LongHaul

From everything I've been hearing and reading about the Dubai company it is part of the UAE government. It's fully owned and operated by the UAE government. The other "foriegn" companies are based overseas but this time we are actually turning our ports over to a foriegn country. I don't see this as just Bush bashing. Congress can set whatever rules they want relating to port management it doesn't mean they will be followed. Last time I heard hijacking and murder were against the law everywhere in the US and that didn't stop those determined to inflict harm upon U.S. Giving the UAE inside track just doesn't seem like a really smart idea. LongHaul

Scoutingagain, You used the term "friendly Arab country". Can you tell me which of the Arab countries fall into that category? I cant think of any Arab country that fully supports our efforts to bring the terrorists to justice. How many Arabs have been brought before Arab courts to answer charges stemming from 911? What happened to the money trail which lead to Dubai? Even the Saudis dont fully support our War on Terror. How can we justify allowing these same people to control a U.S. port of entry? My suggestion is to turn the ports over to the military. Those men and women are the lowest paid bunch I know of when it comes to jobs like this. It would increase the available numbers for private presidential wars and add yet another cost over run line item opportunity to the military budget. Looks like upside all around to me. LongHaul

I do stand corrected it's 6 ports not 8 Whew! thats a relief. That same guy who did such a great job of anticipating Katrina was telling the press how they had checked the Dubia company out and found no irregularities. He assured us we would be as safe with the UAE in charge as we are now. I find that frieghtening. Bush was quoted as saying "This administration does not discriminate against Arab intrests." I wonder how the people in Iraq feel about that statement. LongHaul

In preparing for yet another training session I was going over the current edition of the GTSS, which I hear is being totally redone. I understand that National has taken the GTSS away from the profesional scouting staff and hired a profesional from the Risk Management sector to revamp the entire guide. They hope to have it available in print by August 2006. Anyway, I went online to check for current revisions and low and behold I found a new one dated January 9, 2006. It applies to Venturing Crews attending Boy Scout section camps. The old rule required a Venturer to be multi registered with a Troop to attend section camp, there by eliminating female Venturing Crew members. The new rule how ever states that Venturers need not be multiple registered nor must they attend with a Troop. So the campsite next to you could contain 14 to 18 year old GIRLS!! When I was a scout we had to walk 3 or 4 miles or swim 1/2 a mile across the lake to get to the GIRLS!! Now they are just a few feet away. Kinda takes the challenge out of it, which after all was the whole draw because I never heard of anyone actually succeeding in his quest. Though once we were on Staff and up there all summer..... LongHaul(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

Even if we give him the doubt about "being aware of it" He was on the news today saying "We had the Brits managing one(a port) why not the Arabs?" I wonder how many of the 911 terrorists got money from the Queen. Eamonn you have any contacts who may know how much the Queen ponied up to level the towers? His people are trying to give control of 8 US ports of entry to the UAE and he doesn't know anything about it? Like I said all ya gotta do is wait for it, the hits never stop. LongHaul(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

Seeing as how Trevorum brought up the Cheney thing again, even though I've already said I think taking shots at Dick on that one are out of line, I knew I wouldn't have to wait long before this administration gave my cause to cry WHAT? So! How do ya all feel about turning over, what is it 8 of our ports to the UAE? I mean only 2 of the 911 terrorists were actually from Dubai even though most of the 911 terrorists were receiving money from there. Hey we only actually inspect 5% of what comes in that way anywhy so whats the worry right? Besides with our efforts in Iraq going as they are we need all the friends over there we can get right. War on Terror my !@#$% LongHaul

Beavah, I dont know where you are from or what your back ground is but I think you should A. speak with a lawyer about insurance regulations and when the insurer can refuse to pay a claim, and B. Think about what you are saying before you say it. Your BSA liability insurance is subject to the condition that you follow the rules, if you dont coverage can be denied. Talk to anyone who has had a serious accident on an outing and had to defend themselves in court when the law suits started. The Age appropriate guidelines are the center fold section of the GTSS sold by National. Shoulder height???? Whose shoulder? Mine? Yours? Michael Jordans? Try the scouts! Thats usually about four feet. Cub Scouts, who we are supposed to be discussing would be less. V10!!! We are talking Cub Scouts here guy. Are you telling me you think Cub Scouts are cleared to do V10 level climbing according to the guidelines? I was telling flying pig what bouldering meant in relation to his original post. LongHaul

