captainron14

BT1(SW), First of all Thank you for you service to our country. The issue is no about the cost of upkeep or renovation. That is a red herring. There are many cities in the country who have decommissioned naval ships. I'm sure the cost is not small. But I'm also sure that it is very possible to do. The real issue is the SF is a ultra-left, anti-military city. They can not seperate current DC politics from the military. Their rant about the war in Iraq, gays in the military, etc. has nothing to do with the USS Iowa. It's my opinion that SF does not deserve the "honor" of having the USS Iowa there. It would be poetic justice if the next terrorist attack would happen at SF City hall.

Trev, You said it! Roast them and those who blindly support them! Too many people are Democrat or Republican BEFORE they are American! They vote the party line no matter who it is. Hitler could be on the _______party ticket and there are people who would vote for him just because there is a "D" or "R" by his name. Both parties have merit. However neither will admit it! Then you have the idiots who HATE the President (either Bush or Clinton, you pick)so much, that there is nothing he could do or say to get their approval (short of rolling over dead). Get over it! You can't always win! Work with who is there to make the country better. Don't celebrate when there is a tragedy (Katrina) so the other side looks bad! Sad but true! There should be some kind of "test" that someone would have to take BEFORE they vote. This would weed out a lot of the fools. That will never happen. Too bad! Hopefully in 2008 there will be a new candidate from either one of the parties who will be a real leader and inspire and bring together the country. None of the current candidates/possibilities are worth spit. Wishful thinking? I hope not

The cost to refurbish the USS Iowa will be big, but not as much as you might think. This ship was decommissioned in 1990, not after WW2 as some think. I do think that SF does not deserve the honor of having such a ship. The USS Hornet should be moved also. The history of the area (Vietnam to the present) has been nothing short of anti-military. Too many fools there can not seperate the military from the Politics of DC. But they sure want the Federal Money. It's sad that those idiots can not respect and understand that it's that same military they protest and spit upon, that made it possible for them to have those rights they exercise. Freedom is not Free. As for a Gay museum on or by the USS Iowa, that is just pandering, like the idiots who tried to disgrace the Twin Towers memorial with a "World Peace Museum". A farce that was hypercritical of the US , more than the terrorists. Thank God that was stopped.

This is nothing new. Back in the 80's when President Regan was building up our military. A few old Battleships were recommissioned (Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri & ?) When the Navy was looking for a home port for the Missouri and her escorts, they considered SF. They were looking at Hunters Point Naval Base that was closed after Vietnam. (Hunters Point was/is one of the poorest areas in SF) This would have brought a lot of money and jobs into the area. Well the SF City Council demanded that the Navy declare that there would not be any Nuclear weapons plus they wanted input where it might be deployed. What a joke! Needless to say, it was home ported in Long Beach. Before it goes to Stockton, maybe a few rounds from her main guns (16") should be dropped on City Hall, and for good measure a few at the Peoples Republic of Berkley too!

This obsession with earning all of the Webelos pins is a bit misplaced. Who really wants this? Is it the boys or the parents? Or is it a overzealous leader who feels that they are not a success if all the boys do not earn them all? All to often things like this are all about a parent or leader who is living through their kids. The real goal (relating to advancement) is the Arrow of Light. It's the only Cub Award that you can carry forward out of Cubs into Scouting and beyond (Knot). Besides, less that a year later most boys will not care at all and have moved on to Boy Scouts (we hope!)I have never heard of a Boy Scout Brag to his fellow Scouts about earning all the pins. I have heard them talking about who earned their AOL. If this is something that the boys really want to do and there is no pressure, go for it. But if this will affect the future of that boy in Scouting negatively, then forget it. Let the boys have fun, don't burn them out.

GernBlansten, You may be correct about "some" LDS units when you say, "My impression was that LDS units wanted to be isolated from the rest of BSA. Other scouters I interact with share this same impression." I think this is a direct result of little training and tenure in the position. If you are not trained (knowledge of the program)and don't stay around long (1 year or less), people gravitate to what/who they know and are comfortable with. They are often fearful of the unknown. So they keep to themselves. Sad. Those LDS leaders who are true Scouters have no such problems. In fact they spend a lot of time fighting the same problems. You will find this problem through out the Church. Something the leadership is trying to change.

There is nothing in any offical Church policy/directive stating that you have to be a member (LDS) to join a LDS sponsored Troop. As a matter of fact I was Scoutmaster of a LDS Troop who half of it's membership was not LDS. I know of LDS Troops where they are the only Troop in town. They are the defacto Community Troop. There are very few differences, no Sunday Camping, no Coffee at meetings, prayer at the begining/end of meetings. The advancement, uniform, program are basicly the same. That being said, there are isolated LDS Troops who have misguided leaders/ CORs who say you have to join the Church in order to join their Troop. These people are not following church policy, in fact they are going against it. This can happen anywhere and not just with the LDS Church. You will find people in every denomination who in fact are bigots towards those not of their own faith. And sometimes this spills over into orginizations like BSA. These people are not only a bad example of their church, they are a bad example of humanity.

