CalicoPenn

So when the rapture occurs on May 21, and all these people who are preparing for the rapture aren't taken up, will they turn their back on God and declare that there is no God, or will they cry and moan because they quit their jobs and spent all their money and now want the taxpayers to bail them out?

Can I just point out (once again) that the Scout Oath starts out with, "On my honor, I WILL DO MY BEST..." It doesn't say "I will do what my Scoutmaster decides is best", or "I will do whatever everyone else does". This is a personal oath - it's about the individual. It's not about comparing Johnny Scout with Benjamin Scout, or for that matter, requiring a Scout to live up to our interpretation of Best, or even some potential we have decided for a Scout - it's about asking the Scout to do HIS best. Frankly, I would really love for the BSA to just quietly do away with the whole ban on agnostics and athiests. I'm afraid that when it comes right down to it, folks of religion are no better than athiests at living a decent life - and heck, one could even argue, given that there are more Christians in prison than athiests, that folks of religion do worse. Then maybe we could start arguing about things like what does Thrifty mean? Is buying a $30 kitchen knife set at Target thriftier than buying a $250 set of Wusthoff kitchen knives?

Unfortunately, the Pack leadership failed this boy. You can talk with the Pack about how to deal with things in the future, but that doesn't help this lad right now. I'm going to suggest something that might sound a bit radical to some - but if you really want this lad in your Troop, and think you can keep this lad in Scouting, it just might be crazy enough to work. First, you tell this lad you want him to stick around so he can join your Troop - and you promise - pinky promise if you have to - that the bully will not be allowed to join the Troop. Second, you get yourself listed as a Den Leader with the Pack - and you're going to have a Den of 1. This lad. He's only got a year left to bridge over which is why I think this could work. You work with him on his Webelos advancement - including Arrow of Light. If you work it right, you find a Scout in your unit that would be glad to be a mentor to this lad and make him a Den Chief (there is nothing in the manuals that says a Den Chief can't be involved in a Den of 1). Let the Den Chief handle most of the work while you supervise - they could meet on a weekly basis at the Webelos' lads home. Third - invite the lad to attend Troop meetings - perhaps once per month to start - and invite him to a couple of camping trips as his webelos visits. Summer Camp is notin the cards, but there is nothing to prevent him from joining in with his Den Chief's Patrol on a few outings. (It's quite possible that the rest of the lads in the Troop will be like big brothers to him as well). Fourth - Recognize the lad with his awards as you would your Troop members (hopefully with immediate recognition - then at your Court of Honor). Remember that you, and this lad, are still part of the Pack so make sure to invite the Cubmaster - and try to engage in some of the Pack activities as well - like Pinewood Derby. Finally, do up a nice crossover ceremony for when the time comes to cross him over - maybe it's part of the Pack and maybe it's not. Of course, if the other lad leaves the Pack, you won't have to do any of this - but if not - it just might keep the lad in the program - a year of "Lone Cubbing" with a Troop providing support.

"Since everybody from Obama on down is now crowing about the success of the Bin Laden mission, that relied on information obtained in some of these interrogations" This presumes, of course, that information obtained in the illegal torture cases was used - and the only ones making that claim are pundits who are making wild speculations as to where the intelligence actually came from. Since those illegal torture cases happened long before this intelligence was gathered, then the liklihood that this operation relied on information obtained in those interrogations is pretty much zero. "The polite scouter part of me is going to answer you and say that what these people did, they did under legal orders and therefore are exempt from prosecution." If you are talking about the operation that got Bin Laden, then yes. If, however, you are talking about the illegal torture interrogations, then nope - it's pretty much settled that you can't give a legal order to do something illegal. Any order to do something illegal is illegitimate and can never be legal.