Flying Pig, A Horizontal Wall is one on which the climber is never more than 2 feet off the ground and traverses the wall side to side. Belaying is when the climber is tied to a rope being monitored by another. Bouldering is basic or intermediate climbing carried out on relatively small rocks that can be traversed without great risk of bodily harm in case of fall. BSA requires that a scout must be belayed if that scout is to be four feet off the ground such as crossing a rope bridge or climbing a tower or climbing wall. Belaying is NOT age appropriate for Cub Scout Aged boys. Exceptions are commercial establishments where the facility assumes the risk for equipment and instruction . The accident insurance and liability insurance covering the pack and your CO could be void if the pack knowingly violates the GTSS age appropriate guidelines. Just because we have always done it that way does not make it right. If your school gym is not your regular meeting place then you should be applying for a tour permit for the activity, list the climbing activity on the application and see if the Council approves permit application. Bet they dont. LongHaul

Eamonn, I'm not sure what you are referring to when you ask me where "this" can be found in the Youth Protection Guidelines. If you mean the specific incident in question it's not. I was referring to all cases of abuse. Pointing a gun at someone after threatening to shoot them is felony assault I would think that falls under the YP guidelines. The difference in this and the incident you describe about the fight is on of pre meditation. Your scout allowed his anger and frustration to escalate to violence. The offending scout in the original post was described as as having bullied the victim, verbally assaulted him, and finally physically threatened him with a firearm. I see a big difference. LongHaul

Eamonn, I agree with 99% of what you are saying. The absolute last thing we as leaders should do is give up on a boy. The offender in this discussion is the boy who needs us the most. Then there are the rules we are asked to follow. Youth Protection clearly states that we must report all cases. Does threatening to shoot a fellow scout fall under YP? Does bullying fall under YP? Does assaulting a youth member with a hand gun fall under YP? If we choose to keep this in house how are we different from the people in Grand Teton Council that failed to stop the sexual abuse on their scouts? Is sexual abuse different than physical or mental abuse when we are speaking in terms of reporting?Once we start deciding upon a degree of harm scale before we report we are saying that abuse and assault are OK under certain circumstances. Once we start acting as judge and jury, reserving the right to say what will be reported and what wont, we assume a great deal of responsibility for the safety of our scouts responsibility which is supposed to be spread out to insure quality control. You go on to say; What is paining me most about this thread is that we the forum members are being asked to look at something which isn't that clear and worse still so many Scout leaders are saying what they would do. The truth is that it isn't their call. When a scout comes to you and asks advice do you tell him Its not my call? We as forum members are being asked to respond to an incident as described to us. Some have asked for further information. Some have read gun and responded expulsion. We have been asked to render an opinion and give advice should we refuse? We have been asked in so many words, How we feel about this What we would do about this What we think about this Would you have us reply Its not my problem? I dont think this is the attitude you teach your scouts to have, at least not from what Ive read in your many posts. LongHaul

Eamonn, are you saying that the incident should not be reported to the SE and Chartered Organization Head but should be left to the discretion of the Troop Committee alone? LongHaul

Klcbaskets, I encourage you not to allow this to be swept under the rug. Ive been Scoutmaster of our troop for over 10 years, with time off to get married and start a family I still have over 30 years of registered association with the Scouting program. I say this to assure you I am not new to this type of behavior or the Scouting Program. Your sons may move to another troop but the possibility of them being in a position to be assaulted by the offending youth still exists. Camporees, Council summer program, Order of the Arrow Fellowships. Bullies return to the easy targets. My advice is to write a letter describing what occurred and list names. List everyone who was in a position to see first hand what occurred both youth and adult, especially the adult who witnessed the incident with the air pistol. Send copies to the Scout Executive in your council, your District Executive and your District Director if you have one. Send or deliver a copy to the Chartered Organization Head (sometimes referred to as the Executive Officer) send a copy to your Chartered Organization Representative, send a copy to your Troop Committee Chairperson, send a copy to your Scoutmaster. This will, in this case at least establish the documentation which seems to be an issue. Boys will be Boys is not a phrase which can be found in any Nationally designed training material. You will however find the phrases Safe Haven and Controlled Risk along with Qualified Adult Supervision and Discipline. LongHaul

