Gunny2862

Horizon

3rd para from the end...

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2012/10/09/homosexual-boy-scout-denied-eagle-award/

Horizon

3rd para from the end...

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2012/10/09/homosexual-boy-scout-denied-eagle-award/

Find a Grunt who doesn't have his Poncho liner and you've found a Grunt whose gear has been "claimed" by someone else, who has been the victim of the only thief in the Corps.

Poncho liners are great multi-purpose items that take abuse well, quilts are fine, the biggest difference is the temperature rating and your own comfort level and durability.

One of my favorite projects: http://www.backpacking.net/makegear.html then go down the left hand side, "Sleeping", "Light Quilt"

Add or delete fill, for your comfort level. Make sure you store uncompressed.

While I agree with Packsaddle to a degree, the issue IMHO, built on my experiences is often a lack of socialization from getting outside the home.

1)I've had homeschoolers who were by far the best educated in the Troop but who couldn't talk to an adult and many times their public schooled peers to save their soul. (By far the most prevalent as I have seen it)

2)I've had homeschoolers who were nearly uneducated but were greatly responsible and interacted with adults better than with their peers.

3)I've had homeschoolers who thought they were the adults and everyone needed to bow to them due to their superior education and especially their superior moral stance of being home schooled.

Barring the public schooled peers part of part 1 and the superior moral stance part of part 3, I've also had the same kid from the public schools.

A couple of observations:

1) People do tend to forget the point that is made by Twocubdad. Ultimately the Scoutmaster is the lightning rod to which all of the attention is drawn if anything does go wrong. He sees, and oversees all of the planning and winds up responsible for the plans of the outing even if a parent or ASM did the actual planning instead of a boy. As the Program officer it winds up being his responsibility if a boy gets hurt, gets lost, or the campsite doesn't get properly cleaned up, and it is he who winds up dealing with the upset Parent - for whatever reason they may be upset, real or imagined, or whatever else may go awry. These things weigh on those who wear the hat even when they haven't happened yet because they are his responsibility. For those who aren't wearing or haven't worn the hat its' easy to pooh-pooh this idea - wear it for six months and you'll sing a new song.

2) For the OP, The Scoutmaster is the Program Officer, he administers the program, he doesn't write the requirements, and he generally doesn't teach the Merit Badges, but to the degree he is able and with the tools he has it is up to him to ensure the Merit Badges aren't being cheapened by allowing things he does have control of to slide. Why didn't you ASK him about the requirements rather than having "run-ins" with him? I find this question especially pertinent due to your pointing out HIS attitude.

3) As to the language thing. Sure it would possibly be neato if we could all go back to whatever era in history where no one used anything but pollyana-ic speech - could you tell me when that actually was? If in my personal history all I'm saying that offends you is "crap" a couple of times on a weekend outing then I've done my part on the social scale, how about you realize folks are different and make a little allowance also.(In my case, the outgoing SM and the CC and the COR knew who I was when they approached me).

For the OP, In the meantime, how about maybe you cut they guy some slack and pick up a small part of his load? I've had discussions with many Scoutmasters about how it's not the issue of carrying all of the sticks(the load), it's that if they need to put down five of them even if only for a while - no one steps up and carries those five sticks for a while. If you can volunteer to be a consistent carrier for a while that's great. But just doing a little to help as opposed to either doing nothing or actively adding to his load, is preferred.

Disclaimer: My wife spoke to the CC and he is asking some parents to step up for this year, my aged out Life Scout sons Senior year(Where I'm still doing Booster Club Board work for Cross-Country, Wrestling and Track), and they've been doing great. I'm only carrying about 40% of my former load - and yes, burnout happens - I'm feeling better already, now, not to pick up the load to soon so I can fully come back.

It's not the carrier even equipped and with trained up pilots that bother me. It's the Ballistic Anti-Ship missiles capable of taking out a carrier (given they solve the terminal guidance issues) that are becoming an issue.

By the way, the current carrier force projections (assuming all of the carriers in the world were operational) in the world are pretty much 60/40 United States to everyone else.

Follow up. Per my friend at the Missouri Department of Conservation regarding hauling wood around.

"There are regulations. Firewood cannot be carried across state lines and cannot be carried out of the counties that have had emerald ash borer positively identified under penalty of law. The MDC requests that no fire wood ever cross county lines as a precaution."

I'm not making this argument, but it is a viable argument that no U.S. military action taken since and including Korea meets the criteria for war.

On the other hand, left unchecked, Communist expansion and control over some of the resources they would have gained, and in another era, again unchecked those Saudi Oil fields in Saddam's hands could have gotten very interesting.

Then there's the question of stepping in on humanitarian issues where force is required to settle things down so the humanitarian work can be done. Why do it for some and allow genocide in others.