You know what's great about the internet? Having the ability to check out stories like this with other sources. CBS News reported on this back at the end of March when the CBO report was released. It was requested by Kent Conrad (D) - Chair of the Senate Budget Committee and Senator from North Dakota. North Dakota isn't exactly known as an urban state. It came out of a congressional hearing with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood where Conrad was pondering the question of how to pay for some transportation projects. Conrad asked "Do we do gas tax?" - apparently wondering if there were other ways to raise fund than raising the gas tax. He also asked - and this is a quote "Do we move to some kind of an assessment that is based on how many miles vehicles go, so that we capture revenue from those who are going to be using the roads who aren't going to paying any gas tax, or very little, with hybrids and electric cars?" I have to admit, he's got a good point about the hybrids and electric cars. Ray LaHood responded that instituting more tolling on roads (toll roads for those that live in states without them) was an option in some states - and added that "the president has made it clear that he's not in favor of raising the gas tax when we have 9% unemployment in this country" According to the report, LaHood ® had suggested a mileage tax in 2009, but President Obama rejected the idea - with then press secretary Gibbs telling the media that "It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration". This seems to me a pretty unequivocal statement that a VMT is not an option. What The Hill is reporting on in it's blog is likely to be a rough draft provided as a courtesy to various senators and house members to gather opinions, and not the actual proposal, as the White House has stated, and that it was added in for Conrad's benefit. The oil refinery question was answered - now the drilling. The oil companies are sitting on hundreds of thousands of acres of oil leases where they already have permits to drill. No one is preventing them from drilling where they have these existing permits except the oil companies themselves.

OGE - I admit to being a bit confused myself. The OP states that the lad was caught and arrested - but then states that the lad thinks he "got away with it". I suppose I figured that this meant that the lad was arrested but that the charges were dropped or he was not found guilty - we just don't have that further piece of information - but the way it's written does make it seem as if something happened after the arrest that isn't being shared with us.

Yep - I just might be splitting that fine hair - but what's more likely to succeed in changing behavior - telling a Scout he isn't going to proceed because he's not meeting Scout Spirit (past behavior) or telling a Scout he's not going to proceed because his behavior will prevent him from getting and holding a POR (giving him a chance to change past behavior for future success)? If I'm doing a Scoutmaster's Conference and pull the old Scout Spirit out for the first time to hold back a rank, I'm doing a disservice to the boy, in my opinion. But, if I pull the old Scout Spirit out and focus on consequences and future behavior, isn't that a better way to approach it? You make a valid point about it being up to the lads to elect/appoint - but there is nothing that prevents a Scoutmaster from pulling the Patrol / SPL aside before elections/appointments and asking them if they feel someone who hides during dish duty or whines and complains about the tasks he's asked to do, or plays his games/texts/doesn't engage when at meetings is the kind of person they want to elect as PL/SPL or hold an appointed POR. The Scouts will get it.

Basement - you asked some specifics - I'll answer them: Scout spirit.... Would you delay advancement because the scout never shows up to the meeting never wearing his scout shirt (Nope - because there is no absolute requirement by the BSA that a Scout has to own and wear a uniform in order to be a Scout and advance in rank. Yes, the uniform is a method of Scouting - but it isn't an Aim of Scouting. Unless you can show me where the requirements to advance in rank tell a Scout that they must have and wear a uniform, I'll hold to this position. He's still attending the meetings - presumably he's getting something out of it. There may be a lot of reasons why a Scout isn't wearing a uniform. Maybe there is affordability issues - and I'm not about to ask. I've mentioned the diversity of the Troop of my youth in the past - a couple of the lads in the Troop were Mennonites - and they advanced in rank just like the rest of us - but they never wore a Scout uniform - they wore the same plain clothing they wore everyday which is expected as part of their religion - the boys hung their patches and rank badges up on their bedroom wall and never wore them. I wouldn't dream of holding lads like that up on advancement for not wearing the uniform) Hiding when it is his turn to clean up the dishes (No - only because I won't be holding up his advancement, he will. I'll not hold up a T-foot or 2nd Class if he's done all the requirements and is behaving in this manner - I'd rather meet with him to make sure he understands what will happen if he continues this behavior. What will happen is he will not receive any POR until he is ready to show that he is willing to be lead. This is the way I would hold up advancement - you can't earn Star without a POR, and I would tell the young man that he's not earned a POR by this behavior. This way he is holding up his advancement, not me. I'll also ask the SPL to meet with the lad's PL to come up with a plan to make sure the lad is doing his share of the work - even if it means holding the entire Troop up on an activity until the lad completes his task if its his trun to wash the dishes. Let peer pressure handle it at those ranks). Complains and whines while completing tasks. (Probably not - I know a lot of folks who complain and whine while completing tasks - they may not do them cheerfully, but they get done. Again, this is time for a discussion of what could happen in the future if this behavior continues - and again, it's related to earning a POR (and for those purists out there, by earning, I mean proving himself ready.) I'd be much more inclined to let the lad know that as SM, I hold the key to nomination to the OA - a Brotherhood of Cheerful Service - and I'm not seeing much evidence of cheerful service in him. I'd also be reminding him that Cheerful is part of the Scout Law). Does not show up regularly to meetings unless it is his BOR night? (How can he possibly advance then if he's not done the work? If he's Star, Life or Eagle bound, and not showing up, I'm removing him from his POR (unless there is some good reason he's not showing up - and yes, I consider most High School activities good reasons, and would want to make sure he's in a POR that still gives back to the Troop even if the lad isn't always there - maybe he can't make Troop meetings on Monday nights for a few weeks, but he can make a local Pack's Den and Pack meetings on Thursday nights during that time - hello Den Chief). Attends and spends the entire meeting texting or playing with his cell phone. (Again - discussion on earning/keeping POR here - again, he's holding his advancement up - not me).

