packsaddle

I use a travel agent to take student groups out of the country. And I've had students out as far as Yellowstone NP in this country. Oops, I just noted your interest in the Grand Canyon. The time of year and the amount of time you stay all figure greatly in planning your trip. Especially the time of year for the Grand Canyon. You're going to have to fly and then take a bus or rent something. Moreover, the economy of scale doesn't necessarily work for larger groups. And I simply won't go if I can't spend two weeks out west someplace. For the price, you might want to consider something cooler, with more to do, like Rocky Mountain NP or Yellowstone. Most recently I have also taken groups to the Caribbean. Either way, don't expect a travel agent to save you money on air fares. The main utility of an agent (for me, at least) is to have someone who knows the system if you get into a real jam. This has happened to me twice and my agent saved our butts each time by going around the system to get us back in the air. AND, air travel used to be fun. Due to airline incompetence and partly due to the security stuff, it isn't anymore. For any significant travel (and especially if it involves young persons with questionable judgement) it can be a really ugly chore. PM me and I'll give you details. If you're thinking about DC, price the cost of travel by AmTrak. It is a really good way to go if you can get to the station, I'm not sure how close you are to the tracks. You won't need an agent at all. Just price it online. Once you're in DC, you can use your legs for nearly everything except, maybe, Arlington. That's worth the cab fare or bus fare. If you're interested in a good first experience, call ahead and try to find a church or something in DC that will let you use their basement or a rec room for sleeping. DC has a LOT of great stuff to do. If it was me, DC would be my choice. Fun, safer, much easier, and probably a lot less expensive.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Hi Vicki, Thanks for your wisdom in this. And you're right, it has happened countless times - I observed it rampant in private industry. I'm not sure how my application of "...terrible breach of honor and trust..." to Bill Clinton constitutes a defence of his actions. Maybe I'm still not comprehending things correctly. Given what I see in recent administrations it is difficult to argue that you are wrong regarding the relevance placed on breaches of trust and honor. I am, nevertheless, optimistic (there must be something wrong with me today ). It is possible that people who have an expectation of trust and honor in others can be easily deceived by persons who are practiced and successful in breaches of trust and honor. Therefore, while it is possible to have an appearance that these things are not relevant, it may actually be that their relevance is late coming to focus on those who are so practiced in their deceptions. To put is differently, we may have been hoodwinked by clever people who we hoped and thought could be trusted. And now we must wait until the process allows us to sweep out the barn, so-to-speak. OK, my optimism is starting to fade, I'll get back to work.

Gern, ....you're starting to scare me a little.

Quite right! I apologize for my out-of-focus glasses. Monica was an intern, not a page. So I guess 'perversion' WAS misplaced on Clinton after all. Anyway, I get moral relativism from your request to place a specific act on some scale of morality. And, for that matter, you seem to acknowledge the existence of different scales for different people. That seems to indicate different 'levels' of morality 'relative' to other acts and relative to scales of other people. So, about those slightly more or less major things?

