Beavah

Yah, ScoutNut, as with most things, I reckon da reality is more varied and subtle than that, eh? I don't know any Catholic parishes or schools that simply allow access to any organization that parish youth participate in. They all approve organizations that they feel are a good match for their mission (although a few do rent their facilities for a fee, even then they seem to be selective). Da parishes that run schools tend to have Cub Scout packs and GSUSA units that are pretty tightly tied to their school, eh? Da parent volunteers for each tend to be traditional Catholic parents. They're not goin' to have a problem makin' a switch from GSUSA to AHG (or CYO if da Catholics just want to do their own thing). Da real reason there's no push for a switch is that by and large GSUSA allows 'em effective local option. Da leadership is from the parish or the school, and reflects the Catholic perspective, and da membership is from the school and also reflects da membership norms/expectations for practicing Catholics (or those who are willin' to put up with practicing Catholics in exchange for a better education ). Right now anyways as close as I can tell this is an institutional issue at da level of da bishops, which is percolatin' down to some of the more conservative pastors and congregations. It isn't (yet) an issue for the average parent or congregant. OGE or that fellow with da funny P-name who are Catholics can probably say more. I'm just a furry outsider listenin' at da edge of da grapevine while supportin' some Catholic COs. Beavah

Yah, well... Catholic churches don't charter GSUSA units in da same way that they charter BSA units, but they do "host" Girl Scout units in their facilities, provide access and encouragement to Girl Scout units in their schools, and staff GSUSA units with Catholic parent volunteers. It also seems clear that at least some elements of da U.S. Catholic hierarchy are concerned about that "relationship" and willin' to consider backing away from it. 'Round these parts, I have noticed an increasin' skepticism of GSUSA among da Catholic institutional leaders that charter BSA units. AHG has come up occasionally as an alternative. A bit seems to depend on whether da local parish or pastor fits da ideologically conservative mold. I reckon it's enough of a concern to have national GSUSA leadership goin' out of their way to engage in "dialog" with da Catholic bishop's conference. I don't think it's anywhere near a tippin' point yet, though. Many of da Catholic folks I know are just as turned off by what they perceive as the overt Protestantism of da American Heritage Girls. Plus da fee structure of AHG makes entrance more of a hurdle. Beavah

Yah, shortridge, I reckon there's a difference between public governance and private association, eh? You are conflating the two inappropriately. In terms of public governance, of course our system encourages and protects freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble and petition da government. I'll even buy into da notion that in many ways we try to recreate a bit of that experience within scouting to help teach the kids about it. If we're honest, though, we also do a lot of stuff in Scoutin' that bears no resemblance to the representative democracy of da nation, includin' given citizens ranks. In terms of private association, things are different. Da ethic and norms of private association in a civil democratic society are to leave folks alone to do their own thing, not to lobby from without or within to get 'em to change. Fundamentalist Christians could, I suppose, sign up for membership in various LGBT organizations and then lobby from within for a change in policy to declare all LGBT activity sinful and direct da organization's resources to fighting LGBT influences in society. We would consider that obnoxious. Da BSA is in the second group, eh? In civil democratic society, if yeh don't agree with a group, yeh don't associate with that group but yeh let it be. Not a Sikh? That's fine. Go join a Presbyterian Church, but it's obnoxious to join da Sikh congregation and insist they become more Presbyterian. Interested in airplanes? That's fine, go join da local aviation club, but it's obnoxious to join da model railroad club and then insist they include airplanes. That's the issue here, eh? And it's fundamentally different from da issue of public governance. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, great. Just when us Beavahs were startin' to get some respect, one of our hillbilly cousins off and makes a fool out of himself by harassin' canoeists and mistaking a Scoutmaster for a tree. B

