Proud Eagle

Most likely nothing bad would happen at all. Though there is a risk someone gets hurt and you are left open to liability for paying the kids medical bills or something. Another possibility is that council could get a bit cranky if they find out. What exactly the council could do, I don't really know, other than pulling your charter, which they probably wouldn't do. There is also the possibility that other leaders and parents may question the leadership of the troop for engaging in a banned activity. Now by asking this, you open up the option of all of us debating the issue of laser tag being banned. I think most people here remember my position on this matter. Since you have determined that laser tag is banned, you should not support the activity. You should make others aware that the activity is banned, and encourage cancelation of the activity.

I am by no means an expert on sailing or sailboats. However, I did once spend a week sailing on a lake. The biggest question I have is do you want to be able to sleep on the boat? Also, do you want to be able to do cooking, cleaning, and other such things aboard the boat? I am sure you can see how much of a difference it makes to know a bit more about what you intend. Another question, how much clearence is there for this bridge you mention? From the little I know about various types of sail boats, if you want something that can take 6 people for 2 nights, have room for personal gear, food, cooking, cleaning, and possibly a marine head (depending on your choice and local regulations), be able to be trailered, and have a lowereable mast that can be raised and lowered while under way, you are in a real bind. I know of no boat that has all of those features. (particularly the mast part) Though just based on size I would say it would probably take a 27' or larger boat to have the size needed. (I sailed on a 27' that had berths for 5, and room in the floor for a 6th.) If there are people that do sail on this lake you mentioned, find one of them and ask about their boat. I am sure they would be happy to give you the basics. Now if all you are looking for is something for day sailing, I think you will find many options. There are many open boats that might work, and some of the smaller boats with cabins could also do the trick. Though I still think the mast will be an issue.

I don't have the text of the flag code at hand at the moment so I am speaking based on memory. I seem to recall that images of the flag, and flag like patterns that are not actually flags, are not treated the same way as an actual flag. Now this is somewhat of a nuanced argument. Is a T-shirt with the complete flag printed on it a shirt that contains a flag or a shirt with an image of the flag on it? I think the flag code would indicate it is just an image of the flag rather than the flag itself. I seem to remeber there was a similar discussion relating to the flag patches on the uniform and weather or not those are flags or representations of the flag. I don't remember wha the outcome of that argument was. Now I didn't see the half time show so I can't personally make a judgement about the issue. However, if he was wearing a complete flag, or something made out of a flag, then it would clearly violate the flag code.

Use the council in the ways it can be used, but don't have them do anything that could be better accomplished by someone else. Let me provide some examples of problems created by having the council do more than it needs to. Our OA Lodge decided to create a preregistration system for events. The idea was we could then purchase supplies with a better idea of quantity and at a reduced price by buying in bulk further in advance. This would also allow fine tuning program plans. We decided reducing the fee by $5 for early registration and requiring it by in to the council at least two weeks before the event. This all sounded very good. However there turned out to be some problems. The council frequently failed to compile the information on who had preregistered in time for us to have a copy of the list at the event. Then there was the problem of people who attempted to preregister within two weeks of the event. Council would frequently take it even if it contained only the early fee. Sometimes it would be several weeks after an event before the issue of who had actually paid in advance was sorted out. Then there was the money problem. The lodge is not allowed to keep the amount of cash on hand to pay all the expenses of an event. The lodge is also not allowed to have a seperate account that could be accessed by the lodge leadership. Instead all money is deposited directly into the council account that no one in the lodge has the ability to access. So it was thought that a logical way to handle this would be to ask council for a cash advance to purchase food and what not. However council said that was impossible because they only write checks twice a month and could not provide funds until the preregistration information had been compiled and a request for funds based on that information approved. Obviously that meant it was impossible to get a cash advance. So the entire preregistration system had been defeated. That left the lodge with only a few options. For a while we did what the council wanted. We simply purchased everything from places that had an agreement with the council for a tab, or that would allow us to buy now and pay later. That worked until angry requests from grocery stores, patch companies, etc started coming in. What we found out was the council was never in a hurry to get the money to anyone. Then we found other suppliers that had never been paid in full by the council for expenses related to other events and therefore would not even do business with the lodge even if we could pay in advance. There is even a case of one Scouter who personally paid for needed supplies, had his request to be reimburst approved, and has been patiently waiting (and reminding) the council for at least 3 years. Last I knew he had finally given up on it after coming home from a deployment to Bosnia. That left the Lodge with one remaining option to pay for event expenses. We would simply have to use walk on cash payments to meet critical expenses such as food and work out anything else later. That usually worked, though the trading post sometimes had to be raided for extra cash because too many people paid with checks. So, everything was under control until the council came up with yet another brilliant new accounting plan. The new plan was that walk on fees would have to be collected by the Staff Advisor and deposited. The concept was based on the theory that the money was being paid to the council, and so it had to go through normal council accounting procedures, meaning none of it could be spent until after being collected and then expenditures being approved. That simply was not going to work. At one event things were so bad that a scheme was cooked up to keep the Staff Advisor busy and away from registration until after the money had been spent. In that way he had at least a small bit of an excuse when he was asked why he came back with less money than what was collected. If you are wondering why we simply didn't change the way we did registration that was because we had already had the years registration procedures and fees approved and had published them. Therefore we were not allowed to change that year. In the intervening time the Lodge Advisor worked out a slightly better arangement with council. (Rumor has it that someone may be fronting the money for things and then being paid by council, a risky thing as previously noted.) This year the Lodge has also changed its registration procedures in hopes of avoiding much of the problem. Only time shall tell. On a side note, if anyone thinks this only happens in a very bad council, think again. The council has been a quality council for many years running.