I dislike the whole "rubber stamp" argument, and I do so because I believe it expresses a distrust in other Scouters. If my definition of Scout Spirit or Reverent or Trustworthy or Morally Straight disagrees with your defintion, then chances are you might think I'm just rubber stamping Scouts through the ranks. For some folks, a kid caught shoplifting at 13 will never be Eagle material, even if the kid cleans up his act and if I were to approve him for Eagle at 17, those folks would claim I'm rubber stamping him. If I spent those years working with the lad and seeing him atone for his actions and clean up his act, I'd fine that pretty insulting. I think we need to be more sensitive about tossing the term "rubber stamp" around when dealing with the subjective requirements. Attending a 1 hour First Aid Merit Badge class and getting the Merit Badge? I'll call that rubber stamping. But I have to ask - is a quiet lad who stays home playing video games in his basement all day showing more Scout Spirit than a lad that volunteers every week at a food bank but lets slip the random OMG or curse word? I know which one I'd think is getting more from Scouts, and is showing more Scout Spirit. If I'm going to delay or pause a Scouts advancement, it's going to have to be something serious to warrant it - something I've either witnessed first hand, have reliable witnesses seeing it first hand (no "I heard from someone at school that Scout Tommy does drugs"), the Scout has confessed to, or the Scout has been found guilty of. An accusation isn't really enough for me. In the other thread, I see a Scout accused of vandalizing another car - no detail on how it was vandalized (tying tin cans to the bumper can be considered vandalism in some places - I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist about something like that), and with the statement that "the Scout thinks he got away with it", I'd want to know what's behind that statement - charges dropped? Found not guilty? No evidence to prove it up? If it's that serious, I'm not just holding up advancement - I'm removing the lad from the unit. If I don't feel it's serious enough to warrant removal, then I can't think of anything that would make me prevent a Scout from reaching the ultimate goal.

First the good news - it's found in the "fine print" in "The 12 Steps from Life to Eagle". It reads "If a unit leader or unit committee fails to sign or otherwise approve and application, the Eagle candidate may still be granted a board of review. The failure of a unit leader or unit committee to sign an application may be considered by the board of review in determining the qualificaton of the Eagle candidate". In other words, if all the requirements are completed (note I said completed, not completed to your satisfaction) and the only thing missing is your signature, the lad still gets his BOR. You can simply punt this to the BOR and let them make the decision. So you can not sign this with a good conscience - you've not approved of this, but you've also not yanked the rug out from under the Scout at the last minute. Ultimately, the Scout may still be awarded the Eagle rank - that's now going to be a matter between him and the BOR (and potentially National if he's turned down and appeals. If I were you, I would not sign, explain to the Scout and father that the lack of your signature doesn't mean he can't get his BOR. In fact, I'd make sure that I contacted the District Advancement Chair and let him/her know you've not signed, but that the lad is still entitled to his BOR and facilitate that. Now the bad news. I would also "fire" the "backbone" of the unit for delivering what is essentially a "him or me" ultimatum or resign as CC and let someone else deal with him from now on. Yes, he has legitimate feelings of hurt and anger - but making a "my way or I'm gone" threat isn't very helpful, friendly, courteous or kind to you. This isn't about the other Scout, this is about this leader not trusting YOU to do what's right, and to handle this situation properly. I would personally find it most discourteous of someone to come to me with this kind of threat. Frankly, I'm the type that takes them up on it the moment they make the threat. I would have told him as soon as he said he would back out that you were sorry to see him go, his service was appreciated, and his resignation was accepted. But that's up to you - you might be able to live with that. I know I wouldn't want to.