Brent, As delighted as I am to learn that you are a fellow moral relativist, I am disappointed in your reading and comprehension skills. Especially after reading in your last post, "packsaddle actually brought in the word perversion." Now I admit that the specific word 'perversion' was what I used but if you will please re-read Vicki's post, you will note that she used its root term 'pervert' in describing Bill Clinton. Specifically she wrote of him as, "...Bill Clinton, the page pervert,..." That is why I responded in the manner I did. Not that I mind nor that it matters much in our discussions, I just thought you might want to put on your reading glasses. With regard to your specific question about moral scales (of which the Clinton scandal seems to have captivated your mind) I have to admit I'm not certain what you mean by "...low on your moral scale." That would, of course, depend on how I arranged the order, wouldn't it? Consider that it is possible that really terrible, immoral acts might well be placed at the bottom, you know, closer to that 'warmer clime' I'm supposed to experience some day. But I confess I don't actually keep an inventory of immoral acts that I arrange on some kind of scale. I will say that the act you seem to obsess about is neither particularly immoral nor perverted in my mind, not that I would choose to engage in it. Perversion, as Trevorum noted, is largely in the eye of the beholder. However, I think Bill Clinton did do something immoral that goes way beyond his infidelity or whatever act he actually did with Monica in the Oval Office. And I am again disappointed that no-one jumped on my case about it (one of those opportunities I give everyone fairly frequently). Regardless of whatever level of consent was given in their relationship, Bill Clinton took advantage of a situation where he was in a position of ultimate power and influence and he entered into a completely unprofessional relationship with a subordinate. In this situation the consent of the subordinate can never truly achieve the level of parity needed for the relationship to be considered non-exploitive. Bill Clinton exploited Monica for his own desires. If there was anything perverted about the situation, THAT was IT in my mind. But as I mentioned, while I do consider it immoral, 'perversion' is probably not the right term, at least not for me. The fact that no charge was brought by her against him does not excuse this terrible breach of trust and honor at so many levels. To me, this wrong far exceeds anything they actually did with each other. And it far exceeds his deception when he tried to deny the truth. Back to moral scales, Brent, as you seem to think you have a good bead on these things, how about listing some things that you rank as slightly more major and slightly less major compared to Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica. I'm curious to see what you think. Edited part: Sorry Trev, mispelled your name...also some other tweaks.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I'm fairly sure I've never been sexually harrassed as an adult...but my fingers are still crossed! Actually, come to think of it, I used to have a secretary (I was not her supervisor) who often said to me, "...you can kiss my a**." ...And then she'd never let me. We were good friends and our back-and-forth, while thoroughly unprofessional, was fun and the work was done efficiently because we got along so well. Years later, we still correspond. But seriously, back when I was working in the private sector SH was rampant and I observed some persons who were grievously harrassed by superiors. It left a bitter taste that I will never forget. In spite of my attempt at humor in the first lines, I am nevertheless sensitive to the problem. Later, when I had a federal lab team, we had full employees, contractors, students, and an occasional passerby. In all cases my SH training began with the definition of sexual harrassment. It is almost entirely a matter of perception by the recipient. However, if the recipient has not brought the offence to the perpetrator's attention and asked him/her to stop, the process tends to go no further - unless the problem is extreme and involves an assault of some sort. That takes it out of the SH arena and thankfully, I never had to confront a problem of that magnitude. The next step was that if the person offended asked the perpetrator to stop and they didn't stop, the offended person then brought it to the attention of a supervisor (me, in this case). At that time, at least in my case, the problem was resolved in a variety of ways. If this woman has not confronted the accused, then her position is weakened because she did not give him a chance to stop or respond in some other manner. This level of detail is missing in this forum, as far as I can tell. If she has confronted him, and he blew her off, then it is fair enough for her to bring this to the attention of the committee or CO to air the grievance, for better or worse. As noted already by Beavah, it could just as well go against her, depending on the specifics.

Heh, heh, Vicki, If there's someone out there named Hubris, I'd like to shake their hand. But regarding Bill Clinton, yeah he had an affair of sorts. It was heterosexual. They were both consenting adults. Until he lied about it, I don't think any laws were broken. Aside from that and the infidelity, what was the source of perversion? John-in-KC, there were other options as well, I can think of at least two: Run - try to escape by leaving the country was one option. Another would be for him to 'eat his gun' so-to-speak. There are probably more options as well. Regarding the scenario by Calico, I'm sure our imaginations are all in high gear over that one. I used to enjoy listening to George Schultz handle questions that contained hypothetical scenarios. He'd just turn them away rather coldly. We don't know what we'd do in this situation because it hasn't actually happened. We might imagine what we'd do but until we confront it, there is no way to know our reaction. I suspect that a few sentences in this forum will never be able to capture the level of detail and emotion of the real thing if it happens to one of us. Therefore, while we can have some fun comparing our illusions in this forum, until we taste that reality, none of us will know for sure how we will respond.

Ed, most of the time when we're thinking about the word 'proof', it is easier to disprove something (at least outside mathematics). But LongHaul has done you the favor of reporting one such instance thus giving you the opportunity to do your thing. It is now incumbent on you or anyone else to disprove what he reported...not just offer up an opinion.

Lisabob, I agree. And fun though it is to watch them stumbling around like a scene from 'Night of the Living Dead', all this political stuff and the personal attacks do nothing but detract from meaningful discussion and debate about the questions that deserve serious attention.

Scoutldr mentioned, "...it's a matter of adults not acting like adults..." Heh, heh, I'd enjoy having someone expand on that one. From what I've observed, this is exactly how adults act - pretty much just like much older children in most cases.

Hunt, I'm not sure I understand your argument but you seem to be saying that the 'customers' for LFL are the persons enrolled in the program, and that they are equivalent to the needy persons who are the 'customers' for Scouting for Food - and that, as customers, neither should be required to pass the DRP test. If I got that wrong I apologize. But if I've correctly interpreted your thoughts, why then do we not apply this approach to the 'customers' of the other BSA programs as well?