It doesn't really matter if it is a science class or a comparitive cultures class. The teachers are still agents of the government. They are both limited by the exact same constitutional provisions. Therefore if it is legal for one to do it is legal for the other to do. (Though state and local law on curriculum requirments might change that from place to place. I am focusing on the federal constitutional argument.) There is nothing false about teaching that some people believe that something happened according to such and such theory. If teaching what some groups of people believe was illegal comparitive religions classes would be illegal. Most philosophy, culture, and history classes would also be illegal. There is nothing in the federal constitution that prevents a math teacher from spending class time on geography. Similarly there is nothing that prevents the science teacher from talking about creationist views within the proper context of being what some people believe. Teaching it in place of evolution might be illegal. Teaching it as being backed by the same scientific evidence as evolution might be illegal. Teaching it as an alternitive quasi-scientific belief held by certain people would be perfectly legal. Now if the science teacher were to teach that all faithful Christians or Jews or Muslims believe creationism that would be a illegal. There is very carefully made distinction between teaching some belief, theory, or viewpoint as truth and teaching it as one alternative within a comparitive context. The fact that creationism is so commonly held in place of evolution would perhaps be a good reason to compare and contrast the arguments for each. Otherwise those students not exposed to the debate could easily be convinced later that they were taught lies when they are presented with evidence for some alternative view. In fact I have known a couple of people that have in fact been convinced that the entire goverment is trying to destroy religion because of the way evolution and the big bang are sometimes taught. I personally think that is a bit of a stretch, but then again I don't really have complete faith in the goverment either (though not for those reasons). If you can make a reasonable argument that teaching creationism in the form of an alternative belief that some people hold I will listen. However, I think you will have a hard time doing so. Certainly there are a wealth of court cases on the issue, but most are relating to cases where creationism was taught as truth, as the leading scientific theory, as simply what the Bible says about creation, or given equal time without regard to the volume of evidence for each. I suspect a case cannot be found where creationism was ruled illegal when it was taught within what I would define as an appropriate context. (That context, I think, may be found by examing the various posts on this subject that I have made.) However, even if a court case is found on the issue that does not prove that creation is illegal. It would certainly lend strength and support to the argument, but it is not proof.