Yah, so FScouter, I'm curious. Do yeh really feel that an SE doesn't understand that da Neverending Insurance Myth is actually a myth? I've seen that with plenty of DE-level pros, because da business side of the operation is not (yet) a part of their training, and they tend to be young and inexperienced. Young and inexperienced folks will sometimes feel like they need to assert "authority", and da variations on the Insurance Myth usually come up because someone is tryin' to force a fellow scouter to comply with their authority when they're still a bit wet behind da ears and insecure. We see da same sort of thing workin' with new Patrol Leaders, eh? It takes a bit of time and mentoring before boys learn that collegiality and honesty are better forms of leadership. So if da SE actually told Second Class what he claims, then yep, there's a fair chance the SE was lying. Deliberately usin' a false or misleadin' statement in order to assert social superiority or primacy in an argument. Like one of packsaddle's monkeys. Sad to say, it does happen occasionally at that level. I reckon the most likely thing, though, is that Second Class doesn't know the difference between an SE and a DE, or that he just didn't really understand what the SE was sayin' in that particular context. Beavah

The boys that usually do it are the same ones and some of them go above and beyond, but don't get rewarded like they should. Really? Yeh mean your popcorn sales don't teach 'em to interact with strangers? They aren't havin' fun with their friends while learning from da adults? There isn't some great down-time? They don't get any personal satisfaction out of providin' a service to their pack and makin' their pack go? Sounds like yeh need to up the energy of your popcorn sales and emphasize da Cub Scout Promise a bit more! A fundraiser for a not-for-profit organization is not about financially rewarding the workers. It's about raising money for a charity. Your way of lookin' at it suggests that your intent is to commit fundraising fraud, which is probably a felony offense in your state. If your chartered organization is a not-for-profit, yeh are also proposing that your pack engage in tax evasion, as others have suggested. No fundraised or contributed monies to a not-for-profit can inure to the benefit of individual members. So I'd gently suggest that yeh start by re-adjusting the way yeh are thinking about things, and help folks in your pack to realize that they are not doin' this for themselves and their own reward. Yeh help make the pack go for da same reason yeh help at da church fundraiser or give to the local homeless shelter or volunteer to read for the kids in da children's hospital. Yeh do it out of kindness and service to the community. Cub Scouting is one of your favorite charities, and yeh give because yeh want Cub Scouting to succeed for all the boys. Then, after yeh get that message across to everybody, your troop committee should allocate funds accordin' to what is best for the pack as a whole. That's their job as "board of directors", eh? To do what's best for da pack, even if it isn't what's best for their family. We call that sort of thing honor and duty. Now, once yeh get in da proper mindset yeh might decide that teachin' kids about managing money is an educational goal of your chartered organization. That depends on bein' honest about your CO's mission. In that case, then it may be appropriate to set aside a small fraction of the proceeds to that purpose so that the boys get to manage some money and purchases themselves as an educational activity. Or, yeh might honestly decide that your chartered organization believes more in teaching about responsibility to each other and an obligation to charity. Most churches fall in da latter group, I reckon. In that case, perhaps yeh set aside the money first for the families in da pack that are most in need. You know... "I promise to do my duty ... to help other people." Beavah

For good or ill, that's not what the law is. Speakin' for da law are yeh now? That's interestin'. Unfortunately, da law speaks for itself and what I described is exactly what the law is in da majority of states. I think yeh similarly misinterpret or mischaracterize the nature of lawsuits related to this stuff. It's quite different from what yeh seem to believe it is. There's nothing wrong with trainin' the youth. I would encourage it, provided it is done well. I would discourage it, if it is done poorly. Most of da recent BSA stuff is pretty poor. Most importantly, I reckon it's vital to be honest with each other and ourselves, eh? There's no evidence to suggest that any of this stuff - YPT, reporting, training youth, etc. is at all effective at protecting youth, and only speculation that it might serve as a legal fig leaf. That's right. In all likelihood none of this stuff matters a lick. Your faith in "the rules" put together by a few folks in a NFP office is completely misplaced. It's like da folks who believe expelling 6 year olds for butter knives is somehow goin' to stop Dylan Klebold from shootin' up Columbine High. First do no harm. A culture of reportin' and expellin' folks for stuff that is trivial does great harm to relationships and communities, eh? That harm makes it easier for predators to slip in, not harder. Failin' to exercise common-sense judgment is da definition of negligence. Beavah

Yah, Second Class, your SE was wrong or was lying. It happens sometimes. Or, quite possibly, yeh didn't really understand what he was saying. Have your COR go ask da council business manager directly for da master contract on da first tier general liability policy. Or call National yourself. Or just ask any attorney or insurance agent in your jurisdiction. Gettin' good information by diggin' a bit is always a better choice than premeditated ignorance, eh? Beavah