All interesting and I'm interested in thoughts, but not in debating those questions.

This is slightly off topic but:

Don't send the Troops unless you are willing to let them do whatever is necessary to achieve the designated outcome. If this metric isn't met then you haven't reached far enough on the diplomatic spectrum to take what is arguably the final step of diplomacy.

In Missouri I've never not been able to have a fire due to not being able to find downed wood within 100 yards.

On the other hand, I have seen Troops from outside the area bringing in trailer loads of wood which they don't even consume 1/4 of, and then leave the remnant (and any ash borers they brought with them) there with a base of operations to live in until they could get to the resident trees.

If you are coming to Missouri to camp PLEASE don't bring your wood with you unless you can certify it's ash borer free - there's plenty of downed wood here.

Depends upon the Boy.

Would like to say there's a one size fits all solution (and there is) but that doesn't fit developing the boy, rather it fits jamming the boy into a Leadership box.

Like the descriptions qwazse gave though...

I'm trying to stay off of the type of event because I really don't want to deal with anyone from the troop involved feeling like I'm airing their laundry on what they actually did.

As to the man up comment, man up yourself and don't use inflammatory language where it's not necessary, this isn't in Issues and Politics, thanks. It would be far easier to just lay the whole thing out but extremely discourteous to the Troop and it's leaders and isnt necessary for the input I'm looking for.

My question in this area is along the line of would your parents be upset if there was a major risk profile upgrade after the kids left for the trip without that info being available to the parents.

This is Not a change to make something safer or to accommodate a weather change or loss of venue. The change would have been known to the leaders in advance.(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

eisley,

Ding ding ding.

This is nearing the crux of the discussion I wanted. "What kind of reaction would that get from your Scouts Parents when the boys returned with photos of this greatly expanded trip?"

It's not about the activity other than perhaps a bait and switch of relatively benign to high risk, i.e "Oh we're going canoeing at the lake" unsaid, on a class IV stream full of rocks, without a guide.

"We're having a Range weekend." unsaid, with fully automatic machine guns, without Certified Range personnel.

"We are going Bouldering" unsaid, and then we're going to do some Free Soloing up some exposed routes without Council recognized climbing experts.

The question is not about prudent itinerary changes in response to conditions or closed out venues, none of the above scenarios I provided leave that as an option.

For clarity and as guide to the discussion so we don't get dragged off into the nuances of this activity, although this is only for the example given and again wasn't the activity involved:

Bouldering, when referenced by me: No aids except maybe chalk for grip, No safety equipment except the brain and a Crash Pad and perhaps a helmet and a spotter (primary responsibility to guide the falling climber onto the crash pad if he's going off for any reason). No heights of any climbers feet should ever extend higher than the height of the climber or at the maximum of the spotter.

Climbing/Rappelling: traditional Rope supported(safety) activities in Scouting, Requires the use of a Trained, certified person, in Scouting. The distinction in climbing circles vs. Scouting circles it that almost everything we see in climbing is free climbing, rope aided climbing is generally more technical climbing than Scouting wants us to do.

Free Soloing: Unrestricted height, unroped climbing that isn't supported by Scouting in any way as far as I am aware - it MIGHT be allowed in Venturing but I highly doubt it.

Would like to focus not so much on the activity and the technical distinctions since this is just for example, but rather on the misrepresentation of the activity.

(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

Under the edits my original message should no reference free climbing but Free Soloing and free doesn't refer to no cost.

(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

Network error duplicate, sorry.(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

I like previous re-directions to the fundraiser for that purpose.

But in response to the general question posed.

"I'm just a Scoutmaster at the Troop level, I only get to affect those policies that are AT my level, Membership policy isn't one of those. National would be happy to hear from you on the subject but if you are eligible they'll give much more weight to opinions by registered members. I could use a Fundraising Chair and my Committee Chairman would be happy to hear from you if you'd consider helping the boys."

qwazse, I share your concern about "creep" in the bouldering window "OOPs, I'm how high?!", but that's not the issue here.

As to speaking to the "offending" SM (a matter of opinion, I personally would have considered it a breach of trust if it had been my child and I weren't on the outing), I picked up a new Scout due to transfer and the SE has already bent his ear on the subject (the latter should be a clue about the degree of the difference in what was communicated and what occurred).

Okay this isn't my Troop we are talking about. I heard an interesting one recently about a Troop that went on a scheduled planned Outing, then upon return the concept of what was done had greatly expanded and the level of significant risk was intentionally raised without the parents being able to decide if their Scout should participate. Apparently the Leaders knew they were going to raise this risk level in advance and didn't communicate it to the parents, or the Scouts.

