CalicoPenn

This was signed into law by President Bush on January 5, 2006 (which was a Thursday, by the way). It obviously hasn't had a big impact in our lives over the past two years. Since it was signed into law in 2006, that would have been a Republican-controlled Congress that allowed the law be snuck into the legislation and passed. On the other hand, all it really did was add e-mail and the internet to an existing law which already made anonymous phone calls and letters a crime so it probably could have been inserted even if Specter hadn't snuck it into the bill. Oh, and the bill it was snuck into was for the re-authorization of the Preventing Violence Against Women Act which was already coupled with the Re-authorization of the Justice Department legislation. Section 113 doesn't do really do anything other than amend the other sections of the act which deals with the criminal provisions. For the most part, you need to have intent to harrass, harm, stalk, kill etc. for the provision to be valid. Posting a random comment in a random blog or forum isn't likely to be actionable. A concerted effort to post annoying comments in a blog or forum which could be considered stalking would be actionable under tha law. Why is this just now coming up? Has someone on a cable "news" network or talk radio show run out of things to talk about and just stumbled across this information now? As for the State Park Lodge - based on what was posted, I'm guessing it was in Illinois, (and I'm guessing it was Starved Rock) where funding for the DNR has been decreasing fairly steadily for the last 15 years, under both Republican and Democratic governors and legislatures. State Park Lodges in Illinois are also run by concessionaires, not the State itself, and their contracts make clear that the Lodges are supposed to be self-sustaining, that the concessionaires are responsible for the upkeep of the lodge facilities. If you have a complaint about the upkeep of the lodge, send a letter to the state's DNR office. Complaints about the budget should be sent to the governor and the DNR office. Calico (This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

You could try your local State Representative or State Senator's office. They may have access to both US Flags and State Flags that have been flown over the State Capitol. Calico

Is a Taser a firearm? If not, since it's not prohibited in G2SS, could a Boy Scout Troop have a game of Taser Tag? Calico

Back when I worked as an OKPIK instructor at Maine National High Adeventure Base, we rarely spoke about wind chill factors - we based all of our decisions on the static temperatures. When we expected -20F weather we said the temperature could get to -20F. We always gave the crew's adult leaders the option of coming back in to sleep in the bunkrooms at night if it would get that cold, and suggested that the crew build multiple quinzhees for the night, rather than use the tents (temps in a nice snow igloo would be very comfortable, especially in -20F weather. In my experience, a quinzhee was best when it was no more than 10F outside at night, any warmer and you were more likely to have condensation inside). So why didn't we use Wind Chill? Because it's a FALSE indicator of temperature. Winds don't generally maintain a sustained force (and when they are sustained, they are big weather events - Santa Ana's, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.) so the truth is that wind chills fluctuate wildly in any given hour. Also, the reports base themselves on anticipated high winds for the day. For instance, if the temperature is expected to be +5F for the day, the windchill factor would be reported at -21F if its expected that wind gusts might reach 35 mph, which is a significant wind if sustained (about 1/2 the strength of a tropical storm). Sustained 35 mph winds would be big news - I wouldn't be worried about wind chill, I'd be worried about things flying off trees, or roofs. Most wind is in the 0 - 15 mph range, and most wind comes in gusts. To get a windchill factor of -20F at 15 mph, you need a temperature of 0F. And at 5 mph, the temp needs to be at -10F to get a windchill factor of -22F. Of course the shorter answer is that one needs wind in order to have a windchill factor. Without wind, no windchill. Even if its windy, unless its a sustained wind, it won't be that big of a factor. I see windchill factors being reported by newsfolks as just another attempt to scare everyone into staying in their homes. Heat Index, however, is different. Heat Index combines air temperature with the relative humidity to provide an apparent temperature. Humidity doesn't gust or fluctuate wildly in any given hour. In addition, either sustained heat or sustained humidity can be dangerous on their own - combined, things can get worse. All that being said, I agree with the others that if you as the leader do not believe that the Webelos are properly prepared to deal with expected cold temperatures, then the right decision is to cancel. Calico