If you don't like mandatory reporting requirements Beavah, fine. I don't mind mandatory reportin' requirements, actually. I firmly support them for suspicions of child abuse when those suspicions are held by professionals who have experience in such things (teachers, health care workers, etc.), so that the quality of their judgment is higher than average. I just have seen da enormous damage that can be done to kids and families and programs through unjust or unjustified reportin' by mindless amateurs. To me, it's not worth all that harm and resource expenditure just because yeh imagine that perhaps maybe it might be helpful in a wishful thinkin' sort of way at catching one low-probability perpetrator a bit earlier on. This thread, though, is about da Ineligible Volunteer Files. From what I'm seein' in a first cursory look through at what the media is reportin' and what has been released, I see a genuine good-faith effort by the BSA to protect kids usin' the resources at their disposal. An effort that was well ahead of its time and was more effective than what "authorities" and professional organizations were (or even are) doin'. Do yeh think that public schools were anywhere near as successful at preventin' molestation by coaches and teachers who jumped jurisdictional boundaries? I can assure yeh they were not. We've already seen that churches were not, and I can assure yeh that failure was not confined to da Catholics. If yeh think that da justice system has a magically great record on this stuff, yeh clearly have not had contact with da justice system. So what we have is a volunteer NFP organization that did the best they could, and did a decent job. Frankly, I'm proud of the effort the BSA made. I don't expect 'em to be perfect, and I don't blame 'em for those cases where a serial perpetrator managed to get to victims. That serial perpetrator got past da local authorities and the local community and the boy's family and parents as well, eh? I don't blame the BSA, the local community, or the boy's parents for that. I blame da perpetrator. Beavah

If you report an incident to the police, then THEY are responsible for the follow up. If they do a poor job or there aren't sufficient facts to procede, you and BSA have taken the most effective action possible. No, yeh haven't. Da standards for conviction are and should be much different than da standards for not allowin' somebody to be a youth volunteer. If yeh set the default response to be that of the criminal justice system, then yeh are allowing a lot of people access to kids who shouldn't be allowed access. Yeh are surrendering to "the authorities" your judgment and your responsibility. That is at least morally negligent in my book. We as scout volunteers have a duty which is different than the duty of da justice system. B

Beaver, the flaw in your argument is this: if a Scouter goes outside of the GSS and YP, he may not be defended by the BSA in court. Second Class, this is exactly wrong. Yeh need to understand da difference between general liability insurance coverage and the internal program documents of a youth group. General liability insurance coverage is governed by a master contract. That master contract is governed by da insurance laws and regulations of the several states. It has nuthin' whatsoever to do with G2SS or YPT or any other internal program document. If yeh are a AAA member, they will offer yeh all kinds of program materials and guidance on how to drive safely and take care of your car. But if yeh get insurance through AAA (I think they still offer that?), that car insurance will still cover you even if yeh speed, run a red light, don't put on da snow tires AAA recommends, or leave your car unlocked even though AAA recommends always lockin' your vehicle. In fact, if da insurance didn't cover yeh for such things it would be worthless. In most cases, it would be insurance fraud subject to triple damages against da insurer in some states. Because yeh see, da whole point of insurance is to spread the risk when you do do somethin' wrong. BSA insurance is the same. In most cases of injury within Scouting, yeh can find somethin' that wasn't fully kosher in terms of G2SS, especially when yeh consider da broad, sweeping guidance of stuff like da Sweet 16. Nevertheless, the BSA and its secondary insurers have an outstanding reputation of standing by its volunteers and chartered partners. It's a reputation to be proud of. It's a reputation that we use to encourage volunteers and partners to join Scouting. Bein' honest about da nature of insurance coverage and maintaining the BSA's reputation as an insurer that doesn't commit insurance fraud is important. So feel free to disagree with me, I don't mind. But I'd ask yeh as someone who cares deeply about Scouting not to lie to anyone anymore about da nature and character of BSA insurance coverage, and to correct others who are spreadin' such misinformation. Yeh hurt Scouting that way. SeattlePioneer, I hear where you're comin' from, but I think yeh do a similar sort of harm in the way Second Class is doin'. When we fail to exercise judgment and follow "zero tolerance" policies blindly, we subject those policies to ridicule and derision. Good people look at our actions and say "Gosh, da BSA is stupid. They don't understand the difference between a kid with an electronic Playboy and a child molester." That damages da reputation of the program and at the same time it makes da policies less effective. It ties up da time of law enforcement and other officials with trivial nonsense, so that they learn that da BSA volunteers are just loonies who cry "Wolf!" and waste their time. It consumes resources from da community and from scouting that can and should be used more effectively to serve and protect kids. It does real harm, to real people, and makes kids in da end less safe. We swore on our Honor to keep ourselves Mentally Awake, eh? That's because bein' mentally awake is necessary to helping other people and doin' our duty and livin' accordin' to the Scout Law. We promised each other and da world that we would always exercise judgment. Like all good citizens and good scouts, we should live up to our Oath. Beavah

