pchadbo

Medicrines, it is about Medicrines. A loon full of sugar helps the Medicrine go down. . .

SP, I hear what you are saying and if you are able to do things the "BSA way" in matters of leader recruiting, can you please come about 3000 miles East and show us how to do it. Yes, in a perfect world, and sometimes in a lucky few cases, your tactics work. I think we all agree that this is the BEST method for recuiting new leaders. It is not however the ONLY method and desperate times call for desperate measures. I was CC for a Pack of 50 boys and had personally asked the partents of 42 boys to help with specific items, exactly as I was supposed to, only to be told they were too busy, worked late, had a cold, ran out of round-to-its or whatever they said. Only when I pointed out that 8 out of 50 parents were helping and events A, B & C would be cancelled did I get any response. I appreciate what you are saying but sometimes, realty bites your behind and you gotta do what you gotta do.

"Last night the pack trainer said "we should get back to giving all the boys a ribbon for PWD" I gave her my "REALLY" face !" What is wrong with each boy getting his 2014 PWD ribbon? It is no different than the Boy Scouts who go to a camporee and get the patch. Hey I did that. Then you give the winners awards based on performance. . .

I would like less of a focus on the "management skills" and more of a focus on the aims and methods of Scouting. Lets teach those who were not AScouts as youth (myself included) why the partol method works, why adults don't need to hover, why uniforms can be a good thing. Also teach the adults to stay out of the program area. ;-)

I have to say, having a discussion last week with our new Council Exec, Don Shepard, who was the national Program director until October 2013, this is an exciting change and if run correctly will eliminate a huge portion of the "disappearing Webelos" at crossover time. The original 2 year pilots had Webelos retention rates over 90% DISRTICT WIDE. Looks like we have some work to do but huge benefits for the boys to come.

So we are bashing the ROTC folks? How many of those ROTC units are Explorer posts. They may be the ignored, never mentioned ugly step child of the BSA but Explorers are still considered "Scouts"

"Although fire is involved this is not a youth and fire starting situation, this is adult using a flammable chemical for a ceremony" "The use of liquid fuels for starting any type of fire is prohibited.†Not sure where the confusion lies; "any type of fire" doesn't leave much wiggle room. Is it a fire? Then don't use liquid fuel. Pretty clear to me. But everyone has an opinion. . .

This is the type of post that makes me feel really lucky. Here in Daniel Webster Council (NH), we have Camp Carpenter that operates 7 weeks of camp for Cub Scouts per year. Any Registered Cub Scout can go Sunday through Thursday either with his Pack or as a Provisional Scout who gets rolled into another Pack for the week. www.nhscouting.org/camping I know it is a long haul but it is out there.

There are two ways to handle this: one do what you have done as the "last day to sign up" isn't really the last day to sign up and you scramble to accomodate, or actually let some Scouts miss an event or two and teach them the responsibility to get things done on time.

Hey Moose! Have you talked with your Disctrict Commissioner to see if he has nay insight, I know the District Membership Chair would help if you think it would help. The DE is willing to help you with this situation. As far as the troop dying; definitely speak to the IH (or ahve someone do it) the SM does not have the right to kill a troop.

It was a combination, between life, the forums not working quite right and working my ticket, this dropped to the wayside, on the way back though

Just saying "hi" to those who are still here and to the friends I have not yet met!

Fred8033, Not to be mean or righteous, but you may want to re-read my post for a better comprehension, I said the conversation would not be much different: both awkward, both sensitive, both potentially hurtful if not done right. As far as: "Similarly, if we don't let non-married male/female adults share tents, why would we let two non-straight adult men share tents? It's the same thing." sounds like my response: "Are both parties agreeable. . . ok. Are they a "couple"? Treat 'em as unmarried couple that they are, no tenting together "Two gay male adults to share a tent?" see above, if they are married, do as you would with a married hetero couple." Beyond that, thatnk you all for your well-reasoned and thoughful posts (especially MomToEli) to help me see the other side.

MomToEli, I appreciate your honesty and candor and truly respect and, quite frankly, agree with most of your positions, however, we are dealing with two seperate questions that I did not make quite clear enough. You have addressed the second: what would you do with a gay person in your Unit. The question I am asking though is not the hypothetical "if you had a gay leader. . ." question it is why would you leave simply because BSA National no longer bans all gays? I understand and respect your answers and this could begin to be a serious YP issue, but that is a bridge for another day. So I restate: why would you leave simply because BSA National no longer bans all gays?