Since I'm the one who started us off in a different direction (though at least I didn't go way off track and bring up football (not the soccer kind) in a baseball thread), I suppose I should explain myself. Ya see, Pete Rose, Ty Cobb? Who cares?? Neither of them had a big impact in my life. I was raised on the Chicago Cubs - America's Team (I know, I know "what about the Yankees, what about the Mets, what about the Giants"). The thing is, radio and TV broadcasts of the Chicago Cubs reached more people throughout the country than radio and TV broadcasts of any other team. WGN Radio had one of the most powerful radio signal strengths of any commercial radio station, so Cubs games could be listened to down on the farm in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Indiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, or down on the ranch in Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or on the fishing boat in Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas - well, I think you get my drift. If you lived anywhere in the heartland, anywhere between the Rockies and the Appalachians, you could hear the Chicago Cubs. And when cable first came out, one of the first "superstations" was WGN-TV, home of the Chicago Cubs - and home and away Cubs games were on just about every day during baseball season. But I digress (which is, I suppose, one reason the threads take so many interesting directions). Being raised on the Cubs, Ty Cobb and Pete Rose just don't have any meaning to me. Now Ernie Banks? You bet! And Ron Santo?? My absolutely all time, favorite baseball player - when I joined Little League, I wanted to play 3rd base because Ron was my baseball hero. That man threw everything he had into playing the game, he is famous for trying to "screw himself into the ground" when he swung at a pitch. The man tried to make every hit a home run, and was the best third baseman ever. It's a crying shame that he hasn't been voted into the Hall of Fame yet - which just goes to show that the Hall of Fame voters are just a bunch of hacks. (and yet again, I digress). But if I truly had to answer the actual question, the answer would be Ty Cobb - because Ty Cobb was honest about his racism while Pete Rose is still in denial about his gambling. Calico Calico

I always shake my head when I hear the term "War of Northern Aggression". The fact is that the Confederacy fired the first shots of the war when they attacked Fort Sumter with 50 cannons at 4:30am on April 12, 1861. Wouldn't that mean that it was the Confederacy that was the aggressors and that it could be called the "War of Southern Aggression" and that the "North" (ie the "United States of America") entered into the war defending itself? But like the writer of this article who hopes that people won't actually dig out the statistics he used to write his disingenuous article, the people who toss around such terms as "War of Northern Aggression" hope that people won't actually look at the facts which would bring down their smoke and mirrors. Calico (PS - OGE, I'm not saying you just toss out the term, or even necessarily believe it. Based on how you wrote it, I think you were just being nice enough to cover all the bases so please don't take this as being directed to you, or for that matter, any individual).

"The question I have is what is considered digital file?" I think it's safe to say a digital file is any file you would receive on a CD/DVD (or for those still in the moderately light ages - a floppy disk), or any file which you would receive as an attachment in an e-mail. Calico

Ernie Banks of the Chicago Cubs - because he actually played the game because he loved playing the game, not because of the money, the fame, the records, or anything else. Calico

This is the wording of the closing benediction for a Boy Scout's funeral, as suggested by the Manual for Chaplain Aides and Chaplains on Scouting.org (the official site of the BSA). "May the Great Scoutmaster of all Scouts be with us until we meet again, and may our footsteps lead unto Him." The Manual also provides the following as a sample "interfaith prayer or benediction" May the great Scoutmaster of all Scouts be with us until we meet again." Note that the BSA's own website, in their own Manual for Chaplain Aides and Chaplains" uses the term "great Scoutmaster", NOT "great Master" in its suggested benedictions. Seems to me then, that "great Master" is the co-optation and not "great Scoutmaster". But I have no problem with anyone saying it either way. Calico PS: Yes, Co-optation is correctly spelled. It can also be spelled Co-option, according to my Websters.

