Hunt

Saying "liberals hate guns" is similar to saying "conservatives hate poor people." Both are ridiculous, overstated generalizations. Both have a germ of truth, however. The values of BSA, with a few exceptions, are shared by all Americans of good will, both liberals and conservatives. To suggest otherwise is unhelpful and discourteous.

At a Life-to-Eagle conference I attended recently, the presenter stressed that the Eagle project is not a troop activity--that, in fact, the troop has nothing to do with it (other than approving it). It is strictly the candidate's project and it is his responsibility to find the labor force to do the work. I'm not suggesting (nor was the presenter) that the boys in the troop shouldn't help, but I think I agree that the leaders shouldn't require them to do so, or penalize them for not doing so. The candidate can do his whole project with non-scouts, as long as he shows leadership.

You're right, but I'd have to have a time machine and detective skills to find that "someone." I'm just going to try to ensure that it doesn't happen in the future.

Hey, I was kidding about the vest, too. Personally, I like all the patches 'n stuff--I do think the overall look is ready for another update, though.

It seems to me Bush can't nominate Alberto Gonzalez now, because his opponents will just request the same kind of documents Bush refused to release for Miers. Look at this blurb from nbcnews.com: Maureen Mahoney, 50 Often described as the female version of Chief Justice John Roberts, Mahoney, a lawyer in private practice, clerked for the late Justice William Rehnquist, served as deputy solicitor general under Kenneth Starr and has argued cases before the Supreme Court. Mahoney might upset conservatives with one of her major court wins, the landmark University of Michigan Law School case defending affirmative action. This is the kind of nominee I expect--not somebody who has already been filibustered.

Hmmm...maybe BSA could follow this trend and replace both shirts with some kind of vest that could be worn over any shirt...

I guess this is just venting, but I'm annoyed by the blue cards I see from some summer camps. I was looking at some last night for a boy who is about to make Eagle, and there are cards from a camp in another district (he transferred several years ago). Some of these are signed, some are stamped with a signature, some are stamped "Passed at Camp." A couple are stamped "Partial" and then "Complete" is written by hand--no signature. Fortunately there are only a couple of those, and he has enough without them. (I'll add that some of the "signed" cards aren't much better, with totally illegible signatures, and no printed or typed counselor name anywhere.)

"My prediction - Bush's next nominee will be way to the right of Harriet Meirs further dividing our country along the political spectrum." I dunno--Bush values loyalty. If he blames the far right for torpedoing Miers, he may get revenge on them by nominating some more moderate judge. Plus, this fiasco, as well as Bush's declining approval numbers, will embolden the Democrats to fight a more conservative nominee. What Bush needs is a female Roberts.

Does this study really suggest that going to church more will make you richer, or just that richer people tend to go to church more?

Most of the Founding Fathers were hardly ideological extremeists. Those who were (like Patrick Henry) were very much displeased with how the new nation was organized. You might take a look at the French Revolution for a look a what happens when the real extremists run a revolution. Referring to people who favor compromise as "appeasers" is a good example of what's wrong with extremeists.

I guess the advantage of allowing the boys to elect a SPL about whom you have doubts, and then "firing" him later if he can't or won't perform, is that you might have been wrong about your evaluation of him. I think firing the SPL would be pretty traumatic, though, and a lot of units would probably struggle through a bad situation rather than do it. Obviously, you will try to help and train the underperforming SPL, but that may not always work.

Well, I guess I do think that extremists are generally unreasonable. I think folks on the far right are against national ID cards because they fear communist overlords, and folks on the far left are against them because they fear fascist overlords.

"In my mind, a long-sleeved shirt in cold weather is necessary." But why is a long-sleeved Scout shirt necessary, when a warm turtleneck can be worn under the short-sleeved shirt? Why do you consider this a compromise rather than just being thrifty? This is not the same issue as people who don't wear the pants. The short-sleeved shirt is part of a complete field uniform.

A few points to add to what EagleinKY has written: 1. Scout Spirit is one of the rank requirements that should be signed off before the Board of Review. As a result, the BOR's role is limited. 2. As far as who can sign off, the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures says on p. 22: "The Boy Scout is tested. A Scout may be tested on rank requirements by his patrol leader, Scoutmaster, assistant Scoutmaster, a troop committee member,or a member of his troop. The Scoutmaster maintains a list of those qualified to give tests and to pass candidates." It also says: "The Scoutmaster must be in charge of advancement in the troop." Unless somebody is aware of something else in another BSA document, this says to me that the SM decides who will sign off on Scout Spirit--I think in most troops this is done by the SM herself in the SM conference. There is nothing in the rules, however, to prevent this requirement from being signed off by some other delegate. While it could apparently be signed off at any time, it seems to me that to advance one should show Scout Spirit up to the time of advancement, which argues for signing this off at the conference.

I said on another thread that I can accept the idea of some kind of screening of SPL candidates to avoid disaster--I just don't think a rank requirement is necessarily a good surrogate for an able SPL.