Beavah, Thank you for your well thought out and presented ideas, I truly appreciate them and am educated by them. This was what my sometimes dense skull would not wrap around. I understand the point about us adult being the role models for the youth, but that does not change from what we have today, several threads have been dedicated to inappropriate PDA of the male/female type and would apply equally to male/male or female/female, the Scout event isn't the place for games of tonsil hockey, regardless of the gender(s) involved. "It's not appropriate for a boy and girl (presumed to be straight) to be in da same tent, or for an unmarried man and woman to share a tent. Is it appropriate for a gay boy to share a tent with another boy?" Are both parties agreeable. . . ok. Are they a "couple"? Treat 'em as unmarried couple that they are, no tenting together "Two gay male adults to share a tent?" see above, if they are married, do as you would with a married hetero couple. "If a straight boy doesn't want to share a tent with a gay boy, is that a disciplinary matter for not treatin' a fellow scout equally?" Yeah, would not want to be the Scoutmaster for that conversation but I wouldn't think it would be much different that the boy who does not want to tent with Johnny because he has bad body odor. I also get the point of the sheltering environment of Scouting but we parents can also use those situations as teachable moments for the young 'uns.

Moose, qwazse, and BD, Thank you for you responses but I am looking for enlightenment from "the other side" as to why they will be running and screaming away from BSA due to a piece of paper in Texas. not to call people out, but I am looking for responses from those like: ASM59, airborneveteran, Jeffrey H and raisinemright why would you leave? What has so catastrophically changed by a piece of paper that still allows you to run your unit EXACTLY THE SAME WAY??

Several posts on here have mentioned that if (when) national lifts the ban on openly gay individuals being Scouts and Scouters, they and/or their unit/Chartered Org will be leaving BSA. This action confuses me to no end. The changes made on a piece of paper in Irving Tx will have little to no impact on the program that I run here in New Hampshire. I feel that inclusiveness, especially when coupled with local choice is the best possible option for the National organization. My confusion lies in three basic questions: 1. How does this in any way affect the program and unit that you currently have? 2. How does having gay Scouts or Leaders at camp change anything regarding Youth Protection or the issues currently faced with the mixture of male and females at Scout functions? 2. Are you really homophobic enough to take your son out of the wonderful program that is Scouting because there MAY be a gay Scout or Scouter in the Troop three towns over? (and just to let you know, they are already there)

[fingers crossed] I hope this passes, I have 2 people in mind for postions in the Scouting Community that have told me if they lift that gay ban thing. . . one is a former DE that I think would be great for our District Commisioner poition that is open. . . Please, please, please

"Sorry, as far as I am concerned disagreeing is not disrespecting.. Banning someone you disagree with IS disrespeciting. My child grew up around many people I disagreed with. I don't ban them. If their viewpoint or lifestyle come into conflict with my idea of values, then it is just a teachable moment to have a heart to heart discussion with my son. Start respecting those who are homosexual. Start respecting those who are atheists. After all it does not mitigate the respect they should get even if you think they are "wrong".. " Moose, Respecting someone's point of view does not that they need to be admitted into the club. I respect people who have beliefs different than mine, I regularly look to be educated by my Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, Jehova's Witness (et al) friends. But that does not mean that without adjusting their beliefs they are welcome to join a Methodist Church. BSA is a private (mostly) organization that has rules and standards for admission, just because they do, does not make them wrong, it makes them a private club with rules to join. Argue that the rules need to be changed (I think they do), argue that BSA should be more inclusive (probably should) but do not confuse the fact that they are upholding their standards with disrespect. I think it is disrespectful for individuals to cry foul when an organization upholds its admission standards and the individuals concerned are surprised that they did it. ---someday I will learn to type---(This message has been edited by pchadbo)

"They're the ones who need the "We are better then you" supiority comparisons in order to claim they are they "chosen ones".. It may be homosexuals or it may be thinking their religious members are the only one blessed to access heaven, while all other people (whether of no religion, or of a different faith then theirs) are doomed to rot in hell" Moose, Moose, Moose, Those of us who believe in God, and choose to live our lives (the best we can) according to his commandments, do not believe ourselves "superior" or "chosen", we just belive that morals are a black and white issue and are not a relative thing. Right is right and wrong is wrong. While there has been movement and rethinking by a large group in this area, that does not mean that wrong is right and right is wrong. Now, that being said, there are nutjobs in every group. "Best thing to ask a bible thumper Moosetracker: Have you ever sinned? Its fun to watch em dodge the question." No dodging here, I, like all but one man who walked the earth about 2000 years ago, have sinned.