Hereajo, A short while back we had a thread about the Grand Teton Council which revealed an incidence of ongoing child abuse and assault. Boys reported infractions and leaders relayed information and council staff ignored allegations. Boys were repeatedly put at risk and adults in positions of responsibility failed to protect the boys. Going to another troop solves the problem for the victim for right now but it ignores the real problem. If you and every other adult that knows about this, including the victims parents, do nothing to bring this incident to the attention of the local council SE and the local authorities where the incident took place all of you must consider yourselves as 1. having failed the victim. 2. having failed any future victims. 3. having as much as told the offending scout that he is above the law. Injustice can only survive if decent people allow it. What happens when both of these scouts meet again at the Brotherhood Campout and the offending scout ups the anti? Scream shout and jump up and down waving your arms till justice is served and Scouts are safe to be Scouts. LongHaul

Scoutingagain, you wrote However, I do wish to dispel the notion that accidents can happen to anyone. I agree that we cant afford" to have a momentary loss of focus in certain situations but the fact that we do is why we call them accidents. Realistically they can happen to anyone. I dont think you are claiming never to have been involved in an accident. You probably never shot anyone unintentionally or maybe youve never been in an auto accident but no accidents of any kind? Harry Whittington was guilty,according to your reasoning of not knowing where Dick Cheney was or what VP Cheney had intentions of doing at the moment. Trying to remain aware of everyone and everything around you at the same instant would cause a loss of focus for most people. You cant watch every direction at every instant. You've got a guy with a gun on each side of you, who do you look at, not having eyes in the back of your head? It would be a grand site if every time a quail flushed the entire hunting party hit the deck. In this case Harry Whittington had an accident more so than VP Cheney. You can be the safest and most focused person on the planet and still get slammed by a drunk driver. Spouses on hunting trips are fine as long as they are infront of you. LongHaul

Behavior that warrants expulsion from the Troop, Knowingly AND willingly putting your life or the life of another scout in jeopardy. In our Troop that is carved in stone. A couple of cases in point. In another troop a scout had a Bic lighter that was out of fluid so he threw it in the camp fire. The residual gas exploded but no one was hurt. This led to scouts deliberatly throwing lighter into the fire to watch them explode. Which led over time to scouts using lighters with more and more fluid in them and seeing who would stay closest to the fire the longest becuse there was a delay in the explosion. Sort of a game of chicken. Finally a scout tossed a lighter in the fire without letting the others know and another scout was seriously injured by the explosion. Where should the line have been drawn? When should the "tosser" have been expelled? I had a scout that was a foster child to some excellent parents. His birth parents were beyond description here. Both this boy and his older brother had social problems and required a lot of latitude while they worked through their adjustment to normal life. A parent or adult always came on campouts with the boys but as we all know unless you handcuff the kid to you there is a time delay between observation and intervention. The end for the younger brother came when he brought a can of lighter fluid on a campout and used it to douse his arm and set himself on fire! He quickly pulled the light jacket he was wearing over the arm and extinguished it with out damage. Investigation found that this was a stunt performed on a TV program called Stupid Human Tricks. The Committee and I felt we had no choice but to revoke his membership, we couldnt assume the liability. He is the only boy ever to be asked to leave our troop. In the case hereajo presents I would first have to know if the presents of the pistol was known to leadership before the boy pointed it at the victim. Was the offending scout permitted to have the weapon or did he bring it along in violation of troop policy. We need to establish were we start counting the infractions committed. Possession of a pistol on a campout. Verbal assault. Physical assault. Bullying another scout. Use of profanity. Use of profanity directed at another scout. The first three could actually fall under Youth Protection and would therefore have to be reported to the SE if not the local authorities. Depending on the local laws where the offense took place possession of the gun, brandishing of the gun, physical assault committed with the gun could be criminal offenses and concealment of the incident from the authorities or in some jurisdictions failure to disclose and report the incident could make all the adults involved criminally and civilly liable. To what extent can we allow a scout to jeopardize our ability to deliver program to the group as a whole. Do we draw the line after the gun goes off and kills a scout or before? Depends on whether we allowed him to have the gun in the first place. LongHaul

I have no love, and little respect for the current administration. I will be the first to stick a pin in Bush at the smallest convenience but this whole thing is ridiculous. The press is so worried about when the white house knew and why it took so long to inform the American public that even I must cry foul. Cheney screwed up, no argument, hes human we humans do that now and again. The man shot another human being by accident, the man was possibly a close friend, I really doubt that Vice President Cheney is anything except mortified and filled with utter remorse at this point. How would anyone of us fell if this had happened to us? Training doesnt eliminate error, this was an error, a momentary loss of focus. Did it affect his ability to serve as Vice President? No! Did it have any effect on the American public with the exception of Harry Whittington and the other members of the hunting party? No! Why, with everything that is going on today and the daily death toll in the Middle East, is the question of the day When did you find out and why didnt you tell us? Are we really at the point where the white house staff must prepare an hourly statement on if some one had gas or how many times they scratched their left ear? If there was some sort of cover up attempt or a denial on Vice President Cheneys part it would be another matter but as it stands I think the American publics right to know was never infringed upon but the common decency one human being is supposed to feel and show to another human being in a time of suffering is what is missing. LongHaul