I think the episodes described in the article make a good case to start by reporting incidents to the police to investigate. Really? Are yeh readin' the same files? In almost every case the "authorities" investigated and either declined to prosecute or they convicted and the fellow was released in fairly short order to go on and abuse again. Da Times cherry-picked a few of da worst cases, and all good men and women rightly look at those with horror. But let's take a look at da record of the "authorities". Dubois: Scouts expelled, authorities opted not to proceed with a case. He goes on to rape other children before the "authorities" secure a conviction. Field: Scouts expelled, but da common name in the days before easy digital computer tracking meant that they couldn't positively ID him when he moved. Authorities eventually convict with the help of the BSA files. Dunlap: Expelled by BSA, plead guilty. Released and moved out of jurisdiction. Both scouts and "authorities" lose track. Gets to kids again. Bumgarner: Expelled by scouts. Authorities give probation only despite a guilty plea. National doesn't catch at re-application. Abuses again. Slusher: BSA re-admits. Molests again. Authorities convict and release. He abuses again outside of scouting and is convicted again. Stenger: Both the "authorities" and the BSA give probation. He abuses again. So in da cherry-picked cases that show da BSA in the worst light, the "authorities" did no better. In fact, on average, they did worse. Tell me again why yeh think that's a better choice? Remember, da BSA during the period of time in question had millions on millions of volunteers. In an era of mostly paper records, expectin' perfection in screening that many people when they cross jurisdictional lines is just nonsense. Da "authorities" could do no better, not without enormous resource expenditures. These cases are tragic, but they aren't evidence that the BSA's approach was at all flawed. Just that no approach is perfect. Beavah

And I can just imagine you as Plaintiff's Lawyer cross examining some Scouter who used his "judgment" to avoid reporting a problem required by YPT rules. Yah, hmmmm.... Yeh know, I get da whole notion that those in the legal profession are the embodiment of all evil. Yeh can certainly point to some folks who aren't ethical, IMNSHO, and our adversarial system has its flaws. But I reckon you're lettin' your imagination or Hollywood get away from you, eh? Ultimately this stuff comes down to da judgment of what is reasonable by your fellow citizens. What a whole bunch of your fellow citizens are tellin' yeh is that knee-jerk reporting is not reasonable. Functionally, that means that when push comes to shove in a legal action, yeh are more likely to be found negligent for goin' off half-cocked and damaging a lad's reputation than yeh are for the reverse. So from a legal perspective, I'd advise yeh to listen to your fellow citizens, eh? They're the ones who will sit in judgment. If that's too hair trigger for your taste, then get the rules changed. So let's try this as an exercise, eh? Write a rule that fully and accurately encompasses all of da possible permutations of this case and directs folks to respond rationally and intelligently in each permutation. Yeh can't do it. Nobody can do it. That's why, in all just legal systems there are provisions for equity, eh? For judgment and discretion and pardon. And the BSA is not a legal system. It's just a group that puts out kids' program materials. Beavah

