CalicoPenn

"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?" Well Beavah, do you have any examples of where you might find such a response as lacking or are we going to have to go down a path of false-equivalency and fake outrage to find something? I recall an awful lot of Democrats taking Bill Clinton to task for his dealings with a certain intern. I recall a number of Democrats publicly denouncing the actions of Anthony Weiner. I also recall the "outrage" over some words that Dick Durbin had said, and the "outrage" over the lack of outrage from the Democratic side which I chalk up to Democrats being able to comprehend what they hear and read since what he actually said and what the "outraged" reported he said was two different things. Is it unfair for Chick-Fil-A to be branded with what the owner says? Maybe - but he is the public face of Chick-Fil-A, and the reports are that Chick-Fil-A, the company itself, has also made donations to anti-gay marriage group. Whether meant to be a personal statement or not, there are certain people who make personal statements that will always be associated with their business or organization, whether it was meant to do so or not - and despite any disclaimers that might be announced. Had Colonel Sanders said he personally disliked blacks, most people wouldn't be able to separate that from KFC, regardless of denials by KFC. If Bill Gates were to state today that Pakistani Software Engineers are inferior, not one would separate that out from Microsoft. Rule of Business #1: Don't irritate your potential customer base, regardless of your own personal feelings. You, of course, have a right to free speech - just don't be surprised if other people exercise their right of free speech in response. Menino isn't the first mayor to stand toe-to-toe with a corporation over points of view - it took Walmart promising to pay prevailing wages in Chicago in order to get a Walmart in town without a union after going toe-to-toe with Daley the 2nd.

A few things: "Bills relating to taxes can't be filibustered and require a simple majority to pass. As the Supreme Court has labeled ObamaCare a tax, the bill to repeal it would be one too." Yeah, funny thing about that - each house of Congress makes its own rules - just because the Supreme Court said it was a tax for constitutional purposes, doesn't mean the Senate has to treat it as a tax for voting purposes. They can call it a fee and allow a fillibuster if they so choose. "Q1) Should pregnancy be treated as an illness?" No, because it is not an illness. It is, however, a medical condition. Illness is a very narrow view of healthcare. Not all medical conditions are illnesses. A broken bone, for instance, doesn't fit into the classic view of illness, rather it's an injury. A congenital defect of the heart is not an illness. Medical care also includes wellness as well - preventive medicine. "And you are taxed for the upkeep of the roads only if you use those roads. (Remember the gas tax? Of course, some is skimmed off the top to pay for mass transit, but that's another matter.)" We have a very narrow view of taxes in this country - for some reason, we've allowed folks with agendas to convince us that statements about taxes are "true" as long as we accept their definition of taxes narrowly. For instance, when the popular meme that "50% of workers don't pay taxes" is bandied about, most people accept that figure without question because they consider only one tax - the federal income tax. They fail to understand that the 50% that don't pay federal income taxes are still patying SS, Medicare, sales, gas, property, etc. tax. Until we start demanding that our politicians and pundits be more specific in their statements, we'll continue to have folks stating that only people who use the roads pay for the roads. That's just not correct - most local roads are maintained by a combination of local gas taxes (if your state allows you municipalities to collect one - Illinois allows it) and local property taxes, with some federal and state dollars tossed into the mix. If you own or rent property (if you rent, your property taxes are built into your rent) and you don't drive, you are still paying taxes that help build and maintain you local roads, and chances are that the States are using money from the "general fund" to pay for some transportation costs as well. We've now had the spectre of the House of Representatives voting to repeal the act for the 31st time - that means there are now 31 repeal bills pending in the Senate that are not going to be passed. Those bills don't go away until the Senate either votes on them (and they're all being held with no floor vote) or until this session of Congress ends (next January). The GOP in the House is wasting our time - the people's time. Is that what the GOP-leaning public really wants? A circus act?

The Scoutmaster's handbook says don't do it - that should be good enough for all of us. In the military, having a drill sargeant do the old "drop and give me 20" routine is as much about instilling a specific form of discipline (boot camp is about breaking you down and building you back up) to get you on "the team" then it is about "punishment". Some athletic coaches think much the same way - summer football practice is similar - break you down as an individual to build you up as part of the team. But that isn't what Scouting is all about, is it? In Scouting, there are better ways to instill discipline than the whole push-up thing, and a lot of times, it can be geared towards the specific "offense". I've said this before but it bears repeating - in my Troop, if there was a totin-chip violation, we didn't lose corners of the cards. Instead, we were given a task to do - it might be sharpen all the axes, or if it was a particularly eggregrious violation, sharpen all of the bow saws. I admit to having had to sharpen the axes once (when I laid an axe down unsheathed in the axeyard for 20 seconds that turned into 15 minutes when I was called away from the axeyard and forgot to bury the axe or re-sheath it - oops - and I never did that again).