That is nothing but a myth or someone is playing a bad joke on you.

I know the Insignia Guide says different but this is an award not a camp-o-ree patch. They should allow the Scout to wear it on the right position above the pocket (if there is no Jambo patch). For the older boys, especially Venturers, this is a very difficult award and should be recognized as such. Just my 2 cents.

This kick of "A Uniform is not required" is wearing thin. The whole intention of not requiring a uniform was a financial one. Scouts who could not afford one could still be scouts with out one. BP said as they progress the would want one. Today this ideal has been corrupted into a political PC excuse with ones ability to buy a uniform not involved at all. To all of you anti-military/anti-uniform people, GET OVER IT! The Boy Scouts have a military history, a patriotic history, and a proud one too! The Father of Scouting was a Military Officer, the basis of the movement started with the military. Saying that, BSA is not the military, but trying to reinvent Scouting as to drop the uniform is crazy. I find it sad when a family can afford hundreds of dollars towards a Sports uniform, but balk when asked to pay for new patches for the uniform that was loaned from the uniform bank. One more thing, the current uniform design/quality could be modified, but dropped? no way!

What a cool site! Thanks for the treat!

Everyone can have a place in the unit. Just as it does not affect the program in a negative manor. Overweight SM, I think not.

PAGAN? wasn't that a crime group in the movie Dragnet? ;o)

I just stumbled onto this thread. Interesting, the Yahoo chat group "Scouts-LDS" has been discussing this very same topic. I have noticed a few errors and stereotypes, but overall, the facts speak for themselves. Aside from the organizational differences (age separation) and the conscription for leadership (as well as boys. Scouting IS THE activity for the Young Men, like it or not) Scouting is pretty much the same in LDS units as in non-LDS units. I know, Rick you say its not conscription, but really how many church members really turn down callings (some do, but not a lot). All too often you get a person who wants nothing to do with Scouting and will do more harm than good before he is "released from his calling". While you have a willing Scouter working in Sunday School instead of helping with the Troop as a leader. The problem is not with all LDS units. I have been part of some very outstanding LDS units. But for the most part the problems are tied to the wide latitude the local church leader (Bishop) has on how Scouting is implemented in his Troop/Team/Crew. He is the key to either success or failure. Far too many Bishops ignore the direction that come from Church HQ to follow BSA guidelines (G2SS) and take BSA Training and attend Round table. All too often leaders don't want to be bothered with expenses so they will have a Summer Camp or Super Activity on their own with church members filling in as staff. That is what happened in Idaho last year when a young man was killed. All to often you hear "THE G2SS says it is a prohibited activity, well we won't call it Scouting it will be a Young Men's outing instead". Another factor is Training. Overall LDS units have a dismal record with having trained Leaders. This is my personal experience from being on District Training Staff in Councils in California, Utah, Idaho and Washington/Oregon. All areas had a substantial LDS membership. Another thing that goes with training is Tenure. It is well known that Church wide the average time of an LDS Scoutmaster (or any main Leader) is FAR below a average non-LDS Scout Leader. So you tie all of the above together and you have a recipe for injury and death for our young men. Some of the Bishops are just plain ignorant of what the Scouting Program is all about. But some are deliberately short change Scouting with little or no support and even actively work against Scouting (if given a choice their would be no Troop in their ward). Don't get me wrong, their are some great Church Leaders out their, especially at the higher levels. That's where the pressure has to come from. The new General Young Men's President is an outstanding example of a Scouter who is LDS. Notice I said "a Scouter who is LDS" That is another problem. Many LDS units "keep to themselves", though some LDS units have non-LDS members in them, overall it is kind of a seperate "click" that resists mixing with Non-LDS Scouts. Most LDS units only exposure to Non-LDS Scouts are at Summer Camp (unless you are in Utah, then it's practically never). All of the behaviors I have talked about above need to be fixed. How? By intense pressure from the leadership in Salt Lake to step up and make the necessary changes. Or as said in some LDS circles "raise the bar". The changes must be directed and progress monitored and corrective action taken against those who refuse to change. This thread is a old one, too bad I didn't see this until the originator left the forum. I would have loved to talk to him. The statistics that I have heard are that a LDS Scout is 5 times more likely to die or be injured on a activity than a Non-LDS Scout. Quote from President Dalquest, General Young Men's President, Fall 2005 address. "Bishops and stake presidents, once your leaders are trained, do everything you can to ensure that they stay in their callings long enough to make a difference in the lives of the boys they serve. In 2004, LDS troops had one of the largest percentage of boys registered in the Boy Scouts of America. Unfortunately, we also had a much higher percentage of the fatalities that occurred during Scout activities. We have learned that there are three reasons for this: (1) lack of training, (2) lack of experience, and (3) failure to exercise good common sense." This is using 2004 stats, 2005 was much worse. Need I say more? Something need to be done, NOW! YIS CR14 Scouter, 24 years Eagle Scout, Class of 81 District Training Staff Former SM, ASM, CC, MC, CM, WL, VL,...... Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints. (This message has been edited by captainron14)