There are so many things about this that cause me to wonder what is REALLY going on here. This is more than Republicans eating another of their own. No, it seems more like Republicans writhing in agony over a conundrum of their own making. And what was going on for more than two months since the arrest? On the surface, I'm not certain that Craig was doing something that should be considered illegal, if he in fact did anything at all. I'm not even certain that he was initially guilty of what he pled to. He certainly pled in order to try to escape precisely the treatment he's getting right now. And if he is gay, he certainly is guilty of profound hypocrisy. If that was illegal, we'd be electing a lot of new political leaders. I think I understand Trevorum's intent and I tend to agree with it. There are so many deceptions embedded in this. I listened tonight to the recording made by the officer during the arrest. What I heard was a senator who was caught in a snare and frightened at his future prospects, trying desperately to avoid the web of the law when he was actually caught by the web of his own deceptions. If only he could have been open and honest about his sexuality. A life of lies. This is a lesson for everyone. And in our zeal to condemn this guy, we may not learn from it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

John-in-KC, I pull that one out every inspection to remind the bean counters of how important they really are. And I have a copy posted on my 'board of ill repute'. OK, I'm trying to lighten up, I really am.

So what if it was rolled into LFL. That's still a BSA program, right? If the declaration is a BSA 'value' rather than a membership hurdle with no more meaning than meeting an age requirement, then the 'value' represented by the declaration should be absolute. If this article is correct, BSA caved on this one. They compromised this 'value' by making this kind of move. Maybe BSA doesn't expect LFL people to be able to "grow into the best kind of citizen".Or maybe the declaration IS just a membership hurdle that can be disregarded if needed. If so, I wish they'd be consistent with that approach across all the programs.

Or as Mark Twain might have said, "Whiskey is for drinking. Dihydrogen monoxide is for fighting over." A few years ago, I actually had a Colonel in the Army demand a quick briefing on what he thought was a controversy about this...but turned out to be some right wing talk show host who successfully got his ignorant, nose-picking audience to wet their beds about this source of contamination in our rivers and lakes. I had to explain all this to the Colonel in very delicate terms. He was not amused.

Ed, I'm not sure about that. If this has been discussed previously in the threads, let me know but I'm wondering what the difference is if both programs are BSA? It seems to me that if BSA thinks that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. is a value for Venturing, then why is it not also a value for Exploring? Is it true for one but not the other? I don't think so. I could understand the difference if this is merely an arbitrary requirement with little meaning beyond the need to exclude someone. But if it represents a real 'value' then in my mind it goes beyond something that can be set aside for the sake of mere convenience, just because it feels better that way.

We're not organized enough for troopmaster. Just a basic spreadsheet works for us. We keep all the paper, though, as well. There's something very reassuring about having that hard copy. Paper has substance, electrons don't. I guess that makes me a Luddite.

CA_Scouter, I nearly had a culinary orgasm just reading your post. Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou.

Back before airline security went insane I'd pick up a few six packs and carry them on. I once carried 4 six packs in a single bag. The x-ray guy stopped me and nearly fell over laughing when he inspected the bag. Ahhhh, for the good ole days.

The true authority has not yet written in this thread. Chefy, where are you? Anyway, I go with grits (done correctly), perhaps Charleston's shrimp and grits, or a low country boil. For breakfast there's red eye gravy and cat head biscuits. If I'm in the right place I ask for the gumbo, and in a couple of other places I ask for the clam chowder. They make a rather large hamburger at Sioux Sundries in Harrison, NB. On the McKenzie river a smaller burger is called the Monster Burger (after Bill Bixby ate there once). A little further upstream you can get good food at the Rustic Skillet also pie.... I really like almost any fruit (especially berry) pie in the Pacific Northwest - it really is the only true element of cuisine they have perfected. Hotdogs must, absolutely must, be Kosher and off the street in Manhattan. With mustard! not that red vegetable substitute that the Reagan administration tried to feed our children for lunch at school. If I'm in the Charlotte Harbor area, I'll eat fried mullet and grits every meal (no, it's not the same as mullet anywhere else). But...as I think I might have mentioned a long time ago, assuming I avoid that warmer clime that Rooster7 always suspected I'd suffer, my concept of heaven is (looking through the gates as I approach) a large KFC flanked on one side by a Krispy Kreme Donuts shop and a Dairy Queen on the other, all with all-you-can-eat signs. Yum, time for dinner.