My home council is putting on Wood Badge again this year. Just about everyone I know, particularly through the lodge, is pushing the coarse in one way or another, either to me personally, or in general. Everyone I know who has been through the course (various previous versions) seems to have enjoyed it and gained valuable things from it. For those reasons I have been warming to the idea of going through Wood Badge soon, perhaps this fall. There are currently several issues that make me wonder if I am rushing things or if it is just a bad time to take the course. 1. From where I go to school it is a 2.5 hour drive to one camp and a 4 hour drive to the other in my home council. (They do a weekend at each) 2. To take it would mean missing at least one day of classes. 3. I would need to track down the other basic training courses somewhere between now and then. 4. My current Scouting involvement is limited to being registered as an ASM in a troop 2 hours from where I spend most of my time and as a member of the Lodge in my home council. (Currently a committee chair) 5. I am concerned about the ticket issue, particularly because of #4. I have known other people that were in college and managed to complete wood badge and their tickets, so I know it is at least possible. What I am wondering is it a good idea to set attending wood badge as goal for the near term? Would it be possible to complete the various requirements despite only having limited involvement with the program at this time? I suppose I could find some way to participate in Scouting in the local area, there are multiple districts within the metro area here. Should I wait until the council in this area holds a course? (There is not currently one scheduled on the council's calendar.) Any advice on this matter would be appreciated. p.s. Has anyone else noticed that formated posts turn into blocks of continuous text even if you try to divide them into paragraphs with line spaces before formatting?

Evolution on the micro scale can be proven quite easily. However, on the macro scale it has not, and likely can not be proven. So while we can prove that there are changes within a species from one generation to another, we can not prove that humans evolved from some single celled thing in the primordial ooze. Teaching creationism is also not necessarily illegal. Teaching it as absolute fact quite likely would be illegal. Also, teaching it as the leading scientific theory would perhaps be illegal. It would certainly be illegal to teach it as the only acceptable religous view on the origin of the universe and/or the origins of life. However creationism can very easily be taught in the form of, "and then there are some people that believe that this is how life originated" followed by a lengthy teaching about what those people believe, why they believe it, and what evidence there is to back up the belief. That might not be a very good way to teach science, but it wouldn't be illegal.

I have to agree with others that are saying there is no one right answer. If you are going to be making stew you would want the dutch oven (if you buy from Lodge Cast Iron they list the sort you want as a Camp Oven, it has legs and a brim on the lid to hold coals) I would think. If you are making pancakes or other pan fried type things the griddle would work. Another option would bee a somewhat portable gass grill, though that has only limited uses. I would suggest doing a survey of what you have and what the den parents have that could be used. You may discover that between the lot of you there is enough equipment without buying anything else. Rember something doesn't have to be made for camping to be used while camping. Gas and charcoal grills are a prime example. Another possibility is to get a small grate to use for cooking over an open fire. It all depends on what you are cooking, how much time you have to cook it, and how much equipment you can carry in with you.

I have to second the motion about the stew and egg roles. (Or am I just in need of a snack?) Seriously, I do have one question. Do Venturers do Scouting? I don't mean Boy Scouting in the sense of what a Troop program is, but in a slightly more generic, but not all inclusive of any activity someone might want to call Scouting sort of way.

I really can't provide any hard facts about the LDS issue. However I did have a Mormon friend who got his Eagle a bit before I did. I also conducted OA elections with the LDS unit once or twice. The ages of those present for the election seemed to be about 13-17. I also know of several others who got Eagle through that troop that were well over 14. It is possible the local LDS church decided to change things a bit to fit their number of youth and what not. I seem to rember the troop had less than a dozen youth members in total. Now the fact that Sea Scouts and Explorers were able to earn Boy Scout advancements from the beggining is something I didn't know. I would certainly be interested in learning more about why that was done, and why it remained a part of those programs through the years. As to meltona's post, there are females in OA. All of them are adult members over the age of 21. Now if you think female youth members would be a disaster that would be a somewhat more reasonable argument. I can certainly see how it would make planning chapter, lodge, section, region, and national events more difficult than it is now.

This is probably go to offend someone, but from my perspective that is more their problem than mine. If you want evolution thrown out of science class you are nuts. If you want a lengthy teaching about the Judeao-Christian creation story and the possibility that it happened exactly as the Bible says, along with all the evidence against evolution, in a science class, you are also a nut. Evolution (and the big bang as well) should be taught in the context of a proper understanding of the scientific method and the difference between scientific law and scientific theory. It would be appropriate to also mention when teaching these subjects that some people support the idea/theory that an intelligent higher power designed/created the universe and life. It would only take a single sentence, or a paragraph at most, to satisfy me. It would not be inappropriate for a text to touch on the reasons evolution and big bang are theories, but if the students understand the scientific method and what theories are, they should be able to figure that out on their own.