Seems to me every one involved - from the Scouts and their leaders, to the parents, to the search and rescue teams, handled everything perfectly. I'd even go so far as to call it textbook. The Scouts checked the weather report before starting out and got the green light. The weather changed, and changed their plans. Instead of trying to make their way out, they stayed put - on high ground - and built a fire to keep warm and dry out. It sounds like they kept a fire watch all night. The parents reacted properly by informing the authorities that the Scouts had not returned when expected. This wasn't a case of helicoptering, it was a case of folks doing exactly what they should be doing. When I inform my friends that I will be out on a trail, and give my expected return time, I hope my friends will start to worry and report me possibly missing if I'm not back within a reasonable time period after my expected return. 7:00 pm seems reasonable to me. The authorities sent up helicopters - also reasonable in that that is a faster way to search a wide area that is now difficult to access by foot. Why the evacuation by helicopter? Off the top of my head, I forsee declining fresh water supplies, declining food supplies, and that waiting for the water level to drop so that the river crossing could be made could take a week or more in this season. The area got hit by 8" of rain in less than 2 days - that water isn't going anywhere fast. Check out the floosing situation in the Cairo, Illinois area - current estimates are that the water levels might not drop to normal levels for another month or so. This is something the BSA hould hop on right now - they should make this unit the poster boys for the movement.

I don't think it matters that we're created a new martyr in Bin Laden. I think Bin Ladens been a Martyr-in-Waiting for a long time now, and he would be a martyr even if he died of natural causes.

Perhaps this thought should be spun off but maybe it's relevant to this discussion. I think we all assume that the BSA requires a belief in God, or in A God, or in a higher power. But I wonder if that's true by definition or true by truism. I've been reflecting a bit on the DRP, Scout Oath and Scout Law today. The DRP requires an obligation to God. The Scout Oath requires a Duty to God. The Scout Law requires reverence to God (and a tolerance of other folks beliefs). But here's where I pause. It seems obvious that in order to have an obligation, duty, and reverence to God, one needs to believe in God - but no where is it specifically spelled out that one must actually believe in God in order to have an obligation, duty or reverence to God. It seems to me it's just an assumption - but can't it be said that someone who shows respect for other's beliefs is showing a reverence to God - perhaps not their own, but to a God? And can't it be said that someone who fills sandbags for their neighbors is showing a duty to thir neighbor's God, even if they, themselves, don't believe in their neighbor's God? Just something to ponder.

BadenP - my apologies if I misunderstood your intent. When I read "might" I assumed bringing the military to bear.

BadenP - I have to respectfully disagree. We didn't get him for the longest time because we were trying to use might. This success was the result of intelligence gathering and analysis - of making connections - good old detective work. the only might involved was the end game. I think trying to use might all those years lowered our chances of getting him.

Basement - there are places in Boy Scout advancement where "participation equals completion" so it's not just a Cub Scout thing. For instance, there is no requirement that a Scout "pass" a Scoutmaster's Conference, only that he participate in one. Whether the Scout actually "believes" in God, by attending church on Sunday, he is honoring God, and that is what being reverent is all about - honoring God. If he truly doesn't "believe" in God, he's meeting the second part of A Scout is Reverent by respecting the beliefs of others (and isn't it interesting how often many of us forget about the respecting the beliefs of others part?) and by attending church, is still honoring God. Attending church on Sunday is widely regarded as meeting one's obligation to God. In BadenP's terrific example, there is a Scout who does not go to church - how does he meet his obligation to God? (for me this is rhetorical - I believe there are many ways we can meet an obligation to God - cleaning up a woodland on a Sunday instead of going to church is a valid way of meeting one's obligation to God in my book). The Scout hasn't announced he is an athiest, which is a rejection of any kind of higher power. The Scout has said there is no God - but there is nothing to indicate why the Scout says there is no God, or that he rejects a higher power. I suggested he may be having a crisis of faith because he's lost, or losing, someone close to him, SRBeaver has a good alternative I hadn't thought of, as does BadenP. Any or all of these may be in play. Or it's possible that his family is in a congregation where the word of God is more important than the existence of God. I merely recommend caution before judgement.