Can't the program be run through a local community college or a local 4-year university or college? Wouldn't that solve the illegality problems if the drivers were all over 18? Calico

"...in the final year of "peace-loving" Jimmy Carter's term, he caused 2,392 deaths" Did you really mean to say "HE" (meaning Jimmy Carter) "CAUSED" those 2,392 deaths? Or perhaps that's just the impression you took away from the article because that was the impression the writer of the article hoped you would come away with. Let's look at the statistics behind those 2,392 deaths. The breakdown is 1,556 deaths by accident, 174 deaths by homicide, 419 deaths by illness, 231 deaths by suicide (aka "self inflicted"), 11 undetermined and 1 by terrorist attack. Not one by hostile action. So tell me exactly how Jimmy Carter "caused" all those deaths? What policy of Jimmy Carter's can be pointed to that would have caused 174 people to be murdered, 419 people to die of some illness, 213 people to kill themselves, 1,556 people to die in an accident? Interesting thing about what the article writer does that twists the statistics around to bring out his point of view. He states that there were 2,392 deaths during Carter's last year but that we havn't had more than 920 in any given year of battle in Iraq or Afghanistan. Total deaths per year since 2002 have been: 2002 = 999; 2003 = 1,228; 2004 = 1,874; 2005 = 1,942; 2006 = 1,858. Either he's comparing just death by hostile action in a given war year to total deaths in 1980, or he's just out and out lying. Come to think of it, if he's comparing just deaths by hostile action in a given war year to total deaths in 1980, he's out and out lying anyway. As I've said before, always check the source material for the statistics one reads - its the only way to truly understand how someone is slicing and dicing the numbers to make them appear to support a position they've taken. Calico

Thanks Dan, I was indeed using the same source as mentioned in the article (I should have been more clear - mea culpa) Calico

Always check the sources offered by people claiming that the mainstream media is avoiding certain statistics, and that this is some great conspiracy that needs to be exposed. The author of the article is quick to state that the average military deaths every year has been 1,531 and includes various terrorist attacks and military actions and then claim that this is indicative that the deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq aren't as bad as folks make it out to be when looking at the whole picture. It's what he leaves out that weakens his argument - to the point where his argument teeters on nonsensical (if it hasn't fallen off that wall and is just plain nonsense). What he's failing to mention is that the statistics he is using also include deaths by accident, homicide, illness, and suicide. The report has statistics just on war casualties which wouldn't back up his argument. Had he been honestly reporting the statistics, he would have told us that in the period between 1980 and 2002, there were a total of 250 deaths in the military attributed to "hostile action" and in the period from 2003 to 2006, there was 2,575 deaths attributable to "hostile action". Had he been honestly reporting the statistics, he would have told us that there were only 426 deaths in the military attributable to "terrorism" from 1980 to 2001, of which 263 occurred in 1983 (Beirut). Credit due - there were none from 2001 to 2006. Had he been honestly reporting the statistics, he would have told us that there were 1,000 or more (in some years, quite a bit more) deaths by accident PER YEAR in the years 1980 to 1989, and that there have been less than 1,000 accidents resulting in death per year since 1990. The most telling line in this whole article is "Statistics can be sliced and diced to validate many points of view". I suppose he was just telling us he was about to show just how someone can slice and dice statistics. Caveat Emptor - especially when people slice and dice those statistics. Calico

I would say he's not "in charge" of anyone. Being "in charge" connotes, imo, being the boss. An SPL isn't a boss, he is a leader. As such, he is the leader of the PLC, of the "Senior Patrol" (if your unit uses this concept - ie older youth leaders who do not belong to any specific patrol but still have leadership responsibilities (ASPL, Instructors, Troop Guides, etc.)and through the PLC, the Troop as a whole (overseeing the Patrol Leaders to get the work of the Troop done). Calico PS: Ed - I humbly suggest that there is one Youth Leadership POR position that does not report directly to the SPL (note the POR qualifier - Assistant Patrol Leader wouldn't report to the SPL either but it is not a POR). That position is Junior Assistant Scoutmaster who reports directly to the Scoutmaster, just as an Assistant Scoutmaster would.