I don't see it as my job to substitute my judgment for BSAs rules. Yah, hmmm.... I know that this thread has largely run its course, but this old furry critter feels a deep need to respond to Seattle Pioneer's claim above. I fully recognize how comforting it is to some to try to hide behind "rules" or "following orders" or such. There's an extent to which it feels safe and protected, like hidin' behind mom or dad when we were young. I get that. Da world can be scary. Da thing of it is, for us adults, SeattlePioneer's notion is entirely wrong from both a legal and a moral perspective. Practically speakin', it is the adult leader and not the BSA who is responsible for the kids in his or her unit. Yeh can follow every jot and tittle of da BSA "rules" and still be utterly negligent. Yeh can ignore BSA "rules" and still be completely responsible in da eyes of the community, the legal system, and da Heavenly Court. Using judgment and being personally responsible is what characterizes adults, and distinguishes 'em. So as long as any of us puts ourselves forward to the community as an adult leader in a scouting program, and in the rest of our life until we are judged to be mentally incompetent, it is our duty and obligation to exercise judgment. Even more than that, I believe in a youth program like Scouting, it's our obligation to demonstrate to the lads in our care how to exercise judgment. Yah, sure, that includes readin' the BSA materials, and seriously considering their guidance. Now when da fellow responsible for those materials thinks it's appropriate to wholesale copy da child labor regulations on lawn mowers into a youth service program, I'm not quite sure I would characterize that as expertise, eh? . So it is our obligation as responsible adults to read other genuine experts, to consult with fellow experienced scouters and consider their input, and incorporate our own personal experience and understanding of our individual communities and da chartering partners we serve. Being lazy about informing ourselves is not a defense against negligence, nor is it a justification before God. So in this furry fellow's view, if yeh aren't willing to live up to da obligations of an adult to exercise judgment, yeh do the youth and the program a monumental disservice. As far as "plain text reading" goes, that's a legal term of art which really doesn't apply here. Da BSA program guidance is not written by folks with that sort of technical legal writing background, nor should it be because then it would be ten times longer and most folks wouldn't get it. . Read the BSA program materials as they were intended to be read: as guidance documents to help inform your judgment as an adult leader and agent of your chartered organization. Beavah

The general rule is a troop grows to the size the SM can manage. Yah, I second everything Eagledad said, eh? Troops grow to the size that is "natural" for the adult leader(s). So I think yeh look more for stability than yeh look for size. Has the troop been stable at whatever size it is? That's the sign of a mature and relatively smoothly functioning troop. Has it been growin'? That's a sign of an energetic troop, but one that will eventually experience growin' pains, or might shrink with a change of leadership. Has it been shrinking? That's a sign of leadership burning out or a change of leadership that can't support da program that has been in place. Average troop size nation-wide accordin' to JTE materials is 14 boys or so. Beavah

Yah, da Congressional Charter matters because it grants the BSA exclusive use of the terms related to "Scouting" in the U.S. Trademark claims could be easily challenged based on da prior use of those terms, their common English usage, and treaty law recognizing WOSM and other organization trademarks. Da Congressional Charter figured fairly significantly in da court rulings against startup rival "Scout" organizations, which were interpreted to grant a congressional monopoly to the BSA. All based on one clause of da charter which actually has some non-fluff language. Of course, a competitor organization does not have to call itself "Scouting", eh? One might argue that among da youth population at least it would be better off if it didn't. Too much association with "gay" uniforms and such. Beavah

Yah, well, I expect if LDS left our accident rate would go down quite a bit. Seriously, though, I don't think there's any reason to believe the BSA wouldn't proceed in exactly da same way as the other organizations that opposed homosexuality for ethical reasons did when they switched. Yeh start massive conflict within the community. Yeh have individuals leave. Yeh have lots of individuals transfer to congregations / units that support their viewpoint. Yeh have many congregations consider seceding and da formation of smaller rival organizations. Yeh substantially increase your year over year loss of membership, not just from da issue but from the conflict. In short, yeh get the sort of adult drama that typically causes troops to implode played out on a national scale. I'm with AZMike, eh? It's much better for everybody and a much better demonstration of neighborliness and citizenship just to set up a competitor organization that is as inclusive as yeh want. Compete in da free market of ideas. If your ideas and commitment are better, then you'll out-compete the BSA and become da larger organization and can apply for BSA's WOSM slot. Beavah