This isn't really the response you are looking for, since it has nothing to do with the current coarse, though it is vaguely related to tickets. It seems to me that some people are reluctant to take woodbadge because of things they have heard about the tickets. I know I have heard at least a couple people say they didn't have time for a ticket, even though they didn't really know what one was. (In fact I really don't think I have it quite figured out even though I talked with my dad about it and several other woodbadgers I know.) I know it is a personal concern of mine since I am next to inactive while I am away at college.

Actually I have frequently heard Limbaugh, Hannity, and others, blaming FDR. While the politics of the day are always going to take up far more time on the air, you will from time to time hear this mentioned when a larger discussion of the reasons for our government being the way it is comes up. Something that is important to note about the troop plans. The military is historically known for planning for the widest range of possibilities. Remember, the military won't make the decision to stay or go. All they are doing is preparing for the possibility that those with political power will tell them to stay. They are probably also working up plans to pull out if the new Iraqi government decides it doesn't want US troops. Another important thing to consider is that the plans call for gradually decreasing the number of troops deployed. I remeber hearing that by the end of this year it may drop below 100,000 if everything goes well. Further, we should remember that it will take much longer to fully establish a new Army, Air Force, border patrol, and other necessary tools for national security than it does to establish a police force. The presence of US troops will keep other outside nations from interfering in Iraq in such a way as to undo what we have done. Finally, keep in mind that if we pull out before the job is done then we will not only have given up on achieving any good, but will quite likely cause the situation to become worse than it was. While the Iraqi people must remake their country in the long term, it will do no one any good to throw the place into caos by pulling out before some other system is in place.

I think there have been some very good points brought up during this thread. The fact that logic and philosophy are critical subjects for really understanding much of anything is one. Adding some of these coarses into the middle or high school teachings seems like it would be a good idea. Another point that should be taken is that there are people on both sides who take things to extremes. The evolutionists say that the creationists want to turn science into theology. The creationists say the evolutionists want to use science to reject theology. Both are being panicky. There certainly are schools that teach Dwarwanism, Dwarwinian evolution, or just evolution as absolute unquestioned fact. There are other schools that don't teach them in quite such strong terms, but rather never bother to spell out the differences between scientific laws and theories to the point that anyone really knows the difference. Then there are more reasonable but still slightly off schools that teach evolution as theory only but never make mention of any alternative, leaving the impression that while we can't prove this is how it happened, that no one has any other ideas at all. Then there are reasonable places that distinguish Law from Theory and teach evolution, or even Dwarwanism, as theory, and then mention that some people believe in creationism or intelligent design. That approach seems the most reasonable to me. It doesn't require an explanation of intelligent design. It doesn't overstate evolution, nor does it prevent evolution from being taught in a complete manner. It simply provides the truth. Now on the flip side other places demand equal time, or complete discriptions of creationism and all its workings, or simply deny any teachings of evolution at all. It is clear to me what the best approach is.

