation (even assuming she'd respond to him). The 10-year-old daughter is a whole other matter. Teenage boys can be enough of a handful without throwing hormones into the mix. I don't have a problem with younger brothers as long as someone else is there to take care of them (we have a dad who likes to bring his Cub son; he takes care of him and helps out with rest of camp, no problem) -- I'm there to help the boys, not babysit.

I have a problem with cutting off the corner if things happened the way you relate but I'd like to hear the other side of the story. I have a HUGE issue with your complaint about "many young adults with no children leading as SM and ASM". I've been a Scouter for nearly 21 years now and have yet to meet Miss Right. In fact, I was acting SM at my first summer camp as a Scouter and had no complaints. Most parents seemed to think my age then was an asset as I straddled the bridge between parent-age and Scout-age and the fact I DIDN'T have kids in the troop gave me an aura of objectivity. I was asked by the Troop CC to be the SM 3 years later. Over the next 2 years (when I moved), I only received one complaint from one parent -- and the CC and other committee members not only defended me immediately, they pretty much told the mother that if she wanted to continue with her complaints she was free to take her son to another troop (I only found about this after the fact). Now, aside from the age and kid issues, if you have a problem with how the SM or ASM are handling the boys, you should bring this up in a troop committee meeting. If other parents have similar complaints it is high time for the CC to have a cold emotionless discussion with the SM and/or ASM in question. If no one else has a similar complaint, you should rethink your perception of how they are handling the boys.

Nice lyrics for The Lost Boys but what tune do we use? (and where's Wendy?)

You went to the '89 NSJ? So did I, but I was 12 so my shirts only lasted a couple more years. Not officially. I was ASM with the troop at the time, the SM planned out a big road trip in a bus we renovated for the purpose. Part of the trip involved 3 days visiting the NSJ. Fantastic, would have loved to do that as a Scout but couldn't afford it then. Incidentally, I just met one of the Scouts who was on the trip with us at our council's Scout Expo last weekend. He's not only grown up, he was an SM and ASM at another troop and is now the Packleader for his son's pack. Scouting is great.

Eamonn, I hear you. I think that attitude is just sad. On the other hand, I just saw something on TV about "Snuggy Parties"?!?!? Seriously, maybe things AREN'T so bad if people can afford to waste $20-30 on an acrylic blanket with sleeves sewn on to run around drinking alcohol like idiots. Most Americans today have NO idea what real poverty -- or thrift -- is like. Amazing.

Fred - One of the reasons I rejected OA as a Scout was that it was (in my council) nothing more than a longevity award or popularity contest. It is simply unrealistic to think every eligible Scout should be an "Honor Camper". Even a 60% selection rate indicates that either you have a truly superior group of boys or the standards for selection have relaxed but 100% selection rate is crazy. The two who didn't make it should be asking their troop mates why they AREN'T considered honor campers so they know what to work on until next year's elections.

Interesting posts on the ones who are looking for well-worn uniforms. I wonder what they would think of me since I try to bring two full neat looking uniforms with me to summer camp. One shirt is the same one I bought for my Eagle ceremony 25 years ago and use regularly. The other has been to the '89 Jamboree, numerous summer camps, countless meetings, etc. Unfortunately, I have to confess the shorts are only 10 years old and I just had to buy a couple new pairs of slacks as the older ones seem to have shrunk on me. I think my shirts are shrinking too ...