I take particular pleasure in calling school principles to tell them their flag is in need of replacement. Yah, hmmmm.... I was talkin' a few years ago to the head of the school superintendent's association in my state. He was commenting on how most school superintendents tried to avoid settin' up flagpoles whenever they did new construction, just because they were all sick and tired of dealin' with well-meaning citizens calling them every week with complaints about flag protocol, real or imagined. Their membership felt it was a waste of taxpayer dollars on staff time dealin' with da issue in the midst of all the other things they needed to do. Sometimes our well-intentioned efforts can have unintended consequences, eh? Beavah

All of the above pales in comparison to my neighbor a few houses down the street. That nice teaparty supporter, a good Christian minister who is (thankfully) very open about his racism and bigotry has an American flag in his front yard. He positions it on the same pole and just below his Confederate flag. What a guy! Yeh could always exercise your right to bear arms and mount a civil-war era union cannon in your front yard aimed at da stars and bars, and on every major federal holiday put a round through the top of his flagpole in patriotic celebration. B

Yah, hmmmm... Hiya CalKel, and welcome to da Scouter.Com forums. As fred8033 says, it's hard for us to comment from afar. We understand that you feel affected, and feel that da changes were "underhanded". At the same time, tryin' to read between the lines, this sorta sounds like many of the changes were being made the right way. The Chair was stepping down, the SM recognizes his lack of organization and is lookin' for a committee chair to take some of that load off him, so the organized ASM moves into the CC role and takes up sending out notices and such. That can be a fine way for a CC and SM to work together, with one managing notices and parent communication and the other managing youth leaders and boys on outings. Da other couple of hearsay comments are just hearsay, eh? That stuff is always unreliable at best. So I get that yeh really liked the former CC, and yeh don't seem to like or communicate well with the new CC and SM, but sometimes we adults create too much drama ourselves, eh? This really is all just minor organizational issues in a kids' program, and really isn't worth even a single evening's heartburn. The real question for yeh should be "Is our son having a good experience?" If the answer to that is "yes", then regardless of your feelings toward one or another leaders, support your son's program. When you're gettin' other people's time for free and they're doin' well by your kid, then I reckon it's just fair that yeh put up with their foibles and eccentricities. If your son isn't havin' a good experience, then yeh should look for other opportunities, regardless of how much yeh like the adult leaders personally. Make it about supportin' your son, and let da adult drama go. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... I reckon if yeh lose your older boys and Eagle Scouts, yeh have a weak program that needs some work. Odds are yeh are too focused on Advancement. Advancement has become da goal instead of a fun method along the way, and so when yeh hit Eagle yeh feel like you're done. What is there for older boys? Leadership! That's da biggest draw, bigger than high adventure activities by far. Those are now a dime a dozen. Yeh can find climbing walls in many shopping malls. But Leadership, being treated like an adult and being trusted to put things together, to lead and teach younger boys, to be truly responsible - that's somethin' that is rarer than hen's teeth in da modern world of hovering over kids like they're made of glass. It's somethin' all lads crave. Beavah

Yah, dennism, welcome to da forums. Youth leaders learnin' how to deal with slower, younger, or less fit fellows on a hike takes some time and a bit of coaching. Just as young or slower fellows learning to speak up, and occasionally learnin' to push themselves a bit harder for da sake of the group also takes some time and a bit of coaching. Camping and especially summer camp can also be a bit of an exercise in sleep deprivation as well, eh? Sometimes all of us have done or said somethin' because of gettin' tired and a bit mentally overloaded. I know I have. So, yah, acco40 is quite right, eh? You made some poor judgement calls as an ASM. Read acco40's post again, because he's right. But da one that I think is most important that acco40 left off is that yeh acted independently without havin' a side conversation with your fellow ASM to let him know your concerns and kick around some ideas and plans together for helpin' the youth learn da lesson. Yeh went rogue on him. That showed a fellow ASM that yeh didn't trust or respect him, that yeh weren't workin' together. I think it's OK for a fellow ASM to be upset when yeh blindside him the way yeh did. Yep, he should have dealt with it by supportin' you and then had a quiet sidebar with you the way you should have had a quiet sidebar with him before he acted. "Goin' off" instead was his poor judgment. Now here's my question. When he offered an apology, did you accept it? If yeh did, then I think it's over. Once you accept someone's apology you are honor-bound to put the matter behind you. Yeh start fresh. If that were the case, I would let it go. Especially if he accepted your apology as well. And that's where this one should end. If there's a pattern that shows up frequently, that's a different issue, but right now aside from innuendo that doesn't seem to be what you're sayin'. Both you and he deserve a re-do for your respective behaviors, and yeh do that by startin' out treatin' your fellow ASM as a colleague. Now, down the road a pace if yeh do become the CC, then the approach might be different a bit. There, I see the behaviors by the youth leaders to be da sort of thing that perhaps reflects some adult leadership that hasn't yet figured out how to guide scouts to a servant leader type of role. If that feels like the case after a bit, then yeh recruit some additional leaders to help fill that need, especially thinkin' about da SM role down the road, and yeh redirect the energies of guys like this to a more supportive role. Beavah