I am actually most of a week late in posting this, but I figured it might still be worth while. The events I am about to describe are real and happened last Saturday. They involved my home troop and its members and leaders. It is possible I may incorrectly portray some portion of what happened and some of the characteristics of the People involved. I showed up at the church's Fellowship Hall at 2:00 pm for the start of the 2004 planning meeting. When I arrived I quickly sized up the situation. The Committee Chairman was present and was obviously the key adult on site. Most of the youth were also present. They had divided themselves by sitting around two large tables. The "old" guys (mostly 15/16 year old Star and Life Scouts) and the "new" guys who had only moved in from Cubs just before the annual fund raiser began. (We sell Christmas trees so there really is no program from Thanksgiving until after new years. The flip side is we don't have to do any other fund raising.) There were also several parents sitting around looking like they were torn between wanting to stay and "help" and run for the door as soon as they could. (These were mostly mothers of new scouts.) Soon the SPL arrived along with his older brother who is my age and probably an unregistered ASM. That set into motion the meeting. The CC explained to the parents what would be going on and without their ever knowing he had done so suggested they should leave and come back later. The CC then spoke briefly with the SPL to make certain he knew what was going on and then turned it over to him. It was at this point that things headed down hill. The SPL decided we would completely skip the opening since the flags were down the hill at the Youth House. Then came the first big sign of trouble when the SPL asked the Scouts, "so, where do you all want to go this year?" He then proceeded for a few moments along that coarse until it was suggested that perhaps a review of the previous year would be in order before we started on the next year. The review that followed was a total and complete waste of time during which the SPL proved he neither knew how to conduct the most basic analysis of past events or thought that doing so would be of any use. However I bit my tongue and let the boys continue running the meeting. I will skip ahead a bit and spare you many of the other painful and disappointing details of what followed. About mid way through the meeting it was decided that it would be a good time to split the boys into patrols for the first time since the new scouts had joined. I had discussed the idea with the SM before and he was leaning towards mixed patrols of the sort that were used when he was in Scouts. I had tried to gently suggest that there might be better ways, such as the current BSA model, but I guess I was far too gentle. So the new patrol groupings were unveiled. Each patrol was roughly half new and half old scouts. Then it was decided that we would use a highly... scientific... method of selecting PLs, APLs, and just for kicks, AAPLs. This was done by drawing the names of the older scouts out of a hat. Now I must also sum up the planning process that transpired. It essentially consisted of the SPL dictating what the troop would be doing for the year. Any question about the wisdom of his plan was quickly overridden with a something like, "tough, that is what the rest of the troop wants" when in truth everyone else had given up on the entire process and was just letting the JLTC "trained" SPL carry on with his crusade to fill the calendar with Merit Badges and other activities that would be of personal benefit to him. The only time he listened to anyone was when he didn't "know" the answer or when the CC, SM, or I just couldn't take it any more and spoke up. Even then he couldn't look past what we spelled out and see what we were implying and hinting at. In conclusion it was one of the most disappointing and frustrating things I have ever been through. It was certainly the worst troop planning meeting I have ever seen. It was also the worst example of someone misusing the command (or in this case little dictator) style of leadership I have ever seen. It was the worst meeting I have ever attended save only the SR6N Council of Chiefs meeting I attended that was chaired by Clay Capp. (Though that wasn't entirely Clay's fault, most of it was.) ----------------------- So if anyone is wondering where the forum success comes in it is in the following ways. The forums have, both directly through what I have learned here, and through what they have caused me to seek out, greatly increased my understanding of the way the Boy Scout program should work. It was for this reason that I was able to so clearly see the train reck that was taking place. The forums also allowed me to be able to guess at what the likely outcome of this will be. (Old guys don't like the program or structure and start drifting away. New guys drop out because they don't like the SPL, and the program isn't designed for them.) The strenght of the "boy led" message on these forums also caused me to bite my lip when in times past I might very well have jumped in and taken charge in order to correct the problems I was seeing. That would have made me no less of a little dictator than the SPL (though I would have done it in a way that left far fewer hurt feelings, with the exception of the SPL's). I wish I was closer to home to help try and set things right with the troop. However, all the wishing in the world won't change anything. So I take solace in the fact that I won't be close enough to things to get hit by the shrapnel when this thing does fly apart.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

