Stosh

I've had mild panic attacks over the years and found that the more one focuses on them the more they appear and get stronger.

When I took the training for EMT, when the pager would go off, all kinds of bells and red flags would go off.  I'm thinking that is pretty much normal.  Yet once on the scene and focused on the task at hand, those "butterflies" just go away.   Now, with that being said, when certain people are involved in the tragedy, AFTERWARDS can be a real problem.  Helping a young child, the elderly, etc. evoke strong reactions to the situation afterwards.  When such things happen, the drive home with shaky hands and adrenaline pumping through your veins can be quite a challenge.  I guess it just comes down to when I decide it's okay to react.  It's not that hard to actually do that with practice.

In a "tense" or "awkward" situation where anxiety starts it's onset, I recognize it and actually make the decision to postpone it and focus instead on the task at hand.  Letting it go until later is a learnable process.  I've got these kids, and I have a responsibility to them to stay focused on them, not me and my emotions.  Later, if I so choose I will take some down-time to think about it and usually I find myself thinking that all that anxiety wasn't necessary at the time.

Yes, we can choose to control our emotions, they don't just happen.  Imagine if you will, you are at the mall window shopping and all of a sudden someone pushes you against the store window.  The first reaction is going to be intense anger at the clumsy oaf that pushed you.  So you spin around and have both barrels loaded with what any normal sailor would have to say on the subject..... only to find a gentlemen standing there with a white cane in his hand.  He says, "I'm so sorry, these crowds are a real challenge for me."  At which point, you realize you are not at all angry.  It speaks volumes when it comes to anger issues in our society, when one realizes they are all controllable.

Just get a jac-shirt and put anything you want on it.

Welcome to the forum.

Okay left ring finger is out if you're married.

I think the ring is too big for a pinky ring.

Thumbs look stupid.

I've never seen a man wear a ring on an index finger.

I'm  thinking that rings need to be a bit out of the way of actually working so maybe middle fingers should be excluded.

Well that leaves only one finger left, the right ring finger.  Maybe they named it that for a purpose, I dunno, but if it was me I'd go with that one. 

Does it make a difference?

All we've had is this morning's dusting.  Most melted by afternoon.

It's gotta be kinda hard working at non-mess hall camps prepping all the food with a 3" pocket knife.   I've always thought my fillet knife in the sheath was safer than just dumping it in my gear.  6" of fillet knife sticking out the side of my pack posed a safety hazard in the parking lot.

When I lived in North Dakota the temperature was consistently colder than Anchorage.  I remember one winter it went below freezing just before Thanksgiving, then below zero around Christmas.  The temperature did not come up above freezing for 64 days in a row and it didn't get a thaw day for 92 days straight.  THAT is a bad winter.  I learned really quickly what cabin fever was all about.  Then there was the occasional blizzard.  -45 degrees with a windchill pushing -80.  If the car would start, one could drive 2-3 miles before the tires warmed up enough to get rid of the frozen flat spot.  3 years of that was enough for me.

If the US Census Bureau says 69.1% of children live in a household of 2 parents and the second source says that 58% of those are birth-moms and biological fathers, that means that only 11% of the children out there live in a step-parent household.  I find that very difficult to believe.  I'm thinking someone has either the two groups are using different definitions, i.e. US Census Bureau means any household with 2 parents regardless of their previous marital status or the second group has some creative massaging of the numbers.

Maybe it's just better to wait and see what the other person does.  If they offer a hand, shake it, if they bow, you do too, if they grab you and do the kissy thing, go with the flow.  If they give you a big bear hug, smile and pat them on the back.

Just remember, whatever it is they are doing is trying to be welcoming and friendly.  Accept it for what it is regardless of your reaction.

So, if they are pointing a gun at you, it might be wise to hold your hands up in the air,  I think that is the universal option at that point.

While we in the upper Midwest are jealous over our southern friends because we're still looking at dead grass and dirt.

I'll do whatever Mrs. Stosh says is okay for me to do. 

1 hour ago, Jameson76 said:

Just a quick fact check - actually it's about 58%

Each year the Census Bureau captures a snapshot of the living arrangements of U.S. children through its Current Population Survey. The 2014 results were released by the Bureau last week, and the portrait they present of the family lives of 73.7 million American kids is certainly a variegated one.

Yet despite all the talk about the growing irrelevance of marriage, 43 million children, a 58-percent majority, were living with both their birth mother and biological father in a traditional married-couple family

 

I've dug through the Census Bureau's statistics and no where could I find any references to any breakdown of birth mothers and biological fathers making up their references to two parent households.  69.9% of children live in homes of two parents, but with a divorce rate (increasing over the past 18 years, to the current level of 50% males and 46% females, that 69.9% of children living in non-birth mothers/non-biological fathers skews that number considerably.

It would be helpful to have a reference as to where your statistics originate.  Other non-Census Bureau surveys puts that birth-mother/biological father parenting family at well below 50%.  Depending on other social, economic, and geographic factors the boys in any scouting unit would be tremendously impacted by the reality in which we live.

My point is not exactly how many of our boys are affected, but what is BSA addressing the strong evidence that such factors are present and can have an impact on legal liabilities facing Scouters in today's environment.

Case in point.  I have 2 boys with step fathers.  I really don't know which parent is the custodial parent and if the permission slips being signed are valid signatures.  Not that those slips are valid in the first place. 

