johndaigler

Pack, I understand what you've said, but I think you may have writeen it in ink that's too dark. Though, I did go to some of the appropriate VA websites and it does seem as if they've written the policies in the same DARK ink! Don't some of your churches use wine in their religious celebrations? Aren't there thousands of Virginians who use wine as parts of at-home family/cultural/religious events? PS> With all due respect, isn't "Bible Belt State" a devisive oxymoron? . . . Perhaps, only if your state govt. uses it or thinks of itself that way. Hmmmm . . . I need to think about this one . . . jd

Before we go too far down that unexpected and unScoutlike path... Scoutldr - well done! Ed and Rooster, Respectfully, you're VERY wrong with the "reading adult magazines causes rape and other immoral acts" thing. Your logic is off - When "A" happens and "B" happens - it doesn't mean "A" causes "B". The criminals have refrigerators and TVs. Perhaps eating hotdogs or watching Saturday morning cartoons made them do it. -- Both more scientifically valid possibilities, BTW. Anyone ever know someone who goes through 20 or more Playboys each and every day? Anyone sick from secondhand smut? Can you tell who's the smoker even when he's not smoking? Can you tell who's Playboy reader even when she's not reading? Assuming that Mr. Z is capable of sharing his reading choices with boys is a HUGE jump and RADICALLY changes the question and therefore the answer. The very concept that Mr. Z can be defined by one of his reading choices is frighteningly Orwellian to me! So, Hunt, let's jack up the pressure. How many glasses of wine can Mr. Z have at dinner before driving home becomes an immoral act? Is getting home safely the standard? No blood, no foul? Is the first glass the line crosser? Is the number different for different drivers? Does Mr. Z's action ever reach "immoral"? Is the legal limit the standard? Does legally sober but hurting someone on the way get him over to the dark side? jd

Pack, Jefferson's word was actually "sacred", but Franklin, and the rest of the Comittee of Five, made him change it to remove Religion one more step away from what they knew would be their govt. founding doctrine. CubsRgr8 - count me in as a queasy stomach!! Also, I'm less enthusiastic than others about the whole post. Vicki, well informed - well written. Thank you. EagerLeader, we all wish you well. Choose your path slowly, this isn't black and white - not even close. There are many Buddhists who qualify for membership - but they wouldn't fit in with much of what you've read above. You do not need to participate in anyone else's religious organization or beliefs. You do not need to feel confined to the word "God". You certainly don't need to accept the word "hypocrite". Most people on the planet are searching for answers and purposes and truths. Most are (culturally) lucky enough to be starting their quest from the opposite direction as you. You don't seem to be sure of the answer, or there would be no need to write your original post. So, assuming you're still "searching", I'd put forth the effort to come closer to an answer which can comfort you. Trevorum is a good resource - he's well informed. Google "Buddhism" or any other faithbase you can think of. You don't need to find your truth tonight, just be looking for it - sooner or later you'll bump into reverence - and you'll wonder why you didn't see it all along. IMHO, Eager leader, Scouting is another searchjourney, though other Scouters may define you using their terms and beliefs, we supposedly teach young boys to grow and define themselves. Perhaps now is a good time to take another step toward growing, changing and defining yourself. With all due respect to BW, trying to create change from within is often a good thing - not easily accepted by others; but the critical are often critical of outsiders trying to make changes, as well. Growth only comes with change and it has to come from one direction or the other. jd

My Wolves used the LEGO Contraptions booklet for inventions in March! We built the Trap Door Cable Car (with the parachuting minifig), the Kentucky Do Nothing, the Candy Machine and the Ping Pong Ball Popper!! Challenging, but tons of fun! (sorting out the appropriate blocks for each team of boys was a big enough challenge for me!!) Big hit with the boys and their friends at the pack meeting!! My favorite part was when the boys started re-engineering the machines, modifying them and making adjustments to what they saw as errors and weaknesses!! For example, they put a base plate beneath the candy machine and built up a wall around the edge to form a bit of a bowl to catch the candy as it ejected from the machine - much better than jelly beans bouncing across the table down onto the floor! I wouldn't be afraid to use LEGOs - even with oldest boys. As long as the activity is appropriately themed and challenging - I'd bet they just see the blocks as building tools, not toys. Everyone knows how complicated these engineered constructions can get - I think LEGOs reputation would withstand teen cynicism. Volvo teamed up with LEGO for the Chicago Auto Show and made a full size Volvo XC-90. The LEGO construct supposedly turned out to be heavier than the real car!!! jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Not to disrespect, but to disagree - I think we're well-served to honestly evaluate the reasoning behind such item-banning decisions. IMHO, when we set rules like these, we might really be: 1) Legislating personal responsibility - which I don't think is our role. Though, I'm guessing the bigger issue is the "calamity" of lost cards - we don't want to be involved. Kids and parents should decide what the boy brings to an activity. Obviously, Packs and Troops have rules, and there are banned items - usually rules established with good reasons, but the logic behind banning cards, any cards, seems faulty (assuming there's planned downtime). Kids who play these games don't need to bring their best cards to play - like baseball cards, there are doubles, doubles and more doubles in the collection of every player. If you've planned downtime, then I would see cards, any cards, as a traditional downtime filler. 2) Compensating for our inability to maintain the Cubs cooperative attention and active participation in the face of such a strong distractor. We need to evaluate the environment, and the agenda, if these cards are coming out during organized activities. The idea of the SM not giving the cards to the mother floors me! I can't believe that is seen as appropriate. There are teachable moments, but the parent is learning a lesson that I don't think we want to teach. I hope that was respectful enough, I definitely didn't mean any insult. jd