I hope we dont allow this thread to die out. I would really like to get back to discussing the ACLU and our respective opinions of the organization and its effects on our collective lives. Some have taken issues with the ACLU trying to change the Constitution while others see their actions as simply forcing us to live by the Constitution. Some feel the ACLU is trying to take God out of everyday life, while others again see it as forcing us to live by the Constitution. If the Supreme Court says any reference to God by official means is unconstitutional then if we want God in public we need to change the Constitution not stop the ACLU from forcing its enforcement. The BSA wants to be a private organization but doesnt want to live with the price that entails. The ACLU is not asking BSA to change its policies just live with the consequence of their policies. If we want to exclude atheists and gays then we have to accept the restrictions put on private organizations. Government can not pick and choose which private organizations it grants favors to. How can we justify leasing public land for private use to private organizations if all private organizations are not given equal opportunity to acquire a lease? I dont think many of us would be supporting the idea of allowing Whites Only groups to be sponsored by local governmental agencies. Ive been involved with BSA since Cub Scouts back in the 50s, I believe in this program. I dont think there is any other program which provides youth members the same opportunities to learn and grow that BSA offers. I believe that for any wrong we do we do 20 times more good. But does that mean we should get special treatment from government? The ACLU does not make laws they fight for blind adherence to the laws as written. Our legislature refuses to address current problems through law enactment because they are more interested in getting re-elected. Politicians dont want to take a hard position because it costs votes. We need the ACLU to point out our inequities and our bias. If we want In God we Trust on our money and under God in our pledge then we should all be petitioning for an amendment to change the Constitution and allow it, but I dont see that happening. The ACLU is just like the law enforcement officer that pops out of your trunk when you decide to push the speed limit or not wear a seat belt, a pain in the butt. Just remember that they are also the ones we call when someone is trying to break into our home or steal our car. IMO the ACLU deserves everyones support, when we dont like the ruling the ACLU gets we should blame the legislature which wrote the law not the lawyer who got it enforced. LongHaul

I'm so bad at remembering names it should be illegal. I can remember hundreds of names and faces of the people I went to high school with 40 years ago but remembering the names of people I meet today really takes effort. As SM I've tried many different "tools" to help me overcome my problem, the one the boys responded to best was this. I made a deal with each new scout that when he was given a task to perform, be it kybo duty or KP he could come to me and ask me what his name was, if I couldn't recall it within 5 seconds I would do the task for him. I've washed a lot of dishes and fetched a lot of wood but I do know my boys and they know that I care enough about them that I will admit to my fault and try to correct it. LongHaul

OGE, Then why all the court cases about gays in scouting. Why don't they just shut up and join up? They want their preferences to be openly known. If preferences were to be kept personal we would't be having this discussion. It's the "I need public validation" section that got us here. On the adult app thee is a place for gender, why? If we are all one what difference does it make? If BSA changes it's policy and accepts gays shouldn't those parents who would prefere that their son not be tented with a gay scout be entitled to some consideration? My question remains that if we feel the need to seperate male and female because of sexual attraction how can we ignor gay sexual preference in youth? We would almost have to ask just as we ask about gender. LongHaul

OGE, My question was in the last sentence. What policies do we put in place to address the inclusion of gays and girls. The girls part is already addressed in the Venturing and Explorer programs but what about the gay scouts. Your suggestion that we ignor the fact that they are gay doesn't work as I tried to point out. The gay leaders we now have are leaders becasue they kept their preferences to themselves. It's an issue now because gays have decided they need to be openly accepted as gays. Ok assuming BSA changes it's policy and admits them how do we as leaders address the issue of gays on camp outs? We can't ignor them any more than we can ignor girls. We need rules what are they going to be? LongHaul

