Backpacker

If you are going to wear official BSA Venturing insignia then it must be on the official BSA Venturng uniform shirt. You can make up your own recognition patches, as long as they are not copies of official BSA ones, and wear them where ever you want. With my crew if they earn a bronze or gold award or any official Venturing award they are not allowed to wear them on their crew sweatshirt. Some of them purchased the green Venturing shirt to display them or others created their own display case to show them off. There are a lot of unapproved official looking patches being sold on Ebay, etc. None of these are BSA approved. Thats my take, has anyone else heard anything different??

Brent You are without a doubt the biggest (geographical slur) I have ever have come across. Who are we fighting in Iraq? ourselves to start with as this war continues to tear this country apart, secondly a group of people who feel that the USA had no right to invade their country based on false evidence, and lastly a group of radical hate mongers who will use any opportunity to strike back at the US for all the injustices they claim we have committed against them. In any case there will be no winners in this war which will continue to go on longer than Vietnam did. Finally when we realize that there is no way to win this war we will pull out in disgrace and Iraq will be worse off than it originally was. Iraq will be the final downfall of W and will be the legacy of his presidency. WE are not the police of the world, the sooner we realize that the better off we will be as a country. You can be a standard for the truth or buy into the lie the choice is yours. For the last time Brent the USDA site has all the information I quoted, learn how to research even though I believe you don't actually know how to read. With this entry I am finished with answering your pathetic and unintelligent questions. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Pack Despite all your efforts to illuminate Brent I am afraid it is falling on deaf ears, he can only see one point of view and he is extremely guillable to the misinformation put out their by the Bush administration. He seems to forget that Powell resigned as Sec. of State because of the WMD fiasco, embarrased that he was used as a Bush tool at the UN, and now his political career is pretty much over. Well now the American people are letting their feelings be known and are pressuring W to start withdrawal from Iraq. He has the lowest popularity rating of any president since Andrew Johnson. The American people and military,Republican or Democrat, will only put up with his continual lies for so long before they demand accountability. Brent Since you like to label other people I have one for you "Misinformed, Unenlightened Person who lives in the south Try reading more than just the local paper, if you do read, before you form your opinions. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Brent the only moronic statements I have read come from you, if you knew how to navigate the USDA site you would have found it under corporate purchases of US farmland, 70% were owned by foreign owned or controlled corporations, its there if you know where to look. What that has to do with Rooster just proves you cant stay on topic, per usual.Of course you spout the same intolerance as Rooster used to do, I feel sorry for the guys in your troop. ED, the only one missing points around here is you, too bad BW isn't around anymore he at least kept you in check. So both of you get your facts straight for once before you spout accusations.

Romney is the Rep. version of Kerry so he doesnt stand a chance. Look for Rice vs Clinton in 2008, now that would be an interesting race. As far as Rooster is concerned, I kinda miss him, but not his brand of religious intolerance and prejudice. He was always the first to condemn others rather than listen to opposing viewpoints. On the farms when a rooster gets too old and crotchity the farmer usually shoots it, still I will miss arguing with him.

Unfortunately I have to agree with Gern, the ACLU won on a technocality that I believe will stand up in review. This is indeed a sad day when an organization created to protect the rights of all goes on a witch hunt to try to destroy a youth organization whose main objective is to turn youth into good and decent citizens. It makes me wonder what the future of our society will be, as well as the future of the BSA.(This message has been edited by Backpacker)

I just couldn't stand this drivel going on without responding: jkhny - your misinformation is so untrue and pathetic. YOU HAVEN"T A CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE PRESENTING AS FACT!! I have been a professional and now I am volunteer scouter for two decades. If the BSA is so wealthy why have over half the councils either been closed or merged? The facts are that in many areas the BSA has lost funding from the United Way and others because of pro gay groups influencing these organizations by using the ACLU to sue them into compliance. The BSA just did not take a tough enough stance to refute them and show just how much scouting contributes to society as a whole. Now is there corruption at the top levels of the BSA, yes, but it is a very small percentage compared to corporations of the same size. As a former pro scouter I can tell you we were never financially well off, in fact in my council we once calculated that with all the overtime we put in we came out at about 25 cents an hour. My SE made out better but was by no means living a luxurious lifestyle. So don't keep going off half cocked on a subject you obviously know nothing about, one or two cases at National are not typical of the overall organization. The other big reason the BSA has financial woes is that FOS is not what it used to be, membership numbers are down on a national level, many do not support FOS as they should. Its like the guy who goes to church every Sunday and complains that they need to do this and that, but when the collection plate comes around he puts in a one dollar bill and still doesnt understand why things do not change. jkhny you remind me of that guy ready to spout your unfounded complaints, ad naseum, with nothing positive to say about scouting. The National office is far from perfect, but it is a far cry from the picture you present. If you hate scouting so much LEAVE, there are plenty of other organizations out there you can harrass. Please refrain from presenting your gross exaggerations as factual when they are anything but factual.