Merit Badge Counselor is not a Troop-level position. It is a Council-level, non-Leadership position (some may state it is a District-leve position, but thought a District may coordinate an MBC list for the District, the approval comes from Council). It is not a Troop Committee or Troop Leadership position. I think the confusion stems from the recruitment process for MBC's. Most MBC's are recruited from Troops, and the BSA allows MBC's the option of only serving the unit that recruited them. But anyone can be a Merit Badge Counselor, as long as they become a member of the BSA and are approved by Council. They don't need to also be part of a Troop. They don't even need to be part of the Scouting Family (they'll become part of the family when they become a Merit badge Counselor). They can be a teacher, police officer, local plumber, etc. etc. etc. If I'm not mistaken, they still aren't even required to pay a registration fee. To become a Merit Badge Counselor, one needs to fill out two applications - an Adult Leader Registration form and a Merit Badge Counselor Information form. Council approves the appointment of all Merit Badge Counselors. Calico

He has more important things to do than to be active in his own son's life? What a sad, little man. Calico

Why shouldn't the Scouts be involved - and not just involved - run - the COH? It's their Troop after all. It's their time to show off for their parents. Calico

When I was a lad, we ended every meeting with "May the Great Scoutmaster, of all Good Scouts, be with us until we meet again". At first, I thought the Great Scoutmaster was the Scoutmaster in the Norman Rockwell painting "The Scoutmaster" because that was the image of a Scoutmaster I had (a print was hanging on the wall of my home when I was a young lad). Later on, as I started learning more about the history of Scouting, I realized I was completely wrong about the Great Scoutmaster. I just knew the Great Scoutmaster had to be Lord Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of the Boy Scouts, and the First (and therefore Greatest) Scoutmaster. No one ever explained to us just who the Great Scoutmaster was supposed to be. Only when I got into the OA and started interacting with lads from other Districts did I come to understand that some people think the Great Scoutmaster isn't Baden-Powell at all, but ... Green Bar Bill. And there were some folks who thought it had some kind of religious connotation and that the Great Scoutmaster is some deity to be prayed to. What was apparent is that no one ever talked about just who the Great Scoutmaster was supposed to represent so we all interpreted the phrase in our own way - and no one ever fought over what it means. No one ever asked us when we were Scouts who we thought the Great Scoutmaster was - therefore no one ever "corrected" our interpretations. Knowing what I do about the Scout Leaders I interacted with on a regular basis, I don't think any of them would have. To this day, I still consider the Great Scoutmaster to be Lord Robert Baden-Powell, and that the request that the "Great Scoutmaster, of all Good Scouts, be with us till we meet again" was a request that the spirit of Lord Baden-Powell help keep us on the Scouting path. Calico

To build on Local's comment - I've heard more than a few Scoutmasters and Committee Chairs express frustration over the OA election process in the past, especially when candidates they have deemed worthy aren't voted in by the members of the unit. Not only do they express disappointment in the members of their unit who don't vote for some of the Scouts, they express much frustration over the whole election process that puts them in a position to be disappointed in their boys. These leaders then tend to react in one of two ways (that I know of). They either tell the election team they've held their own election, thank you very much, and here are the boys that have been voted in (units can't hold their own elections but when push comes to shove, most Council's won't back their Lodge if they try to enforce it - better for the Lodge to be hacked off at them then a bunch of leaders from different Troops who could decide to tell them where to go when it comes time for FOS presentations), or they just decide that the OA has no place within their Troop and never participate. Now I don't have a suggestion for a solution - I'm not sure the election system should be scrapped, but I sympathize with the frustrations of the unit leaders. Calico

We have no one who is interested in doing the job and we won't push someone to do it. There are POR's that I believe are essential - SPL, ASPL, PL, Quartermaster, and Scribe. There are POR's that I think are great to have if you have the numbers to support them: Troop Guide, OA Troop Rep, Librarian, Den Chiefs, JASM and Instructor. Then there are the POR's that should be filled only if the other POR's are filled, or only if someone has a real interest in it: Chaplain's Aide, Historian and Buglar. Calico