Kristi, you've moved into the CM role, right? Even that, still wouldn't give you the "authority" to do what you would like in this case. -Can this ol' cm serve the Pack as Troop Liaison? -Pack Trainer? -Seeker-Outer of guest Speakers? -The District guys seem to like him, maybe there's a Commissioner role or something for him? Sounds like the guy you want to promote out of the Pack's immediate environment. If he does Day Camp, for the Council, does he also do Webelos Woods and other Outdoor activities? -District Trainer?? (BALOO??) Do you use the suggested Pack Meeting agenda in the Leaders Book? Maybe you could organize the meetings without (and to eliminate) his participation? Good Luck, jd

Hey, BW, Welcome home! BTW, you left off pimples!! BORs and pimples are definitely antithetical!! If he doesn't have enough respect for BORs and the members of the BOR to get rid of those pimples . . .

Congrats! Your efforts honor us all. jd

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you two Freds, but just to be clear . . . Besides being CC, I'm a Wolf DL and the Pack Trainer. Here's an example of why I intend to be more active as CC than perhaps makes you two comfortable. In the past, the Pack did the following: - only award Bobcat in Nov. and other ranks in Feb. (BnG) - Dens did not participate in Pack meetings as Dens merely as the audience - every committee member was also a DL - Cubs were not allowed to run in the PWD (Jan.), unless their annual dues (due 3/1)were paid for the next year - Themes were not used at all - Pack meetings were generally guest speakers, announcements and handing out of participation segment patches - inactive summers - no camping - minimal effort at uniforming - minimal effort at training leaders - no one knew what each den was doing - if anything - no singing, no skits, no campfires . . . I would love to be a CC whose sole purpose was to host monthly leader meetings. I think you'll agree, it would be premature to see myself that way today. With all due respect to CMs everywhere, and to mine in particular, - being responsible for quality program can't and shouldn't be done by the CM alone. jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

CMF, truly, GOOD CCs, CMs and DLs find it pretty easy to work together, so in a successful unit much of this seems to happen naturally. But, it's risky for the organization to take itself for granted. The way you explained it, Dens plan their year, then the Pack plans its year. For me, that seems backward. We set out the Pack's calendar and Themes (all with DL input - though, if it comes down to it, the Committee makes Pack decisions, and DLs do not get VOTES - though playing that card seems frought with consequences!) and support the DLs as they plan their year accordingly. We don't always use the "Program Helps" Themes but when we stray, we know we're giving up certain resources and prebuilt supports. I'm not sure how a DL would see the Pack's Theme as limiting? We don't use the Themes as walls that contain Dens, they're just common threads that tie us together when we gather to celebrate the month's efforts. It's pretty simple for a Den to straddle the line and get where they want to go while still retaining a sense of Pack Team. We don't demand each Den do a particular thing for a Theme, we just say, "Here's this month's common language, whatever you do, learn and speak a bit of it." I think Dens and DLs are the core of the program. But as a CC, I don't think I can just sit back and watch the CM. Most DLs benefit from Pack support and parameters, training and resource sharing. One trick, of course, is supporting and respecting the efforts and responsibilities of the CM. I hope I haven't led you to believe I don't see that as key for a successful CM. I've never meant to minimize the importance of the CM. Again, my worry is for the year after GOOD Leaders (CCs or CMs or DLs or whatever) leave the Unit. Packs that don't develop good customs and traditions, constantly have to rebuild themselves on a more wholesale level. These Packs suffer the hills and valleys of individual leaders - some good, some not so good. The organization can protect itself and its future by developing good habits. That being said, once you've got a good plan and some good traditions, a smart CC knows to let a good CM run with the ball. Likewise, a good CM let's a good DL run. Unfortunately, if you don't have good working habits as an organization, then whenever there's a weak link in the CC-CM-DL chain; the unit, the program and ultimately the boys suffer more than necessary. And, you have to go through the Struggling Pack Blues again! As I have said the CM is responsible for putting on a quality preogram, and the committee is responsible to get the CM what is needed to make this happen. Agreed, but I see the CC as having a more active role in helping the Committee set GOOD Pack goals, policies and parameters (all of which are needed "to make this happen"). It may just be that our Packs are in different developmental places. As CC, if I was less actively involved, our program would revert to its previous lackluster form - even with our talented, caring CM. We're on the verge of becoming GOOD. I'll feel comfortable enough to back off when the traditions and customs of the Pack become self-fulfilling prophecies aimed at continued growth and success. An organization that builds "Stewardship" into its character and framework becomes this self-preserving, self-building, living organism that makes each of us as individuals better, but also, less individually important. GOOD Leaders become better and more effective, POOR Leaders become less damaging - and are helped and supported as they grow toward being GOOD. jd (This message has been edited by johndaigler)