I'm hopeful it means we stop the silly "war" on terror garbage and this leads back to what has always proven successful - intelligence gathering, prevention, and a law enforcement approach.

Right now, you have a Scout that is going to church every week - which, on the face of it, satisifies the requirements to show a reverence to God and an obligation to God. He's meeting the requirements despite his statement that "there is no God". I wouldn't consider these words to mean that he doesn't believe in God - not at this age, not when his family goes to church. When someone expresses these particular words - that there is no God - more often than not something else is going on and the person is lashing out at the thing that he's been told is an all-powerful, all-knowing, being. Talk to the parents first - but not in any confrontational way - do not go to them and bluntly state that their son doesn't believe in God. Instead, suggest that based on your conference discussion, the lad may be having a crisis of faith and ask if something has happened recently to make him wonder if there is a God or not. Maybe a beloved pet died, or a very good friend, or a grandparent, or teacher - someone close. Or maybe the family is now dealing with an illness. Do not stop his trail of advancement - as I mentioned, by going to church, he is being reverent to God, even if he is having his own personal issues with God. It's not up to you to gauge whether he believes in God - only if he's meeting an obligation to God and showing reverence to God.

"The demise of Southern Industrial Banking of the Butcher's destroyed many lives because it was no insured though signs seemed to imply that it was. Many people lost their life's savings and retirement." Just a touch misleading there, dont you think? Southern Industrial Banking Corp was a bank holding corporation, not a bank. The deposits held at the banks owed by SIBC were, of course, insured through the FDIC. The signs at the banks informing folks that their deposits were insured applied only to the bank deposits. Investments in the bank holding corporation, however, are not insured. I can't think of a single stockholder investment that is insured by the government. Except for those who had deposits greater than the guaranteed insured amount, the folks that lost money were the stockholders, not the depositers.

Perdidochas, I did indeed read the linked to article (which lead me to try to learn even more). What I was commenting on was this specific quote from eisely: "Anyway, Carter now blames the US for food shortages in North Korea" I just don't see that. I see him taking the US to task for not doing enough to end the suffering because of the food shortages, but I don't see him blaming the US for causing the food shortages. And yes, I read eisely's quote as meaning that Carter was blaming the US for causing North Korea's food shortages.

Yeah - I get a different read from this (and checked into the genesis of the trip a bit further). First, you have governments and the UN falling all over themselves backwards and forwards denying that they have anything to do with this trip. All of them claim that it's a "private" trip and they weren't even thinking of talking to the folks on the trip about it (in addition to Carter, there was also former presidents of Finland, Norway and Ireland along). I call that attempting to sow the seeds of plausible deniability. My hunch (and it's only a hunch - but the hunch is based on historical precedents) is that the US State Department and/or the UN approached Carter to make an unofficial "personal" visit to gauge the current "temperature" in North Korea. Second, although Kim Jong Il didn't meet with this group, there was still a message sent to them that was more than just "Hi welcome to North Korea, why are you here and leave me alone". Governments don't generally send messages that are diplomatic in nature to private citizens making "personal" visits. Third - I see nothing in the article that has Carter blaming the US for food shortages in North Korea. I don't consider suggesting to the US that withholding food aid to a country that has food shortages for political reasons is wrong is blaming the US for the food shortages. Instead, I see it as blaming, and perhaps shaming, the US for withholding food aid to a people that are suffering because of food shortages because of political disagreements with the leaders of the country. Frankly, I think Carter's statement should have been stronger - standing back and letting people who are suffering from food shortages starve because we don't like the dictator who has them under his thumb is an affront to humanity in general. Apparently the State Department has listened to Carter on this because a few reports state that the State Department is trying to figure out a work-around of Kim Jong Il to get food aid to the people of North Korea. I'd say Jimmy Carter has been a darn fine Ex-President - one of our best.