Seems to me there is much more at play here to try to pass it off as bias. The size of the newspaper plays a major role. A small town paper is more likely to cover Scouting and School and Church, etc. activities than larger newspapers. The major metro newspapers - New York, Chicago, LA, Boston, Philadelphia, etc. are the least likely to cover Boy Scout stories unless there is some other hook involved - a controversy, or a major challenge met. A major metro isn't likely to cover a story that Billy Scout earned his Eagle badge unless perhaps Billy Scout is a quadriplegic, or some other factor makes it less than ordinary. Suburban newspapers - which tend to cover large areas in a major metro market but more suburban focused, may cover some "feel good" Scouting stories, but tend not to cover such events as Blue and Golds, etc. that might be common in small town papers. A big part of this has to do with staffing as well. In a small town, the person who gets all those press releases may very well also be the person that is going to do the reporting, or has some authority to assign stories to a reporter. It's likely they're also getting only 1 to 5 press releases by local groups per day, so those press releases are more likely to be read in a timely manner. By the time you hit the mid-level markets (small cities, suburban), those press releases are being received by a clerk who may be handling a couple of hundred a day and is categorizing them for an assigment editor by type - business, sports, religion, community, government, etc. Not to say your press releases are getting lost, but they may just not trigger any response if they won't allow your story to be fit into a certain format, or are just "too common", ie "just another Eagle Scout" (or insert your event here) story" Sometimes its all about timing too. Scouts doing a service project to clean up a creek is likely to get more play in April while newspapers are doing stories about Earth Day than September when newspapers are doing more stories about Back to School. In a lot of cases, volunteers are doing the press work and they're all reading from the same suggestion books available in the local library, or following what the folks before them have done because thats the way it's always been done. I don't think I'm going out on a limb here when I say that its doubtful the Councils have professional PR folks working for them who can help with press relations. Most corporations have people who do nothing but PR, and most large advocacy groups (NRA, Audubon) have people who do nothing but PR. Most small, volunteer advocacy groups (the local LGBT group for instance) have gotten their volunteers some real PR training. So what might the LGBT group be doing that you can do also, if you only knew what to do. For starters, I'd guess that not only did they send their press release to the standard contact at the newspaper, they also sent it to one or two by-lined reporters and/or columnists that they may have talked to before. They may very well have called one or two reporters, maybe even the editor, long before their dinner, just to introduce themselves, tell about their mission, and offer to be a source for qoutes, or background on any story they may be doing about GLBT issues (it may be a story about marriage in New Hampshire, and they're located in Idaho - but they've indicated their readiness to "give good quote" should the editor decide to localize the story a bit. I'd guess that they didn't just send a press release announcing or summarizing their dinner - they probably invited someone from the paper to attend the dinner "Gee, we'd love for you to come to our dinner - we'll put you at a table with some really interesting and fun people - and please let us know if you would like to bring your spouse with you. Dinner is Prime Rib or Trout - we also have a vegetarian option - which would you prefer?" Left unsaid, of course, is that there is no cost to the reporter. Calico

Local, Yep - as I stated, the Order would frown on it - I certainly wouldn't recommend it. However, I have heard of it happening - and not just in my home lodge but elsewhere as well. Calico

The trigger for starting work towards Eagle is being awarded the Life rank. Nothing else. Not Life + 2 months for this boy and Life + 6 months for that boy. ANY boy can start working on their Eagle, on ANY parts of the Eagle rank, the day they are awarded their Life rank. It has nothing to do with any individual lad - it's all rank driven. That 13 year old that just earned his Life rank can start working on putting together his project right away - whether anyone else think's he's ready or not. If you don't think he's ready to start working on the Eagle? Then the time to hold him up is before awarding the Life rank - once Life is awarded, it's too late. That's the program assumption - actually, more than an assumption - that's the program. And while it's quite correct that the lad must get approvals before they work on the project, they don't need approval to start planning and develping a project to be approved. They can start that on day one after being awarded the Life rank. In addition, objections to the project are to be project specific, such as "define your leadership objectives better" or "give a better description of how the project benefits the XYZ Nature Center" An objection can't be unrelated to the project such as "you need to earn this merit badge before you start working on it" or "you need to serve 6 months in a POR before you start working on an Eagle project". Anyone who uses such unrelated objections isn't delivering the program. Calico