I'm not going to go into specifics, but hypothetically (and not a hidden depiction of the actual activity, it was a different activity), If you told the parents you were going to go Bouldering (no ropes, crash pads, nothing above head height) and instead went on a full fledged climbing/rappelling experience and just to push to a truer picture included a free climbing clinic without the benefit of a certified climbing instructor what kind of reaction would that get from your Scouts Parents when the boys returned with photos of this greatly expanded trip? The analogy is pretty representative of the original situation.

I was certified ages ago in SCUBA (Open Water, Advanced Open Water, SAR/First Aid, Night, Deep and Cave specialties by PADI and I've actually USED all of my certs at various times, I haven't dove in a while and would for my own safety take a refersher course.

That said, If I had continued I would have wound up taking at least the Divemaster cert or continuing to be an Instructor but couldn't really see doing either of those unless I was going to work in the Industry. I didn't.

The thing I see (and this is just an opinion) as the biggest contributor to the problem is that the Instructor shouldn't have gone to the surface for any purpose(without having the entire group surface and inflate Buoyancy Compensators) other than a Dive Emergency of his buddy. But this leaves the kids alone in the water and in my view of this would be just as acceptable (although arguably actually more inherently dangerous) as leaving a climbing tower open and unstaffed with kids attached to the ropes and climbing, Or leaving the range open with firing ongoing and ammo available while the Rangemaster talked to a Scoutmaster off of the range. In my neck of the woods even if one Tower staff member were to have his attention diverted by a Tower emergency, there would always be his backup to supervise that tower operations ceased until the tower was either put back in operation or shut down. When the diving buddy pair of Instructor and Scoutmaster surfaced there was no one minding the diving operations below, IMHO, there should have also been a Divemaster, or a second Instructor (with buddy) so there was always one set of eyes on the youth divers, even in the event of a required emergency ascent of one of the two adult supervising dive buddy pairs. IMHO, especially with a) inexperienced, b)uncertified, c) youth divers taking a "discovery " class this is the nearly inexcusable part of this.

Look, I don't mind when people are called out for racist behavior - WHEN it's racist behavior.

But, it really ticks me off when the racist label is applied in situations where it just doesn't apply other than that one of the subjects is "racially identified" - (whatever the race) or when the topic may not even have a racial component. It weakens the racist claim when it is used legitimately, and either quashes what should be a legitimate discussion, or shows the weakness of the side that makes the false claim. In either case it becomes a political(accumulation of power)discussion rather than an open discussion(searching for answers) of the topic at hand.

I really wish people would quit dragging race into discussions where it isn't the central issue.

Beavah - I believe this is the work you mentioned in your post on 9/2 http://www.takelifeback.com/hegawid/ this one starts with the three fellows and their individual work output the reasons behind the basic economic choices and over time with savings and investment talked about, and scales that up to the building of the dam and waterworks.

I'm around from time to time in the Scouting threads but tend to stay out of I&P, or just read them. I've got lots of other folks that can be upset with me.

I need this place to generally be available when I actually have a Scouting issue.

I didn't check the date but it was in my active today's active topics, so I just proceeded from there...

Because I'm not usually the brightest light in the room. I'm really somewhat surprised at some of the discussion here especially regarding Government spending.

While it's certainly no secret that spending rose under Bush, that he was in office for the housing crash, for the Bank and Speculative investing debacles that gave rise to the TARP discussion - has everyone forgotten Basic Government in the USA 101? The Congress controls the purse, and who controlled the purse and set the conditions for all of the above? Well, although there was a Republican President, he didn't have control of the House AND the Senate at any point, and at that point where the Democrats had control did the spending go up or down from before? Any guesses?

At any rate the Tea Party, IMHO, is about wasteful, overreaching Government Policies and Departments and Spending, and the non-representational government by regulation with no citizen representation in those processes, that limit individual liberty, and directly impact the Country I leave to my child and any children that he has.

While there may be racists in the Tea Party, it's not a platform of the Party, not do I believe it's in any way an element that drives the Core of it.

But as long as we're looking for racists, why does Joe Biden get a pass on a comment about "gonna put y'all back in chains" Really?

Drama Free? Don't let anybody join.

Drama reduced, add, for everyone involved:

Observes the spirit of the Scout law.

Quit "lawyering" every jot and tittle of every regulation, instead, ask is the intent being observed.

Presume others have the boys best interests at heart, Try to do so yourself.

If someone is a negative influence(to the boys(SM), or other active adults(CC)) don't let it ride, go to them, ask them about what they see happening, tell them (after you've asked and weighed their input) what you see. Make necessary changes, to yourself or by having them removed from the Troop.

For what purpose are you trying to enforce them?

Carry one yourself! Explain what you put in it, See if you actually use it yourself.

Explain the benefits of them, if the boys find them to be helpful, they'll use them. If it's just one more "top down" directive and they don't "get" why they should use them, they won't.