"If the receiving Pack can't provide a whole Den leader for all of my Bears (in exchange for whatever they want of me..." What if the only thing they want of you is to be Den Leader. No other role - not CM, not ACM, not a committee member - just the Den Leader for what appears to be a good size Den as it stands right now? Seems to me this is the win-win.

BS-87. I can't wait to see the "proof" that we engaged in Libya because of oil. Libya isn't even in the top 25 of countries that export to the US. Heck, we get more oil from Belgium than we do from Libya. No one with a lick of common sense would believe that we engaged in Libya because of oil. Heck, I don't even believe that GWB engaged in Iraq because of oil (I think he engaged because he wanted to prove that had more testicular fortitude than his daddy, who he believes embarrassed the family by not marching into Baghdad - and had to learn the hard way that Father Knows Best). But of course, being Scouts, you should have the opportunity to make your case. Good luck with that.

"Imagine if Mr and Mrs Ivan Tratkinsky had found him, what a story that would have been..." It's obvious that you don't follow the comic book series OGE. We don't have to imagine it, DC already has done so in a series call Superman: Red Son back in 2003. I didn't even know that Superman had ever become a naturalized citizen of the US. But now for the rest of the story. I've seen the panels - I've seen the relevant part of the story. The story line goes like this: The people of Iran start holding a demonstration much like the demonstrations we've seen in Egypt and other Arab countries. Superman - on his own - decides to join the demonstration as a sign of solidarity with the people of Iran. He flies into the demonstration and just stands there for 24 hours. He takes no action other than to stand there for 24 hours. The demonstration grows while he is there - some folks toss him roses, some toss green cloth (a symbol of the protest), some toss molotov cocktails at him - but the Iranian military does nothing. His presence apparently just guarantees a peaceful protest - and really doesn't lead to any change. After 24 hours he leaves. He then has a meeting with a national security advisor who informs Superman that the government of Iran is accusing Superman of doing this on the President's behalf and are calling it an act of war by the US. Superman says he is tired of his actions being construed as being part of US policy. He isn't saying this because he opposes US policy (as perhaps some in the media, leaving this explanation out, are hoping people will conclude). He's saying that he is tired of people thinking the US has anything to do with any actions he undertakes. That he doesn't want people to think he went to Iran because the US told him to go to Iran. If read closely, Superman's renouncing of his "citizenship" has as much to do with a desire to insulate the US from criticism over actions they had nothing to do with when Superman does something, as it does for Superman's desire to be thought of as a citizen of the world (or universe if you will) and not as a puppet of any one government. Folks are already calling for a boycott of DC. Chances are most of those folks haven't picked up a comic book in years. Chances are most of those folks wouldn't be able to comprehend what they read anyway, if they were to read the comic book.

Well while we're at it, let's add constitutional amendments that clearly define the following: Commerce General Welfare Arms High Crimes and Misdemeanors Militia Establishment of Religion Speech Speedy Trial Excessive Bail Cruel and Unusual Punishment Excessive Fines None of these are clearly spelled out - and are often the cause of interpretational arguments. But is it really neccessary to hard define these in the Constitution? Imagine if the Founding Fathers had hard defined Arms as the type of gun they carried with them. Imagine if instead of Arms, the Founding Fathers had written "Flintrock Muzzleloader" instead? We're perfectly capable of defining these items as we need to, as we've been doing for well over 200 years now. Amending the consitution should be rare. It's bad enough that we had to amend the constitution to state that all people born in the US or naturalized are citizens and have all the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens, then had to further amend the constitution to tell the dopes out there that just didn't get it that yes, this means blacks get to vote too, and that yes, women get to vote too, and that yes, the people in the District of Columbia get a voice in electing the President too, and that yes, people who we consider adults at 18 get to vote too, and that no, states can't institute a poll tax to prevent people from voting. Lastly, BS-87 posts: "The only reason courts aren't hearing the case is because they're denying every case that comes to them on the grounds that the people who are bringing the cases don't have standing." Attorneys I've spoken with generally hold that this is a courts polite way of saying either "I'm not going to sully my reputation with a nutjob case like this - now get out of my face before I have you dropped into the sea" or "This case has no merit, I don't want to get within a mile of this case, it has bad news written all over it, and I'm not that stupid". Maybe some of our attorneys can tell us how they interpret a "no standing" ruling.