What are the other two lads like (the two that might also be eligible for nomination this year)? Are they sympathetic? I ask because I was witness to a similar situation many years ago, when I was working on election teams for my Chapter. One of the units had 3 lads that were eligible for election, one of whom had been eligible the previous year but was not voted in. This lad had mild physical and mental disabilities (it may very well have been autism). There were rumors that a couple of Scouts from his school had actively campaigned against electing him into the Order the year before, and were doing so again. The adult leaders could never prove it though. The adults all felt that this lad was, hands down, the best qualified for the Order. The members of the Unit that were in the Order felt the same (and most of them were senior members of the youth leadership). I knew this because they had asked to meet with us before the meeting to talk about what they could or could not do. I was a sitting Lodge Vice Chief at the time, the other member of the election team was the Chapter Adviser's son, and the Chapter Adviser was with us as well. The Scoutmaster was tempted to make him the only person eligible for election. We told him he could do so but it would be unfair to the other Scouts and asked if he was prepared to tell those Scouts why they weren't being put forward for election. The OA Members all thought it would be unfair too. We offered to declare the first ballot void if the lad wasn't elected and let the Troop vote a second time (which of course meant we were more than just bending the rules) but that if we did this, no matter what the results, the second ballot would have to stand. We suggested that one of the unit's OA members have "the talk" with the Troop on the importance of the order. The SPL volunteered to do this and said he had an idea and left the room to get set up. As we started the election process, the SPL gave a great talk about what the Order was all about, and how all three of the candidates on the ballot were very deserving and wouldn't be on the ballot if they weren't. Then, the other two lads both got up and publically declared to the Scoutmaster that they knew some of the Scouts were campaigning against the other lad, and were prepared to name names, and if they were elected and the other boy wasn't, they wouldn't accept because the election wouldn't be fair. Then they went over and sat next to the other lad, as if daring the rest of the unit to turn them all down, as the SPL stood there with the biggest grin on his face. I could see the Scoutmaster getting choked up with pride. All three were elected in to the Order on the very first ballot - and this was the only time I ever announced the results of the election at a meeting. I heard later that the Scouts campaigning against the lad quit Scouts before the end of the year - in 4 years, neither had gotten past 2nd class. I don't know if this helps or not - you would have the option of making him the sole candidate, but it would be unfair to anyone else who might be eligible for election. I have heard rumors that Scoutmasters in some units have told the Scouts flat out in the meeting before the scheduled election meeting that they WILL vote for EVERY person who is nominated, and that if those nominated weren't all elected, certain trips just might not take place that year because there wouldn't be any adult leaders available to take them. The OA would, of course, frown on this, but the reality is there would be no way to stop it if we didn't witness such a talk. Calico

Of course the neckerchief isn't cool anymore - too many adults are wearing it. There was a time in the not too distant past that proper uniforming for adult males included a tie, either standard or bolo - not a neckerchief. Out in public, that's how people found the adult leaders for a group of Scouts - they were the ones not wearing the neckerchief. Adult leaders just didn't wear neckerchiefs, except for Woodbadge neckerchiefs - and then only for Woodbadge or Training occasions. Now, adults want to recapture their youth and wear the same neckerchiefs as the lads. And we wonder why the Scouts look upon them as uncool? What used to be special, for the boys only, has become common, for everyone. I also find it interesting (and I don't mean for this to come out as sexist or anti-female Scouter) that the trend towards no neckerchiefs started about the same time that our valued female Scouters began wearing neckerchiefs - they became neck "scarves" - and boys don't wear scarves (other countries an exception, but of course other countries have co-ed Scouting programs). Male adult leaders followed the lead of the women and started wearing the neckerchiefs too. Sometimes, though, I start to feel a little curmudgeonly and in that spirit, I offer a modest suggestion to encourage more units to adopt neckerchiefs (if you don't like what's commerciall available, make your own - there are fabric stores where you can get some good material for neckerchiefs). At your camporees, first aid meets, klondikes - any district wide even with patrol competitions, have a station or stations where the use of the neckerchief is key to completion. For instance, at a first aid meet or camporee, have a station/event where the patrol must use their neckerchiefs to create a sling, create a bandage, tie up an ankle, etc. The key is the patrol must supply their own - no having any on hand at the station! If they don't have neckerchiefs, they don't get the points. Unfair you say? I counter with Be Prepared! CalicoPenn