so long as it puts more responsibility (and the concomitant authority) onto states, local governing bodies, and citizens themselves. Yah, hmmmm... So I'm a proponent of a restrained federal government and local control. But Callooh Callay, yeh do realize that right now da fiscal situation in a large majority of the states is pretty dire, right? They have hardly been bastions of fiscal conservativism. In fact, there is a huge overhanging unfunded pension obligation that's really very grim. And yeh do realize that a huge number of those local governing bodies would have gone bankrupt or otherwise collapsed if not for the Obama stimulus, right? When property values fall, property tax revenues dry up, and state aid in sales-tax and income-tax funded states dried up as well. It is poor behavior by da local units that has contributed mightily to both the state and federal fiscal issues. Far from bein' a panacea, local corruption and incompetence is sometimes a sight worse than at the bigger levels, eh? Especially in da modern world where local watchdog news media have almost entirely vanished. So how do yeh address that, I wonder? Beavah

Yah, yeh gotta believe that da diversity stuff is at least partly just lip service to appease people who look for that sort of stuff, eh? Honestly, isn't that da case in most institutions? I go with Merlyn, eh? 15 years or more, if it happens at all. We'll see co-ed first, and quite possibly a relaxin' on da atheist issue before this step. Da logic and da market for co-ed is much more sound. In all likelihood, between the general decay in membership because of weakening program and changes in' youth interests, da folks who won't join because of da policy, and the folks who leave when da policy changes, at that point da BSA will be finished as a meaningful organization. Just because the policy changes doesn't mean all those complainers are suddenly goin' to come volunteer or send their kids, and odds are they have small families. Beavah

Earth calling moosetracker.... Earth calling moosetracker.... Did yeh get a little bit too close to Callooh Callay and get sucked into his anti-reality vortex? Chik-fil-A as an employer is subject to da same anti-discrimination laws as any other business in terms of hiring. The only issue is that the owning family is a bunch of Christians who believe in (and actually practice) mixed-sex monogamy. Oh, yah, and they have the audacity to say so in public, and to donate to "anti-gay" groups (meaning Christian groups that they happen to agree with). That's it. They haven't discriminated in employment. They haven't discriminated in serving customers. All they did is the owners "came out" as Christians and admitted they gave money to Christian causes. You know, da thing we used to call free speech? So now that we've reintroduced yeh to reality, is that what yeh really support? Anybody who disagrees with us or who happens to contribute to causes we disagree with should be run out of town on a rail? The mayor of Boston vows to block a business from opening in the city because the business owner expresses a Christian viewpoint in public?? Yep, that's da pretty typical liberal approach, eh? Ideas we don't agree with are threatening and must be quashed. Now Chik-fil-A is a big business, eh? They'll survive even if Northeastern University won't let 'em open a shop on their campus because as a liberal university they don't like the viewpoint of the owners. They'll even survive if da Mayor of Boston has his way. But what of the small businesses, eh? The family business that still only has one shop in town, and doesn't have da resources of a large chain with which to try to fight a coercive local government? The small campus store that gets driven out of business because of harassment, just because da owners happen to have Christian views or give to their "anti-gay" church? My question is, where is da liberal version of John McCain, stepping forward to take his fellow Democrat to task for a response and position which is utterly shameful? Beavah