One of the best skills I ever learned in leading walks, hikes and ski-trips was learning to lead from behind. I worked Cub Scout Day Camps (paid staff - camps were organized and run by council) for 5 years as the director of the Nature Center - I was the one most likely to lead the Cubs on a nature walk through the woods - Since the trails weren't that difficult to follow, I could send the Den Chief (each group had a "Den Chief - it was out CIT position - paid as well) to be the point person, and I led the hikes from the rear - drove the parents who came along nuts sometimes (it usually took them a while to see how this can work) where I always had full view of everyone in front of me - though we still used the Buddy System, I always knew exactly where everyone was, even the adults and never lost a single person. When I worked OKPIK at MNHA (before it was a Council program), I set the SPL up front to lead and I skied behind everyone else - I knew where everyone was, I could tell if someone was struggling, I could see how the sleds were handling, and I never lost a single person). Of course, nowadays, when I'm not leading, I still manage to finagle my way as the last person in the group - habit I guess. As to the original question, I suggest this is one of those areas where the gray and the black-and-white can't be reconciled. These videos were on th Scout's own phone so you would have to report the Scout to the authorities for victimizing himself. Let's not even go into having Scout volunteers try to determine what is "obscene" - I know people who think photos of the park district swim team in the local paper is obscene and others who don't consider porn to be obscene unless it deals with children or some of the more extreme practices out there. It sounds like you handled this correctly with no need to second guess yourself.

While I'm sympathetic to the notion that standing in rank, in uniform, and saluting, when not in the color guard, is a form of participation, I see that as more spectating (with an audience response) then actually participating. Now unless I'm mistaken, or they've changed the books so much thet they're no longer relevant to the requirements, you can usually get a pretty good idea what the requirement means by reading the chapter in the book that covers the requirement. If the Wolf book indicates that standing on the sidelines saluting is participating in an outdoor flag ceremony, then go ahead and use that logic. Of course, one could then argue that going to a baseball game, standing up and singing the National Anthem could also be considered participating in an outdoor flag ceremony (baseball is played outside, we face the flag when singing the anthem - and what rules is there to say that a flag ceremony must include raising and lowering the flag?). But lets go beyond all of that for a second - I know when I was a Cub Scout, I was excited when I got to be one of the guys in the color guard raising or lowering the flag at the outdoor flagpole - why would we want to discourage a Cub Scout from the excitement of being in the color guard? Do we really want to answer a Cub Scout who excitedly asks when his turn is to participate in the color guard so he can get that achievement signed off by saying "Well gosh, Billy, you already get that signed off because you participated by watching the other color guard do it so you don't need to be on a color guard"? I sure hope not.

"No FOS solicitations at the ECOH either, I suppose?" If some clown tried to do an FOS presentation at my ECOH, I wouldn't be Eagle Scout after physically kicking the idiot to the curb.

I'm going to say no, no it won't. We have too many words in the English language with multiple meanings, and we give new meanings to existing words all the time. The folks who wrote the US Constitution (it was not solely James Madison, contrary to popular belief) were very good with words and they started fighting over interpretations almost before the ink dried on the document (one of the first battles, interestingly enough, was also a health care mandate, a law requiring merchant marines to buy insurance, and one that was declared constitutional - I just find the parallels to today interesting from a "the more things change the more they stay the same" perspective).

I'm with Trevorum - I think it just sends the wrong message about Boy Scouts to the general public. I don't think I'd want to try to defend the practice once the "did you hear that the BSA is charging people to hold flag ceremonies for them" whispering campaign gets going. I sure wouldn't want to be in the Troop that caused that whispering campaign and had to face fellow Scouters from other units that might start getting calls wondering if they'll still be participating in Memorial Day or Veteran's Day ceremonies without charging. Plus there is the logistics - most corporate annual meetings take place during the work-day, and usually early enough in the year that school is in session - do you think parents will take kindly to the idea of taking their kids out of school for part of the day to particiapte in a fundraiser? My opinion, we keep flag ceremonies on the same level as other volunteer service to our communities - it's just something we, as Boy Scouts, do, without expectations of any remuneration for the job.

First, I'd really like to know just what problem this was the solution too. Second, don't trip!