OGE, Your statement to the effect that there is no room in scouting for sexuality leaves me wondering if Im missing something in your posts in this thread. I went ahead and looked the word up in the dictionary and found these entries; sexuality n. 1. The condition of being characterized and distinguished by sex. 2. Concern with or interest in sexual activity. 3. Sexual character or potency. Now I can see a case being made for example 3 but how can you say that the first two arent/shouldnt be part of scouting, in this case being part of would mean being addressed as to policy. You accept that our society separates male and female that being an example of definition 1. Are you then saying that as leaders, or that while discussing policy as we are here, that scouters should not concern themselves with the adolescent sexual attractions and curiosities of fellow members? I say adolescent because I am mainly concerned with the youth in this and would hope that adults could conduct themselves as such with out need for monitoring. What I think you are trying to say is that we should not distinguish gay from straight but to that I must say it was the gay community that demanded to be recognized. They wanted to be known as gay and because of that their sexual preference has become an issue. Prairie Scouter says we separate male from female out of common courtesy, and that sexual behavior has no place in scouting. First I ask common courtesy to whom? The unmarried couple who wants to bunk together or the stiff necked bunch who didnt grow up in the sexually liberated 60s and are freighted by sexual freedom? (Insert SMILEY emoticon I don't have) The fact is sexual behavior is addressed in BSA policy and has been since the 70s when women became part of the program. What ever your views on sexual conduct are, what ever my views on sexual conduct are we have agreed to check them at the door when we put on the uniform. As leaders we address many traits we want emulated and those which we do not want copied, sexuality being one of them. We have women on staff at our summer camp naturally. We had an attractive nurse serve one summer and the result was noted the following year in a caricature outside the camp office showing the way to the Nurse. However when we had an attractive waterfront director we ran into problems. She was tall, long legged, and even in an 1890s style swim suit would have drawn notice. She was totally mature in all her actions and interactions with campers, leaders, and staff but she made enough Scoutmasters uncomfortable because of the reaction of the boys, if not themselves, that she was not given the opportunity to come back the next year. Cute nurses are ok but put her in a swim suit and you cross the line. Some of the scout shorts Ive seen on female members are more revealing than the swim suits the lady in question wore on duty but she was the topic of many discussions at the Scoutmaster meetings we have after camp. The point is we do acknowledge the differences between male and female anatomy whether we like it or not. OGE made the reference to public showers and the fact that those of use who use them are subject to exposure to the gay community. He asks how that worked out. I guess he feels that as long as you dont know your being viewed its ok. If I was able to disguise my gender would it be ok to view members of the opposite sex in their shower OGE? The point is that once BSA openly accepts gays and girls we must address the social, psychological, cultural, pre established feelings of our members. If we want to separate members because we fear sexual exploration then we must separate gays from gays as well as straight from straight. If on the other hand we are saying that we are not separating genders because we are afraid of sexual explorations then we should have no problem with male, female buddy groups going off on a patrol hike in the woods right? Or are we saying that male, female couples cant control themselves but gay couples can? If we are to be courteous to the person who doesnt accept unisex conditions then we must accept those who dont want to be in revealing situations with those who may be physically attracted to them. We have rules because people dont naturally follow them, if they did we wouldnt need to remind them by making rules. The question here is what rules do we put into place to address gays, ignoring their preference is not a solution. LongHaul

Any chance we can get back to discussing our views on the ACLU? Or should we just start another thread? LongHaul

Thanks emb021, the fine print will get you every time! LongHaul

embo21, Want to know how wierd when it comes to rank patches? When a boy was accepted to serve as Staff at our summer camp he got a credit to allow him to buy 2 new uniforms at a discount. The rule is that Staff must wear full field uniforms with ALL the appropriate badges. The problem is that the Scout Shop would not sell them the rank patches. As Scoumaster I had to go to the Council office and raise the roof before I was sold the patches and then just to stop the disruption. I would like to know where you are getting your information as to using the Venturing pin to represent Boy Scout religious medals, I don't dispute your positiopn but would really like to be able to quote your source. LongHaul(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

Would I support the decision? If you mean would I pass knowledge of the decision along to my SPL and let him and succeding SPL's decide Uniform or No, then yes I would support the decision. If you mean would I like it! Then NO, I believe the uniform is an integral part of the program. I signed an agreement to abide by the policies of the National Corporation and I am bound to it whether I like the policy or not. The uniform is a tool, I believe a usefull and successful tool, but only a tool. A true eagle Scout is an Eagle Scout uniform or no. We are Scouters 24/7 because we believe in the program and it's purpose. We wear the uniform to let others know we are proud to be associated with the Boy Scouts not because it changes who or what we are. LongHaul(This message has been edited by LongHaul)