CMF, The CM definitely should be running the show -- Within parameters set by the Committee. If the Pack Committee says "Themes", I don't see where a DL or a CM gets a vote. Torveaux, you can find the 05/06 themes in the 04/05 book, but all you get are the theme titles. Apparently, the Program Helps doesn't come out till late May - early June. A bit silly since, most of us are beginning the planning process now -- AND the themes rotate through every couple of years so the Program Helps with some minor editing is really just sitting there waiting to be published and distributed. No disrespect, It'sMe, but I definitely disagree. CC's have responsibilities to the Pack as a whole - Your approach would get in the way of improving the whole Pack. My guess is that all DLs in your Pack are not all so independant and Good. The trick of course is to get you to see the value - without creating inconvenience and conflict. In reality, the reasons for concern depend on the DL. Good DLs may or may not need to use all that resource support, but bad DLs do need the support. Remember the themes tie into Roundatable, Boy's Life articles, websites, etc. - many of our support materials. My real concern about GOOD but non-Program-Helps-using DLs is that they grow up and leave. Then what do you have? A Unit without traditions of working together, valuing training, and using the given resources to succeed. Are you so confident that the next DL is going to be GOOD even without the resources and the training? I think Packs are better if they're prepared for the future. The GOOD DL who doesn't see himself as part of the team (tell's a CM or CC to take a hike? ) might be good for the kids he's working with but does nothing to help, in fact endangers, the future of the Pack. In other threads, I've talked about "Stewardship". IMHO, we need to do a better job of preserving our future. The use and sharing of resources, knowledge and experiences helps us from having to reinvent the wheel each month and year. The Program Helps gives us a common language, they offer ideas, options - they aren't mandates. I don't use them word for word and my Wolves don't meet 4 times a month. I pick and I choose, but to ignore them is like ignoring a ten dollar bill on the ground as you walk down the sidewalk. A good Scout may look around and see if they can find the rightful owner, but would you teach your Scout to leave it lying on the ground? Using and sharing our resources helps us weather the valleys of poor leadership - might it put uneccesary restraints on GOOD free-wheeling leaders? Maybe, but I'd expect them to just see it as another challenge. Consider it one more Achievement in the handbook -- Learn to play well with others! BTW, FB, XLNT! jd

fsteele, WELCOME! Just a minor point. I see the decision to ban certain parents from certain Unit activities as a Unit "policy" (hate the word, but I'm sure you know what I mean). This would, IMHO, clearly fall within the "power" of the Committee and therefore the CC is the person to override the SM in this instance. Of course, there are different kinds of SMs and CCs and Committee, so the local reality is always unique. Actually, it seems to me the CO is truly the place where a decision of this type whould be made. jd

I'm sure I'm walking out onto thin ice and sounding too Merlyn-esque for many of you, but I have questions and I can't seem to find the answers buried within all the mud that gets thrown when scary words get mentioned in posts? So, without all the rhetoric, without all the anger . . . Can someone explain to me in simple, not threatening words, why they think a public school, funded by public tax dollars, is an acceptable owner of a Scout Unit, which by its chosen nature disallows some of those taxpayers and their children? Can someone explain to me why they believe they know more than the highly trained members of the Judicial Branch provided for in the Constitution, and established and formed mostly by the powers of the Federalists who designed the Constitution? I have yet to meet a Scouter who is a Constitutional scholar. Granted, we're all allowed our opinion, but I'm not very comfortable with bad mouthing generic judges because we aren't getting our way - especially when we seem to want it both ways! Can someone tell me why we keep saying "the ACLU is trying to destroy the BSA"? Again, without the VERY TIRED rhetoric and cliches, what has the ACLU or anyone else for that matter, asked of us? Again and again, threads like this take even the calmest of our heads down dirty paths. I think this conversation is important - vital, in fact; but please, take a breath and think before you let your fingers type worn out words and angst. YIS, jd