Ater reading back over this thread (which began in April of 2004!)it seems to me that there is an underlying question: how do you deal with the problem of the "bad" SPL? Clearly, in some troops the boys have elected SPLs who didn't perform well, in some cases with serious effects on the troop. As a result, some of these troops have looked for ways to prevent this from happening again: having adults appoint the SPL, having adults screen the candidates, setting eligibility requirements and so forth. Some posters seem to suggest that if the adult leaders do their job properly in training, that the bad SPL will never get elected in the first place. I'm skeptical of this idea. A related idea is that the boys should be allowed to elect the SPL and cope with the results themselves if they choose a bad one. I can see this, but I think it can be pretty tough on the newer scouts who don't realize what they're getting into. It also could really harm the troop, especially where the SPL serves for a year. So I think the boys should definitely elect the SPL, but I wouldn't fault adult leadership that took steps to avert a clear disaster. I kind of like the idea of scouts telling the SM they want to run, and letting him serve as a gatekeeper.

But FScouter, why should the Scout mow your lawn to earn money to buy an unnecessary item? What exactly is your objection to the protruding sleeves? Would your objection be eliminated by a practice like that described by Lynda J, of wearing a troop standard garment or color under the shirt? On the other side of this, I will say that I did a double-take when I saw a boy with long pants on under his Scout shorts. One would be hard-pressed to defend that as "neatly dressed."

Trevorum, I think you're right that the idea of a national identity card is a "third rail" issue--it's anathema to both the left and right extremes of the political spectrum. Only people in the middle can see that it's a sensible idea.

OK, here's a straight answer. Look at: http://www.scouting.org/forms/34283.pdf There is nothing explicit about this subject. The only potentially relevant point is that the scout should be "neatly dressed." Now, putting on my lawyer hat, I will tell you how to use the term "neatly dressed" and general principles to either (1) ban or (2) allow the wearing of long-sleeved undergarments under the short-sleeved shirt. 1. Ban. Because we are talking about a uniform, it is obvious that for the Scouts to be "neatly dressed," their appearance must be reasonbly uniform. Having long sleeves of different colors protruding from the short uniform sleeves creates an un-neat appearance for the troop as a whole. The clear purpose of the short-sleeved shirt is to allow for bare arms, and the long-sleeved shirt is available for those who wish to cover their arms. 2. Allow. There is nothing inherently "un-neat" about wearing long sleeves under the short-sleeved Scout shirt, as long as the other garment is neat, clean, and in good condition. This practice also promotes thriftiness, because it enables Scouts to use the short-sleeved shirts in colder weather. Also, since scouts may wear various shirts, pants, patches, etc., their appearance is not totally uniform anyway. My final advice: if anybody really cares about this, turn it over to the PLC for a decision and keep the adults out of it.

"If the adult leadership decides that a Scout must have completed NYLT and be a Star scout to run for SPL, you are saying that the troop is not boy run?" I will answer "yes" to this. It means that the adults have decided that the boys who want leadership positions must pursue rank advancement. Well, let me break it up a bit. I guess I wouldn't quibble too much with having a training requirement. But what is the purpose of requiring that a leader achieve Star rank? If it's to ensure that he's a dedicated scout, why can't the boys who are voting decide that? If it's to ensure that he has Scout skills, why can't the boys who are voting decide that? To put it another way, this is one of those requirements that sounds OK when you say it, but when you try to define the reason for it, it's hard to come up with a good reason to take the decision away from the boys.

I can give you an example of how a troop can end up with a lot of money and some issues about what to do with it. My son's troop is fairly small (20-25 scouts), but it does one fundraiser (selling mulch) each year that makes thousands of dollars. Until last year, a fair amount of this money went to insuring and maintaing a troop van. When we finally realized that there were enough minivans and pickup trucks to dispense with the van, we got rid of it. We already have a reasonable amount of troop equipment. Result: plenty of money. The mulch drive is kind of an institution, so we don't want to stop doing it, and we can't even downsize it, because the orders pretty mch all come from prior customers. We already ditched another fundraiser that everybody hated (cleaning up the grounds after the county fair). We are thinking about paying more of the cost of trips, but we hate to do that for expensive trips when only some of the boys can go. It's a great problem to have.

I can recommend a book called "Staying Connected to Your Teenager" by Michael Riera. It has lots of good tips for maintaining the lines of communication with your teenager.

I don't know--I think there is more than a difference in timing between a mistake made by a 16 year old and one made by an almost 18 year old. Also, I have to vent one of my pet peeves here: a willful, wrongful act does not qualify as a "mistake." Bringing pot and wine back to the camp is not a "mistake," unless he thought it was oregano and grape juice. (mk9750--I know you understand this, since you also referred to transgressions.) Typically, the only true "mistakes" involved in such actions are (1) erroneously believing that the transgression will not be detected and (2) erroneously underestimating the consequences of getting caught. Whenever I hear some wrongdoer refer to his mistake, I immediately discount his apology.

I'm not sure you should do anything with him, really. As I mentioned, he is only going to be eligible for youth membership for two more months. Do you have a fun outing coming up that he wants to do? That's one of the few reasons I can think of for him joining at such a late date. Maybe he wants to put "Boy Scout" on a college or job application. Since he apparently has no scouting experience, at least you won't have to worry about rank advancement. When he turns 18, he can be politely told that the troop doesn't need him as an adult leader, but that he might want to consider being active in a Venturing Crew.

It sounds to me that you have a reasonable level of contact under the circumstances. What in particular do you feel is lacking?