Oh, to be a myopic American.    Scouting is a global phenomena and our chances of meeting those of other cultures in such places as World Jamborees will often times put us in "uncomfortable" situations.  A handshake?  A hug? A double kiss? A bow?  Let's just hope that tolerance of others keeps the peace.  When in Rome, do as the Romans, which is okay as long as one knows what Romans do.  

This whole discussion brings up an important part of how we interact with others.  Sure there are other customs and norms out there that need to be addressed.  If I were to offer my hand as a token of friendship and another person does not do what "I" deem as appropriate, am "I" tolerant enough to respect that person whether I know their customs or not? Or do I automatically "assume" (and we all know where that leads to) the worst case scenario? or do I tolerate the gesture and maybe at a more appropriate time, respectfully inquire into the situation.  The other person says, "In my culture such touching is a problem for us and so we don't do it."  Nuff said, now I know what's going on and my tolerant behavior and respect for others is clarified and made clear.  I might inquire how then, should I show my respect and friendship to them.  Then the next time we meet, I can keep each other comfortable in what was an awkward situation for both of us.

Why not just schedule two trips and have as many that want to go have an opportunity.  Too much work?  Then pick activities that have the space so those that want to go can.

It would appear that the imposed restrictions promote threads like this, but maybe the little box being discussed should be replaced with one that's a bit bigger.

Youth at that age are fickle with what interests them.  Like the weather in Wisconsin, if you don't like it at the present time, wait 5 minutes, it'll be different.

I'm thinking I read it somewhere, I may be wrong, though, that there was some BSA publication, maybe one of the books somewhere, where one of the requirements might have had something to do with something called a Scout "handshake".  A bit of a brief explanation and maybe a picture.  Maybe @TAHAWK can drum up a reference for it from somewhere.

Pssssst.... I think he's talking about himself.

Welcome! It's always good to get a look at the world from the new guys!

We are in a society where parenthood is becoming obsolete.  We are replacing parents with nannies, biological in most instances.  When our children were no longer expected to actually grow up, parents were "required" to take care of them into the extended years.  When the families began to deteriorate the collateral damage of divorce (40-50% of all US marriages, higher for re-marriages), the government had to step in and began to parent the children.  Any program that promoted the growth, maturity development and independence of young adults became offensive to this process.  Thus the suspicion of such groups grew and were challenged at every turn.

What chance do children have when those who are supposed to rear them are from two different households?

So in steps BSA with it's "family" program.  So, define family.  with less than 10% of our nation's youth living in a household of natural mom and dad, that is a daunting challenge.  Is the adult who shows up with Little Johnny really his parent or legal guardian?  If custodial Mom can't make it to an activity and step-dad (with no legal standing with the boy) shows up, is Johnny allowed on the activity?  How does that jeopardize the legal standing of the Scouters?  This is but the tip of the iceberg of potential litigation that BSA is totally ignoring with it's all-inclusiveness policies.  I learned a long time ago that those little "permission slips" that "parents" sign have absolutely no standing in a court of law.  

We are all now in a Brave New World of some pretty thin ice.   Skate carefully, My Friend.

In all the years of being in scouting my dad came out for a few minutes at a Camporee to "see what was going on".  He was registered as something for a year.  It had nothing to do with the troop, something on district level I think..  Other than that, my parents were not involved in scouting in any way. 

I do remember they chaperoned a band trip I was on in high school.  I saw them once in the hallway at the hotel.

All of us in the family knew that these activities, whether scouts, church or school, were OUR activities.  My parents had their activities which, of course, we were not involved with.  However, with that being said, we had a lot of family activities we did as a whole..

In today's society, with the breakdown in marriages, busy schedules, and a ton of other distractions. there are no longer any clear-cut definitions of independence.  Parents want to be friends with their kids and that bled over into having to share the activities as a "family".  I for one would never have liked having my parents constantly hanging around everything I was doing.  Hey, Mom and Dad, get a life and leave me to mine.  We camp as a family on every available weekend, we take 2 weeks vacation as a family, you're in the audience for everything we do, and we eat dinner every night as a family.  That's enough.

When I was 18 I had already moved out of the house and was living on my own.  All of us kids in the family did the same thing.  We actually looked forward to being on our own.

Yeah, well, young people wear their hats while eating, wear clothes that Good Will won't take and have minimal social skills when talking to anyone other than their computer buddies.  I guess only older people have social norms other than high-fives and sporting one's underwear in public. 

I would think that anyone my age who was a scouter "back in the day" would have a lot of stories to tell that would make the youth of today more than just jealous.  Well, the kicker would be when they were told that such things aren't allowed anymore. (and some of them might even be illegal.) 

@Amynh If the troop is paying for things that should be split between the pack and troop, the troop should be able to identify what that is.  A simple statement that says one owes money is not appropriate anywhere in the business world.  Might as well ask for a signed blank check.  Itemized statement would go a long way to clarify this situation.

1 hour ago, Amynh said:

Is  a cub scout pack under the same charter as a boy scout troop  have to give money to the troop or the charter other than dues for rechartering puropses?

 

First of all, welcome to the forum.

I'm kinda confused on this one.  A pack with a Charter Org has a charter and even if the troop has the same Charter Org, they have a separate charter.  Each unit charters separately.  Register money goes to the committee of the unit and sent into council separately.  The troop has nothing to do with the pack's rechartering.