BBQ with friends and neighbors, proved to a loudmouth tea-party guy who claimed that liberals don't know the first word of the Declaration of Independence that the first word is not "when" as he claims but "In" as in "In Congress..." much to the delight of his liberal wife, then enjoyed fireworks from 5 towns while sitting in a chair in one spot.

It occurs to me that, as far as recruiting for Boy Scouts at a parade, folks might be more successful if the lads weren't wearing the "Class A's" but instead were wearing t-shirts with the logo, troop number, and a silohuette of a Scout wearing a helmet and climbing a rope up a rock wall. Alternatively, a troop of Scouts wearing an 'activity uniform' while wearing backpacks and using walking sticks would be even more impressive, I would think, to the target audience.

I'm going to suggest the most important POR to train is the one that doesn't count for rank advancement - the Assistant Patrol Leader. If you can manage it, try to train your Assistant Patrol Leaders in the art of being Patrol Leaders so that when they become Patrol Leaders they're already "cooking with gas" rather than floundering for a couple of months as they're being trained (and if they aren't elected, they can still serve a yet to be trained Patrol Leader be helping them get up to speed). A trained Patrol Leader should be able to step into the job of SPL with little additional training needed - The biggest job, in my opinion, of the SPL, is to support and mentor the PL's - if he's already been a PL, he'll understand what PL's need most. With one other exception, the rest of the POR's can be learned on the fly - it really doesn't take long to train a QM, Scribe, Librarian, etc. The other exception? The, in my opinion, second most important position to get trained - the Den Chief. The Den Chief should be the strongest recruiting tools in your Troops quiver. He's got to be trained to be able to switch from being a Boy Scout to being a Cub Scout Leader "on demand" as it were - and to be that example that you want to impress the Cub Scouts and Webelos with so that they want to join Boy Scouts, and to be that example you want to impress Cubmasters and Den Leaders with so that they'll want Den Chiefs from your Troop. PS: "which came first, the chicken or the egg." If you think about it, this is actually a very easy question to answer. The Egg came first. Donosaurs roamed the earth long before Chickens ever did and dinosaurs laid eggs (we won't go into the theories of birds being one of the most closely related descendents of dinosaurs) therefore the egg came long before the chicken.

The problem isn't that people will disagree with the sentiment because it opposes their beliefs. The problem is that people think it applies to everyone but them.

I see we're back to silly arguments again. Beavah has a good analysis of one section - most of the other stuff is just plain silly, like saying that Medicare will pay for a consult between patient and doctor to discuss end of life care is "death panels". The suggestion that now the government could require everyone to buy guns? About as silly as Scalia's Brocolli argument (I almost wonder if Roberts voted to uphold so people wouldn't think he fell for that stupid bit of nonsense), except that there are some local governments that have done just that. Doctors are going to go to cash only basis? Nonsense - the vast majority of patients pay with some form of insurance already, and both the insurance companies and Medicare have used tables to determine how much they'll pay doctors for services - and have contracts with the doctors that the doctoras will accept that funding - the affordable health care act doesn't change that equation at all - Medicare and the private insurance companies will continue to do what they've done all along, and doctors that drop out better be so good that they can offer healthcare to millionaires only or they will go broke, fast. The silliest argument of all? "The nations 100 largest employers will pay $111 billion in fines if they drop health insurance when Obamacare...er...ACA provisions are fully implemented in 2014, but it will cost them over $450 billion to provide ACA-compliant coverage." The nation's 100 largest employers already pay over $450 billion per year to offer their employees health care benefits, and they do it without the threat of any fines because they want to attract top talent and want to make sure their employees are healthy and, if they do get sick, can be brought back to wellness quickly. It's not very likely that they will decide to drop their health care plans to employees and just pay the fine (and that is what this argument suggests - if they can pay just $111 billion instead of $450 billion, they'll do it). They aren't going to stop offering health care benefits because their competitors aren't going to stop health care benefits and they want to remain competitive and can only do that by continuing to offer up health care benefits. The exceptions - the Walmarts and McDonalds and the like, who are heavily reliant on part time workers, are the ones most likely to be affected by these provisions - and if they decide to pay the fines instead of beefing up their benefits, we shouldn't be surprised, since they haven't felt the need to pay decent benefits now.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned one of the aims and methods of Scouting: Adult Association. Take a look at this definition: Associations With Adults. Boys learn a great deal by watching how adults conduct themselves. Scout leaders can be positive role models for the members of the troop. In many cases a Scoutmaster who is willing to listen to boys, encourage them, and take a sincere interest in them can make a profound difference in their lives. You might use it as a way to open dialogue with the other adults and ask them how this "tradition" fits in.