An actual brand. I think it's brewed in Missoula, MT. I buy it whenever I drive across the country, this time I stopped in Bozeman. They also have a local soda whose name I like, "Flathead Lake Monster" soda, or something like that. Can't say much for the food up there but the libations...not bad.

LongHaul, I will attempt to answer as many of your questions that I can. "The incident I described that I personally know about occurred well after lights out and not in the presence of any campers. Should this not be considered a boys own time?" No, not really. If the nanny lives with the family for most of the week and sneaks one into the home, even during a time when the children are asleep, it is still in the home of that family. As such she not only compromises herself but the family and their home. This is the better analogy. " I know of many adult leaders while at camp that slip off to town in the evening. I know many adult staff that slip off to town while off duty. These people are up at camp for 7 or 8 weeks and should be allowed personal time." I agree. They should be allowed some free time. If they engage in something like this outside the bounds of council property or outside the bounds of a scouting activity, they would still be subject to the legal process. Whether or not BSA took further action is anyone's guess, given the varied performance they've demonstrated so far. " My question here is what is the difference other than the legality issue? Do we only consider ourselves to be leaders or scoutmasters when scouts are present?" Each of us has to answer that for ourself. Outside of scouting events I consider myself to be a citizen like anyone else. That, in itself, should be sufficient to do the right thing. " Am I not a SM 24/7 ? When we have taken down camp at the end of the summer it is customary to celebrate with a trip to town for everyone. We go to a bowling alley that has a large game room and serves food and liquor. The rule is no uniforms and the adults make use of the bar. The message I see here is that it is OK to drink just dont do it in uniform. Yes I drank, I even tended bar one year when there was a staff shortage at the bowling alley." That's right, just follow the G2SS and BSA regs and you're fine, no laws broken, no bad examples for the boys. Hoist one for me next time. I'll do the same...I just armed myself this summer with an ample supply of Moose Drool. Yum!

I too am a parent of ADD children. Mine have made huge mistakes in their lives and survived, thankfully. But they have not been in positions of responsibility over other children when they made their poor choices. If a boy makes a personal mistake that is one thing. Even in this case, the personal aspect is regrettable and if that had been all there was to it, I would have viewed it as I did earlier. The difference is that in this case, he was in a position of official leadership and responsibility over other boys, over children if you like. If the nanny sneaks one at her home and lights up then she might be persuaded to stop. If the nanny sneaks one into the home of the children over whom she has temporary responsiblity, it is a far different matter. She should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. The boy was there to teach, to lead, to protect, and to set an example. It doesn't matter that standards were unfairly NOT applied to others. In this case he received fair application of the standard and was fairly dismissed. Not simply because he made a mistake in itself, but because of the position he occupied when he made it. At least that is the way I view this. The fact that others got off without a penalty is regrettable but that doesn't change the situation for this boy. Lesson learned, as hard as it may seem for him and others. Time to commit that to memory and avoid that path in the future which, I note, remains completely open and available to him in other aspects of life. He didn't meet the legal system, be thankful for that.

Yep, I was under the misimpression that this happened during a troop camp experience, not as part of the staff at camp. I'm willing to accept the nature of the unwise choice. I'm willing to accept the 'first time' claim. It makes no difference under these circumstances. The other boy should have received the same treatment. Both should have been fired. And anyone else that was involved as well. Maybe even report the crime to the local authorities and let the chips fall. Sorry, this was a really bad mistake in a position of leadership and authority...and that makes a big difference. We might not apply it to the Presidency but it does apply to us mortals, and it should. If not everyone who was involved paid the price all I can say is that's regrettable. They should have paid as well. Edited part: Gern, I agree, it's time to sweep out the barn.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

We're getting close to some adverse personal interactions here so I'll inject a request for calm thinking. Beavah has, I think, misinterpreted some of Rikki12's thoughts and Rikki12, I think, may be upping the ante, so-to-speak, in response to Beavah. This is puzzling because I think they share some common ground. Beavah, I think, has sincere interest in the well-being of the boys, all of them. Rikki12 obviously feels the same. The difference is in their response to the actions of BSA. So I suggest that we start with the well-being of the boys where there is common ground and then revisit the actions of BSA, maybe lowering the tone a bit. Any interest?