We have the boys plan all menus although adults are watching the process to watch for safety issues or offer suggestions or help if asked. We have interjected recently but only because the boys were falling into a rut of the same menus on successive campouts. Typically we choose to lead by example by having the adults plan their menu separately and show the boys that camp food doesn't have to be cold sandwiches and canned soup. We typically cook the both breakfasts and dinner, lunch may be cold unless it's a winter camp. It used to be easier when we had two grocery stores right next to the church we meet at so we're still working on the shopping and budget aspects of their menus (we graduated most of our experienced scouts so most of the troop is a NSP right now). I'm not really a fan of the NSP concept. I've seen troops where it seems to work but I think it takes critical mass in the troop and a lot of guidance. The old mixed patrol method provided more guidance and direct contact between older and younger scouts and gave the older scouts more experience in teaching skills. Be that as it may, I'm with Stosh on viewing this as an opportunity. You have a patrol which is jumping at the chance to make their own program. They'll need a little help but you can keep that enthusiasm going. As far as the "experienced/lazy" patrol goes, I'd have the SPL pay special attention to them and mentor their PL. I would also try to engineer some competition between the patrols on their menus. You can give a special award for creativity, taste competitions, etc. You could run a campout where the adults purchase the food a week ahead of time (or tell the patrols what their grocery list will be) and see what they make of the ingredients -- if you do that, make sure they get to visit each others site and compare their food.

I'd probably harass him a little so he remembers to secure his gear in the future but I doubt I'd take a corner for either offense.

If the council registers all SMs as Camping MB Counselors then they can legally sign off on requirements but bottom line is that MBCs sign completion of requirements, SM signs for readiness to start the MB and acceptance of the completed blue card from the counselor. An SM signing off requirements on the blue card should be doing so with his MBC patch on, not his SM patch. I will take notes from others claiming the Scout did certain requirements (like nights camping, visitation to public official, etc.) but will spot check to make sure the Scout did the requirements to my satisfaction. If I find holes, I go back through all requirements with a fine toothed comb.

Calico -- That would fit my theories. I never thought the Dow deserved to be above 10000 -- and frankly it's STILL higher than I think it deserves given our high level of deficit spending that has to get paid sometime. I was expecting a correction anyway around 2001 or 2002 but it took a lot longer to surface than I figured. The spending on the war as well as continued propping up of the housing market by the federal government probably skewed things. In any event, I suspect CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC/NYT/WP/etc. were intentionally playing up the "bad economy" the same way they did in 1992 to sway voters then found themselves unintentionally making the situation worse. On the other hand, I think the Feds are doing exactly the wrong thing for long-term economic health by promoting ever more ineffective deficit spending so I'm still concerned about the underlying problems.

many of the principles are the same as what I covered multiple times in business grad school earning a management degree. I have been to the old TDC and really didn't learn anything there, since I have developed and conducted training courses in the 'real world' I too would like to know about the worth of Trainers EDGE from the perspective of someone who has been training Scouts for 20+ years and/or been training people in the 'real world'. I felt like TDC was a waste of a day except for the 20-30 min session at the end that told me where National is going with training requirements. I didn't much like what I was hearing about their mandates but it's useful info to know they're going that route. If it's value-added, I'll try to schedule to take it as soon as I can fit it in my schedule. If it's just another box to check, I'll probably use that time to do something crazy like help a Scout advance.

See that's the problem with something pumped up and supported by hot air. When the air cools, the whole thing collapses. Greenspan warned against "irrational exuberance" back during the Clinton administration. Financial analysts worried about people using their houses as ATMs. I thought we'd have a huge correction when Bush was elected and the house of cards that Clinton/Rainer/Tyson/etc. built up collapsed but the spending continued. Perhaps Bush felt he had no choice due to the panic felt in the wake of 9-11. Whatever the reason, the result is the same. The "money" disappeared because it never really existed. Most of it was paper value only and even that disappeared when we got down to having to pay real cash for the "assets". An overpriced house (any commodity really) in a heated non-competitive market is just overpriced. An overpriced item in an overbuilt competitive market is a giant sucking chest wound for anyone still paying bills on it. It's the same thing that would have happened to the bank's money if you WEREN'T so responsible but they continued to lend you money as you lived off your credit cards. In answer to your question, SOME of the money is indeed in the People's Republic of China because they bought a lot of the bonds we sold to pay for our spending addiction. They are still buying some of the new bonds to pay for even more spending but demanding better terms because they see we few other choices and no will to reform our ways.