"Does your troop "give pushups" or make Scouts "run around the building" for disciplinary issues?" Why would a Boy Scout Troop want to act like a high school sports team?

"Smoking and the use of tobacco products by anyone under age 18 is illegal in the state of New Mexico, and Philmont strongly discourages the use of tobacco products by anyone. All buildings, tents, and vehicles at Philmont are smoke-free. There are designated smoking areas for those who smoke." Philmont's smoking policy. Don't be surprised if the guide tells everyone that there will be no smoking on the trek.

Shortridge: Done and Done!

My point isn't that he is or isn't - it's that if there was a guy with those exact stats in anytown USA that wanted to help a Boy Scout Troop as an ASM, a lot of people would be suggesting that he couldn't serve because he probably isn't straight - I only ask why we would overlook that in one person and not likely overlook it in anyone else. Rowe might very well be a perfectly good Chief Scout (though Kudu has a rather interesting perspective) but me might not be the best choicee, politically, as a first or second Chief Scout. I think you'd want to choose as a first Chief Scout someone that potentially wouldn't be deflecting certain awkward questions the first few months of his term. As I think about it some more, I think we shouldn't choose a celebrity to be Chief Scout anyway - what message does that really send? I think we should make the Chief Scout role a permanent, salaried job, to be filled for a one year term starting June 1 and ending May 31 of every year, and hire from that year's undergraduate college graduation class an Eagle Scout that has completed his degree program with highest honors, while remaining active either in their local Troop, a local Troop in his college locale, or in the college reserve or BSA fraternity to travel the country visiting summer camps and day camps, talking to Scouts, visiting camporees, visiting Troops, Packs and Crews, and being a full time Ambassador to Scouting for his term, with a generous travel allowance and a generous paycheck. We should have a "Super-Scout" as Chief Scout, not a celebrity.

Family signs son up for Cub Scouts - gives Pack a check - Pack submits paperwork with everyone elses and pays Council. After Council is paid, the family's check bounces. Council isn't going to refund the money, and if you can't get the family to make good on the bounced check, the Pack is now out money that could have been used for their needs - the Treasurer is right, the donation to the Pack will come in handy to help make up for the Pack's loss due to the bounced check. The donation is extra - above and beyond the fundraiser. Your selling an Applebees breakfast to help with camp. You aren't asking for donations to help with camp. You have a pack policy that whatever donations are received, it goes to the Pack, not the individual "scout accounts". There was no need for the Treasurer to consult anyone - she was stating Pack policy. The parents that yelled at the Treasurer, in uniform, in public? They need to be told to call the Treasurer and apologize - and if they refuse, you pull all the money from their son's "scout accounts", post it to the Pack accounts, and inform them that you will help them find a new Pack for their sons because obviously, this is not the Pack for them.

I've responded to PM's received by PM. I'll leave that to that. But - I am truly and utterly appalled and disgusted at the comments some of you have made. This is a woman who loves Scouting, has had a very trying experience with the childish garbage some adults like to play, and the frustration was quite evident in her first post. Comments about caps and spacing and the like weren't really helpful - but I guess that happens when people stop being empathetic to their fellow humans. I'm happy to see that some folks made an attempt to read and respond - and yes, the best answer is to find a new troop for her 11-year old son, but that doesn't excuse some of the rudeness that was posted. If you responded, read your post again and reflect on whether you kept the Scout Law in mind at all. Baden - enough with the idiotic "might be a Troll" posts with every new poster - it's tired and makes anything else you post easy to dismiss - you usually have great things to share - stick with that, sir. Some of you really missed the mark (AnniePoo, Seattle, Basement - I'm glaring at you) Seattle - really? You're better than that. AnniePoo - you haven't been here long enough to be snarky - I'm the king of snark and you aren't worthy. If you can't read or understand the post, move on and let those of us with the patience and ability to read it answer. Basement - "You really come off just babbling....have you considered getting some medical help??????" Absolutely beyond the pale - an apology from you is in order. We are here as Scouters and GUESTS of Scouter Terry - he asks but ONE thing from us - to act in a manner consistent with the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Even now, I'm wondering if it's the Scoutlike thing to do to hit enter and post this to the forum - but I've decided, I've done my best to keep my anger at the way some folks have treated this poster under control and believe it's just as Scoutlike to publically call those people out.