I don't think you have to worry about the USA ever attacking the Republic of China (ROC) unless it is to drive out an invasion by the Peoples' Liberation Army. (as a side note the naming of Communist forces as a liberation army is one of the most oximoronic things I have ever heard) The only other possibility is if the ROC becomes a part of the PRC and the US and PRC go at it over something. OK, now that I got that out of the way... The professor mentioned in the joke at the start of this thread is a person I would hold in contempt as a professional and an academic. I would hold him in pitty as a human being. It is particularly saddening that he seems to have set himself on the path towards permanent seperation from God. The marine I also pitty. He did acted, likely driven by passion, in what he probably thought were the bests interests of the prof or according to the Will of God. On the other hand it is a remote possibility that the Marine actually was commanded by God to strike the guy. It is also possible that after having prayed and searched his soul for ten minutes he determined to the best of his ability that God would want him to do that. In that case what he did was still against the laws of man, but I would be hard pressed to say with any certainty that it was against the law of God. The BSA does exclude, from time to time, other people due to actions, beliefs, and what not. If someone was an avowed whatever practicioner of beastiality that would probably do it. An avowed adulterer would probably not work in most cases. (That brings up an interesting and important question: if someone is an avowed homosexual, and then later determines that either they were never a homosexual, or that they are no longer a homosexual, could they then join the BSA? I would guess the answer would be yes, the same way an athiest can find faith and then join.) Oh, and hear is one primarily for NJ: the BSA officially supports traditional family values. That normally includes the traditional idea of the family unit. Therefore BSA has a secular argument for excluding homosexuals in the idea that the traditional family is the optimal family unit. Also, while in scholars of constitutional law certainly study case law in modern times there is a significant portion of the population that holds that practice to be incorrect. (that is particularly so of places that teach case law as being THE law) There are many that believe the idea of case law is fundamentally flawed. The reason is quite simple, and not necessarily to be dismissed just because it is simple. Any middle school student should be able to tell you the the Congress alone is empowered to make the law. That would mean that "case law" is at the least inferior to the written law passed by congress (meaning precident would always take a back seat to the judge's own current interpratation of the law), and at the most that precident is a completely invalid concept. I must say I see throwing out the concept of precendents in the complete sense to be a bad idea. It would increase the number of appeals and bad rulings exponentially. However, I do think case law is often given far more power and prominence than it should be. Both the original intent of the law, and most importantly, the text of the law, should have far greater force than any case law. I am also of the opinion that the Judicial branch is the greatest weakness in the system of limited government and checks and balances. The power of the courts to interpret the law, and the constitution, is completely lacking in any check. There is no option for the Congress or the President to overturn rulings of the Court. Even a constitutional amendment intended to fix an incorrect ruling by the courts could be interpreted in such a way as to have no real force. There is also no way of removing judge's for making incorrect decisions. The courts have total authority to change the meaning of any law, including the Constitution, if they choose. The courts may also create law or abolish law on a whim. The invention of new rights within the Constitution, and the determination that at least two of the amendments don't really mean anything at all are clear examples. Other examples are the use of rulings by the courts of other nations as case law to overturn the laws of this nation, and several ruling declaring various government actions unconstitutional that do not in fact make reference to any portion of the Constitution itself.

Don't forget that some things can still be blamed on FDR. Big government, entitlement programs, the nanny state, and many of those other things that conservatives (and some libertarians) frequently object to are usually blamed directly or inderictly on FDR.

You mean the hot water heater is already being sold to the public? Yikes! That is a bad idea. Our council got one several months ago to test or something like that and we tried to use it at a Lodge event. The thing was totally and completely without any redeeming value as far as any of us could tell. It also had the disadvantage of requiring both propane and electricity to run. I would not encourage anyone to purchase one of those, assuming it is the same model.

Socks are about the one thing I am willing to completely ignore about the uniform. The cotton socks are no good for serious hiking/walking in boots, and aren't much use in extremely hot or very cold conditions. The ankle socks are totally useless. The knee socks look nice with sorts and help keep stuff off your legs but they are too tight on the calves and too thin on the foot. I have no experience with the BSA hiking socks. The stupid things came out after I had stocked up on good wool socks and poli liners. I thought about getting some of the BSA hiking socks just so I could stay uniformed when hiking, but I noticed the "wool" socks actually contain only a very tiny amount of wool according the last catalog I looked in. I don't expect I will be buying any of those anytime soon.

No one has to wear a Lodge flap at any time under any circumstances. It is an optional item. On the other hand ONLY active, dues paying members of a Lodge may wear its flap. No other person may wear the flap of a lodge, no matter what stupid and/or ignorant excuse they offer. Someone earlier stated they believed that OA was part of the Boy Scout program. That happens to actually be the truth. The same committees that oversee the Boy Scout program at the National, Regional, and Council levels also have authority over the Order of the Arrow. (These are usually the Camping or Boy Scout Committees, depending on local organisational structure.) For that reason it would make no sense to (and probably be organisationally impossible to) allow Packs or Crews to hold elections, even if some alternative form of eligibility could be created. OA is an outgrowth of the Boy Scout program and Boy Scout summer camp. It is now Scouting's National Honor Society. Hence why Scouts, not Venturers, are elected as candidates. If someone wants to create an honor society for Venturing they can feel free to do so. Now as to not wearing the flap on the Venturing uniform as some sort of protest, I think that is silly. If that attitude is correct then you should not allow any ranks, awards, and recognitions from other programs to be worn on the Venturing uniform. Why are Venturing Crews allowed to conduct Boy Scout advancement, but Boy Scout Troops are not allowed to give out Venturing awards, even to members of Venture patrols? Is there some supperiority about Venturing that makes it capable of properly carrying out its own program and that of another seperate program within the BSA? I always hate it when these sort of double standards pop up. Its like the way the courts say the parents aren't allowed to know about certain health decisions of their children and yet are still fully responsible for the child's health and safety. Its like trying to put matter and antimatter in the same place. Its just not a good idea.