OGE To answer your question, it all depends on whether you are looking at the situation from a volunteer or professional scouter viewpoint. National mandates to councils that they must grow in both members and units, especially in special interest units like the new cub soccer program for inner city youth,LFL, any type of unit serving minorities or special interest groups is also highly desired. Why, because then councils and National can show they are reaching out to a more diverse cross section of America and make themselves eligible to receive special grants and funds from a wide variety of organizations. These kind of units equal more money for council and National. The SE's I worked for told me they would rather have 25 small units, than 10 large active units, "it makes the council look better." I never understood that logic because most of those weak units failed in the first year or two and we would have to start over again. In the long run these units hurt the successful units by pulling boys away to fill the new ones, and then frustrated with the lousy programs they quit scouting never to return, when they could have had a positive experience in one of the established units. These are some of the reasons why volunteer and professional scouting will always be at odds with each other their agendas, motives, and goals are very different. Volunteer scouters put the boys first and foremost, professional scouters put money and getting promoted on the fast track their priorities, even those who are real nice guys.

Rooster As a former professional scouter I can tell you first hand that at the council up to the National office all of it is about numbers and money, that is what 99% of your annual review is based on. Second, I agree with you on the unit level and thats what I wrote in my posting, that loss at that level is based on poor programs usually done by untrained leaders who feel that they are above taking training. As far as Merlyns numbers are concerned, I don't believe his or even Nationals numbers are truly accurate, and that the truth is somewhere in between the two. As we have seen in the press councils and National both fabricate numbers all the time, it has been a long standing practice, especially since the 1970's. All we can do as unit leaders is to stay fully trained and deliver the best BSA program possible. As I stated in my earlier post, that our numbers may get smaller but the quality of the programs that remain will be far superior than what exsists in many units today.

I too think the statistics are appalling and does cast doubts on Scoutings future. It is too simplistic to deny the facts and blame Merlyn for the information. Merlyn for me personally I despise how you revel in any and all problems that befall the BSA, and you exemplify what is wrong with so many people in America today, a growing negative and fatalistic mentality. Scouting has decreasing numbers for three reasons, the failure of National to deal and adapt with the changing American society, Nationals failure to address wrong doing and corruption within the professional scouting rank and file, and lastly on the volunteer level the ever growing number of prima donna scout leaders who do not get trained or go to roundtable, etc. because they think they know it all already. The result is a larger number of unsafe unit programs that are of such poor quality that they fail within a year or two, because they do not want to follow the scouting program. Yet another serious problem has been in the rush to get more numbers, some lousy CO's have been given charters to sponsor scouting units. Cases in point in my own council, a so called church with a registered sex offender on staff, and a pool hall/ bar, both still are CO's despite many protests to council by the volunteers and COR's. So to sum up many of the problems within the BSA are of their own making and their seemingly inability to police their own program and people. We volunteers are then left to make our units successful, with minimal support from council or National, following BSA program and safety guidelines and delivering the most dynamic and exciting program we can. So while there may be fewer units in the future the quality of their programs will be better. Only if the BSA can get their act together soon, these untrained inferior leaders, corrupt professionals, and these dangerous scouting units will be purged once and for all.(This message has been edited by Backpacker)

Rooster Per usual you find ONE story that kind of supports your view and that becomes your Bible, again rose colored glasses. If you bothered to read more news reports and political magazines you would see that all the Homeland Security agencies are vehemently opposed to the deal, that cabinet rep is a Bush appointee so of course he supports Bush. The heads of the CIA, FBI, Coast Guard, etc. all advised the president very clearly their opposition which Bush has chosen to ignore. What will it take Rooster, to see Boston or Baltimore in flames before you see how myopic Bush is being. Long Haul is correct, if Kerry was president suggesting this deal you would be branding him as UnAmerican, just like you do with people who disagree with your own viewpoints.

I hope all of you who felt that the port debacle was no big deal have read the just released news story that Homeland Security not only strongly advised Bush against the sale of the ports to UAE but stated that "this deal presented a huge potential security risk to the safety of our country and that they were not properly equipped to deal with this threat." Just like we learned with the attacks on Pearl Harbor and the twin towers we can falsely believe that no one can harm us on our own soil. NO ONE can insure that this deal will not have severe consequences. The very agency in charge of our nations security states they are convinced this will open new avenues for terrorists. Is it even worth taking the risk with more American lives to ensure economic trade with the Arabs ? I don't think so.

Rooster, when you talk about mob mentality I can't help but be reminded of your own religious intolerance of others who believe differently from you which you display constantly in this forum, your Christian far right mob mentality which has caused more harm than good in our society, especially these last ten years.You see the world only through your own version of the truth, which is rarely the reality of the situation. Maybe one should practice what they preach Rooster. John, as far as Bush is concerned, I have great respect for the office of the president, however they too must be held accountable for their actions, all of their actions as president. This port issue has finally united the Democrats and Republicans for the first time in six years and I am sure the legislature will take the appropriate action, just as they did with Clinton and Nixon.

Dan - to answer your question on the farmland there are many good books, but you can go directly to the USDA website and get all the facts and figures for yourself. Lisabob- first of all this topic has nothing to do with scouting and is not brought up at meetings. Secondly, this president has repeatedly now violated Constitutional law to push ahead his own personal agendas, anyone who has as little respect for the law of the land as this man does not deserve my or anyone elses respect who truly love this country and what it stands for. There has been no accountability demanded for this administrations actions that run contrary to the best interests of this country.