You should have called the police over immediately after the ASM assaulted you. Do you have an attorney friend? Consult him/her about filing an assault charge against him now then have the attorney take the assault complaint to the head of the chartering organization and tell him/her that you are preparing a lawsuit against the CO for failing to control their leaders, as agents of the CO, leading to a physical assault. Then find a new Troop - because if the head of the CO has any sense, he'll shut down the Troop immediately - scorched earth. Or just find a new Troop for your youngest son (because if he wants to become Eagle Scout, he won't do it in this Troop - 15 months and he's not been given the Scout badge? After Webelos and probably AOL to boot? Your son doesn't have a chance with these bozos.

I'm not upset (why do people think I'm upset about these kinds of things? I'm a realist - we tend not to get upset about things). I certainly have to say it's a new situation for a BOR - a good one to discuss. Now granted, I was probably being a bit snarky when I suggested the adults grow up - I do tend to be snarky like that at times, but that's because I truly think were in the 21st century already, and really, the Victorian Age? It wasn't all that great and we should have outgrown those attitudes by now. But Moose is right, you do have a right to feel uncomfortable so the question becomes, can you put aside your uncomfortableness for the sake of the Scout, who was unperterbed by it all? It seems to me that you did - now if the Scout was bothered, then perhaps a recess would have been in order - but my larger point, which I think you got, is that it's rather bad form to ask someone to volunteer for something this important than get upset because she was able to successfully fulfill that role while also sucessfully fulfilling her more important role as a mother to a newborn. So the question really becomes, what do you do now? Do you make a rule that mothers can't nurse their newborns in BORs from now on? Gosh, I hope not - do we really need rules for everything? Or do you do what Beavah suggests and try to have enough volunteers on hand to avoid this kind of situation in the future (a fine idea) or as Moose suggests, have enough volunteers who won't feel squeamish if this kind of situation presents itself (also a fine idea). Finally, who are you really upset with? This parent or yourself for not thinking that this might happen with the mother of a newborn? Lastly, Welcome to the forums!

Nope - not upset at all - and yes, I would have said the exact same thing if a group of folks left because of the restrictions on homosexuality of adult leaders. I'm just stating things as I see them. It has nothing to do with the advancement issues (see previous threads by the OP) and I'm merely commenting on the issue the OP brings forth in this thread to show that there seems to be no G2SS violations here (or am I wrong and you can point out the statements in the literature that says gay and lesbian parents, siblings and offspring aren't just restricted from being leaders but are restricted in participating period?). We've given the OP advice for some time now on issues with this unit (including advice to go somewhere else), and now that this ticking time bomb has exploded, the OP needs to have some ideas of what happens now. One thing that you'll consistently find in these forums, from a variety of folks, is that unless you control the COR position, it can be hard to change the program if folks are resistant to the change and finding a new unit is often preferable to confrontation - here we have an example of confrontation, of things coming to a head - and it's apparent that the OP's side has lost this battle. Some of us gray beards have been through this ourselves a few times - I think you may have as well - so doesn't it make sense to provide that experienced perspective? It's not unusual for a COR/CC to have put a bug in the ear of the head of the chartering organization that the "losing side" are a bunch of trouble making rebels - thus while I agree that it's not a bad idea to write to the Parish Priest about this, that they be prepared that the institutional head has pre-conceived notions already. They will be starting new units - but the equipment belongs to the CO and sine the CO still has active units, they can't count on there being any equipment available - and I'm only warning that taking the equipment with could find them with more than just personality clashes. We've also talked about Scout Accounts ad nauseum on the forums - a lot of folks seem to expect that Scout Accounts will follow their Scouts from unit to unit - but that's just not how it happens. I certainly wish Concerned luck - but I also think it's best to know what happens next. And yes, in hindsight, it appears to me that this confrontation was a long time coming and was inevitable.

So let me see if I have this right. A mother of a newborn took time out from her busy and hectic life (ask any mother of a newborn how much free time they have) to volunteer as a member of a BOR for a Scout's Eagle Scout rank, who apparently had no problem with this mother breast-feeding her infant during his BOR (presumably she was modest about it since you don't mention any "exposure" issues) and you want us to be upset that she breast fed her hungry infant during the BOR rather than wait until the BOR was over or doing so before the BOR started (and likely before the infant was ready to feed)? Well, I suppose another alternative would have been to reschedule this lads BOR until you had someone more "appropriate" to serve. The Boy Scout had no problem - maybe it's time some of the adults follow his example and just grow up already.