I am interested in hearing more about opting out of Outdoor training that was mentioned. I have set as a loose goal completing basic training and woodbadge this year. However being away at school outside of the council makes finding training a bit challenging, so despite the fact I would rather do everything "by the book" that option may come in handy for me. I still sometimes wish I had done JLTC as a youth, but I really wish I had done NLS while Lodge Chief.

on the issue of weapons and space: It is my understanding that there are currently three catagories of weapons the USAF wishes to have the use space in a direct way. ICBMs would need to travel through space to the target after ground launch. The mid-coarse interceptor is designed to take down enemy ICBMs (actually the reintry vehicles deployed by them) while in space, though it is not yet fully operational. There is also a derivitave of the same kenetic energy kill system being developed to destroy hostile satalites in orbit, though it hasn't been tested to my knowledge. I really can't see how either of the two new weapons can seem that threatening. In general they are both defensive weapons. Also, the old space based missile shield idea hasn't totally died. There are at least a few related technologies still recieving research funding. Every so often someone will write a paper outlining the potential future capability of such a system. I would expect the US to eventually develope a broad range of weapons based on the ground that would use space as transit point to their targets on the surface. I also expect a broad range of ground based weapons designed to be used against targets in space. Further I would expect deployment of space based weapons systems in the long term to ensure that other nations do not achieve military dominance of space. Space is the ultimate high ground. It must never be ceded to the potential enemies of America. Oh, and about those Ph.D. people... I would guess that is spot on. Most of the language in that thing is purely fluff. I can't imagine any of the people I know in the various services writing anything like that. It certainly doesn't fit the Army writing style as it was outlined to me, though maybe the Air Force does things differently.

Wulelensin Woapalanne is the name I was given with the Vigil Honor. It translates to Proud Eagle. I currently hold my lodge's copy of "A Lenape-English Dictionary". If anyone is in need of assistance with small scale translations I would be glad to assist. (assuming I read your message in 24hrs and have time to respond)

In my troop first names are the norm. In fact I really can't think of many people that I have met in Scouting that prefer formal forms of address (except in formal settings or when introduced to someone totally new). There was one leader that all of us used to address as Mr. (lastname), but I have since found that was started before my time as a way of joking about his age and that he did not care for it. (He is one of those sorts that got the wizened old gentelman look well before he was fifty, or perhaps even forty.) I did once make the mistake of addressing an ASM from another troop by his first name. I just assumed that since everyone I knew in Scouting preffered it that way he would too. I was quickly (but not rudely) corrected. His son (a friend of mine) is one of those sorts who can't help but address people as sir or mam. The entire family is respectful almost to a fault. I have always been addressed by those in my troop by first name and that will likely continue, though the new guys may take to Mr. The only times I have ever been addressed formally in Scouting were while I was Lodge Chief. The way I see it Scouting is a brotherhood. It makes sense to address the leaders of your own troop, or other adults you know well by first name within Scouting settings. On the other hand I would hope the Scouts in my troop would address the leaders of another troop or a camp as Mr. (lastname) until told otherwise.

More likely the administration would rather keep any messy political or diplomatic problems from coming out of the ICC- such as US military personel being prosecuted for something based on charges made by some 3rd world nation that uses genocide as a normal tool for law enforcement and internal security. As an intersting note of something like that, for a time the commander of the US Joint Special Operations Task Force had warrants for his arrest issued by Italy and Egypt as a result of his actions in trying to arrest a group of terrorists. An Italian Lt. General attempted to detain him but the presences of a significant number of SEALs and part of the headquarters for the JSOTF at the time made that impossible once the general decided he was leaving.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)