No spin. Most of the participants in Scouting pay taxes. They are therefore as entitled to use available public facilities as any other citizen group, whether it's the school band or a chess club or drama club. However, AUSCS and *sexual lobby groups have taken it on themselves to deny Scouting that right rather than create their own groups ... perhaps because they know there's extremely limited demand for their alternative groups. They therefore have embarked on a campaign to defame and destroy OUR group. If a rising tide lifts all boats except theirs leaks, they have chosen to drill holes in everyone else's boats instead of patch their leaks. I'm not a mind reader so I don't know if Rev Lynn is religious or not. All I know is that finding material on him actually celebrating some kind of religious thought or ceremony is pretty darned hard. Finding material on him attacking all sorts of religious institutions on the other hand is so easy a caveman could do it so you tell me. (insert Geico commercial here)

I can believe his son has wanted to be an Eagle Scout since he was a Tiger Cub. I may have wanted to be an Eagle Scout since before I joined Cubs -- there was once a mystique and an aura about the status of "Eagle Scout". Enough of one that boys could desire it before knowing what it entailed. On the other hand, Daddy_O's statement, is there a website, or a spreadsheet which shows data, such as: *troops that graduate the most Eagle Scouts *Highest percent of Scouts earning the Eagle rank Or something like that, by region, which I can study and figure where my son has the best shot? bugged me. That statement is symptomatic of people who really only care about the destination rather than the journey. There ARE troops that are merit badge mills and Eagle mills -- and I wouldn't wish them on any boys. My experience has been most of those boys earn a lot of badges but don't really know their material. It drives me nuts to see a 14 year old Eagle who really doesn't know the patrol method, needs to check the handbook to "refresh his memory" on basic first aid, knots or other material he was supposed to have learned by First Class, etc. They're like the kids in college who score high on exams, get a 3.5+ GPA and haven't really absorbed any of it or don't know how to think critically, just regurgitate what the professor told them. Having said all that, the fact his boy wants it is the largest factor. All the troops can do is offer different opportunities and if he wants it as much as he seems to, he'll find the opportunities he needs. Some of my best Scouts never made it to Eagle because they just didn't want it enough; some will need a little kick in the pants to finish up (I did) but if they really want it, they'll do it. In closing, I would suggest you not focus so much on the Eagle matriculation stats and look more at the character of the troop and its leadership. Is their program the kind of program your boy wants -- if so, he'll thrive in it. Do the troop committee and SM share YOUR philosophies on how to raise the boys? I've had some parents who wanted their boys catered to and mollycoddled (thankfully not many) -- I directed them to another troop that was more "nurturing" as I tend to teach using the Socratic method. The boys that stuck with me seemed to like it -- in fact, I just saw one of them today who is a proud father and has been Packmaster and Scoutmaster himself. Him telling me that was probably the best thing I could have heard from him.

Indeed, many people choose to be unclear on something that really is very clear because it doesn't say what they want. Lawyers and politicians do this unnecessary twisting of the English language all the time to satisfy their constituencies. This is precisely why lawyers frequently try to change the "reasonable person" standard to an "any person" non-standard for judging whether something might be offensive or determining liability. A reasonable person might not think it was a smart thing to put a extra hot cup of liquid between his or her legs while driving, especially if s/he was especially sensitive to heat. Any person might think that was a perfectly reasonable thing to do because it was "convenient". I contend that any person is demonstrably and purposely obtuse and evidence of that is found every time I see "Warning: Not Intended for Consumption" on the side of a can of white gas. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State choose to twist the No Establishment clause into a de facto adoption of secular humanism by the state when all the historic and linguistic evidence is that it was never meant to be anti-religious. AUSCS and gays have attacked Scouting's use of public facilities as "public accommodations" instead of acknowledging them as appropriate taxpayer use. They do so because they would rather attack any form of traditional values than create their own public interest groups for the promotion of general welfare that could also use public facilities. There are of course other groups trying to change the American heartland and undermine any traditionalism still found in the landscape but it seems Barry Lynn and various homosexual/other-sexual groups are the most prominent ones doing so.