OGE, You are so right. It is so sad when there are people in our great country who consider themselves Democrat or Republican BEFORE they consider themselves an American. Things started to go down hill in this area about 1992 when President Clinton was elected. The backlash from conservatives was very harsh reacting to his push to the left and the arrogant attitude of many in his administration towards others (Too bad, we're in charge now). This was also seen in Congress. This resulted in a severe reaction of outright hatred towards the Left by the Right. Talk radio came into it's own, and a many in the media pushed farther to the left. With President Bush's election and the controversy that surrounded it, many on the Left felt it was their turn to attack the Right. Things only got worse, till the 2004 election when President Bush was re-elected, people actually considered moving to Canada rather than live in a country with a Republican in office. People started to make decisions/judgement about others purely on their political party, sometimes to the point of bigotry. Sadly, this attitude has filtered into all walks of life, leading us to where we are now Blue vs. Red. Where no matter how good for the country an idea/proposal is, if it originates from the "other" party, it is automatically bad. There is no civility anymore, it is a vicious assault on anything, everything and everyone on the "other side". Far too often it is a "scorched earth" policy (if you do not change, I will destroy you). We see this in many of the court cases against BSA as well as our Government Confirmation hearings. I wonder how many potentially great leaders out there are deciding to refuse service to the country because of this situation. My hope is that after 2008 when a new President is in power (regardless of party)the healing will begin and hopefully the partisan politics will go away (and the BSA will be there for my grandchildren). Maybe then we can getting back to respecting others beliefs and sometimes "agreeing to disagree". Maybe that is wishful thinking?

Even though this thread is a year old, the advice is still great! OGE, wht your troop did was great! I will use this example for my unit! Thank you!

Try to contact the Bureau of Indian Affairs. They would have contacts for all of the Federally Recognized Tribes in their region. This will not give you contacts for tribes that are not recognized or gone, but many Native Americans have other tribal heritages. It is far more interesting to hear from a actual Tribal Elder about his tribe, than to read it in some book or old museum. You also hear a viewpoint that is not sanitized, not PC. Good Luck!

Elections are a bad idea. You will just make thing worse. Who is your CO? Why isn't your COR or IH getting involved? Fred's advice is great, you UC or maybe even your DE could help. If thing keep going this way, I'd "Vote" with my feet and find a more friendly Pack. Good Luck!

Hopefully nothing will change. If SCOUTUS stays the same and Judge Alito is confirmed, the BSA will be safe for the time being. However, the future may be different. One thing that will happen if "membership is opened" and openly gay people are admitted to the BSA, is that the BSA will be fractured. One possibility is that the Non-Gay COs will disassociate with the Pro-Gay COs, all the while staying in the BSA. That is the best case. But thats not going to happen. The main churches that charter the most units and boys have said so. What is more likely is that the Non-Gay COs will pull out of the BSA. This will leave the BSA a shadow if it's former self and would probably be it's doom. If you take just the conservative religious organizations into consideration you have over half of the membership. They would probably set up their own seperate organizations (unless they could come to some kind of agreement from a neutral party, but then the problem would come up again) As for the remains of the once proud BSA? Now the Gay-BSA. I give it less than five years until bankruptcy. Maybe they could have a membership drive/fundraiser with NAMBLA?

The speed is much better! Thank you!

I have hunted with friends and family. As long as two things are done. 1. The "game" is hunted fairly with a good sporting chance. Baiting the animal in close or shooting tame/caged animals is not hunting. 2. Use what you kill. It is disgusting to see people kill an animal just to kill it, walk away and leave it to rot. Or just take it's head. Long range scoped rifles, baiting, hunting with dogs, where is the sport in that? What chance did the animal have? That takes as much skill as shooting a cow in a pasture from the road in your car. Some Mighty Big Hunter.

I think that as long as Judge Alito stays true to his conservative past BSA will be safe (for the immediate future) from the likes of the ACLU and other wackos who are out to destroy Scouting as we know it. I just hope that there is no filibuster and the expected response from the Republicans. If the left can not allow a up or down vote, they should remember Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg, no filabuster there.

Get over it! There are far too many "thin skinned" victims in our country. Example, There was a protest at my daughter's school over a Veterans Day Assembly by students against the war who were "offended", they were themselves protested against by Atheist students who were "offended" by their signs saying "Pray for Peace". By the way the original assembly was focused on WW2, NOTHING on wars after Korea. Get over it. Sorry for leaving the topic.

The "Peoples Republic of Berkley" has always been strong supporter of the Constitution. Just as long as it agrees with it's liberal ways. It seems not so long ago that they refused to meet with a contingent of Scouts from Japan, representing Berkley's Sister City, because of BSA's stand on Gay membership. How nice is that?

Oh come on! "LOIN CUBS" give me a break! Can't the thread author edit the title? When I realized (at once) that it was about Lion Cubs, I thought "cool, something about the old Cub rank..." But no, all this is about is a "Cub Day Care program". This is nothing but a scheme for numbers, it will go the way of early Tigers. That is the reason for the full intergrating of Tigers into the Pack.