"Da Constitution only empowers the federal government to call up the state militia / national guard in time of war or national emergency" Beavah, respectfully, the US Supreme court disagrees with you. In Perpich v DOD they held: "Article I's plain language, read as a whole, establishes that Congress may authorize members of the National Guard of the United States to be ordered to active federal duty for purposes of training outside the United States without either the consent of a state governor or the declaration of a national emergency." So they ARE a federal force, not a state force. "How about the death penalty for both the user and owner of any firearm used in a crime? That would act as an incentive for "responsible" gun owners to properly secure their weapons." Great, punish both the criminals and the victims of crime! Lets go back to stoning rape victims for not successfully defending their honor too. It must be the victim's fault right? I am not opposed to beefing up that background checks to ensure that those who should not have access to firearms do not have it, I am also in favor of enforcing the laws on the books, but feel-good measures that are based on the looks not the functionality of weapons are not is what is called for. We as a society need to work together to find an intelligent well reasoned plan that protects the public and the Constiutional Rights of everyone.

"And for da record, da National Guard is not federal" Beavah, you may want to check again, when someone joins the National guard, they are enlisting in BOTH the state National guard and the National Guard of the United Staes. so they are simultaneously a state and federal soldier. So yes, the national Guard is a federal force, a matter that the Supreme Court has affirmed several times.

"Da first amendment also doesn't contain da qualifiers about well-regulated militia, which yeh seem to ignore. It's fine to make an argument that da amendment should be treated more broadly, or that we should have a new amendment to protect da right to keep and bear arms more broadly than the 2nd Amendment currently does. But let's not make up nonsense." First, I am not making up nonsense, and having read quite a bit about and by our Founding Fathers, I like to think I am fairly well educated on the subject. Second, I am not ignoring the clause "a well-regulated Miliitia being neccessary for the protection of a free state," it is just that in the context of the times and currently, in this debate it is an irrelevant point. According to 10 USC 311 the militia is defined as: "(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." Since this was originally adopted in 1791 and updated as recently as 2012, and since I meet these criteria, I am a member of the "militia" therefore, my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I don't see where it is up for interpretation. The national guard is not our Milita, it is a Federal force, the Militia is us "folks" I will also concede the point about the differences between the clauses as I am not familiar with the etymological evolution of the word "infringed" ---must learn to type---(This message has been edited by pchadbo)

"Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" seems to me to mean just about the same thing. I would argue that "shall not be infringed" goes further than "Congress shall make no law". one states that Congress can make no law, other rules and restrictions may be placed by others than congress, the other states that it cannot be infringed, by anyone.

Do you consider the right to own a fire arm as important as the right to vote or the right to free speech? Yes I do, then again I value my right to a free press, my right to assemble peacfully and my right to uwarranted searches and seizures, and the others enumerated in the Constitution equally. Second.... people keep saying a restruction is unconstitutional. If the majority of the population thought it needed changing couldn't you just change the constitution? Apologies if that seems a simplistic question. Yes if the a congress were to propose a Constitutional amendment and it was ratified by 2/3 of the states then, yes the Constitution could be amended Finally. Folks talk about freedom from tyranny. Does anyone in the USA actually fear that the federal government would ever become tyranical? Really? You honestly think one day you mght become an Orwellian nightmare? We're talking about a country that is the ultimate democracy. From what I can see you vote on pretty much everything from The President through to your local Fire Chief. That is the culture you live in, or it is the one that I see as an outsider. Maybe the reality is different. So do you really fear government power? Simply put, yes I fear Government power, I do not wish for my government to to cortol my actions if they do not infringe upon the rights of others. I recognize the need for protections from my fellow citizens that may not be "all there" but that does not mean that I am willing to trade my freedom for security. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, edited cuz I still can't type I did leave out the point that Hitler was elected. (This message has been edited by pchadbo)