Scout John, WELCOME!!!! Your all caps is an internet tool for yelling. Between Ed and Merlyn, they can definitely make you want to scream, but there's no need to swim in their section of the pool. Stay over here where the nice kids play! If they were arguing face to face, we'd acuse them of being deaf because they refuse to truly listen to each other's deeply held convictions. I guess, given the forum's method of communication - they must be blind. Neither is Kind enough, nor Brave enough to play well with others. Merlyn is not a Scouter. Ed is, and therefore, should know better. They only come out to play when the thread includes the letters A-C-L-U or those frightening words "atheism" and "homosexual". They're so busy with each other, they generally ignore the rest of us - with which, I'm generally content. Anyway, don't get too caught up in the twin brothers of different mothers. For the most part we're about Scouting and helping young people grow into character-ful adults. Please, bring your questions, bring your knowledge, and pull up a chair. Again, WELCOME!!! jd

Ed, set all that ACLU and Consititutional baggage off to the side. I think we gum up the works when we start blaming the ACLU for the Constitutional interpretations of locally elected and federally appointed judges, and/or think we, as individuals, have a better handle on the intent of our forefathers than said judges. Are you comfortable with an RC Church owning (sponsoring) a troop where only RC leaders are acceptable? Only RC scouts are accepted? Perhaps a troop that disinvites Jewish boys? How about if that last troop is Owned (sponsored) by the local public school? I assume you can see we're I'm going. The BSA and it's franchisees have the right to structure membership -- the US govt. doesn't. I truly don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge this. The separation of Scout and State is obvious, and the responsibility for any political or social ramifications, and Scouter angst, can only be laid at the feet of the BSA. We made the choices. Why do we get shook when people ask us to live up to the responsibilities and consequences of those choices???????? jd

My biggest problem is I can't honestly junp up and shout, "No, I'll never believe it!". Organizations make bad choices all the time. This is the type from which we don't recover. Sad, very sad. jd

Why would you have a different rule for BOR than for every other aspect of your Program??

Scoutscooter - well played - good luck. Your son is already an SPL, it'll just take some time for others around him to figure it out!!! The uniform doesn't make the Scout, the Scout makes the uniform! Dug - Why do you want to ween parents from Scouts? Children grow their own independance from their parents at their own pace. I don't understand this feeling that Scouting should help serve, or speed up, that goal. Scout's are too cool for their parents???? -- I think we're missing part of the message. We don't want the Scout to tell his Dad to "Go Away", we want him to say, "Stand back, Dad, and watch what I can do!" It's a great message for the Unit to be sending out to parents, as well! I like EagleDad Barry's approach, where you welcome and teach the parents about the program. The more complicated issue is always the parents' independance - not the Scout's! Don't chase them away, find them a spot at the Leaders campfire! Vicki - Well thought out. I love it when Scouter's show they are thinking more about the boys than themselves! Give yourself an Attaboy!, ...er..., ...well..., you know what I mean! (You can take the man (er, person) out of his (er, or her) culture, but you can't take the cultural indoctrination out of the man (er, person)!) nldscout, LOL!!! Mostly because your wife is obviously not reading over your shoulder, and I'm imagining the wicked smiles as Kristi and Vicki gleefully stomp all over your wit and whatever else they can reach!!! A Scout is Brave, not Reckless!!!! jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Just mix it up. It's a matter of timing. If one type of activity (skill building) is taking up too much time, you'll need to break down the skill into smaller bits - one knot instead of four - one first aid skill instead of four. 5 - 10 minutes and then move on to the next thing. For skill building and retention, you're much better off learning/practicing skills for several short periods rather than one long period. Slice each activity into smaller chunks - mini-lessons. Activities that take longer lose their juice. Alternate pace and emotion: formalopening - silly - seriousskillbuilding - fungame - quietthinking - loudphysicalactivity - conversationalplanning - song - seriousskillbuilding - formalclosingwithSMminute Including themes and fun requires planning. Don't be afraid to deal with business - dues, attendance, forms, etc. on the fly. One person can deal with those details while everyone is doing something else - boys can be called out individually for seconds at a time without interrupting the activity. Don't keep the guys standing still waiting - ever. jd

Dug, girlfriends show up? What's that all about? Whose girlfriends? Show up, and do what? Cut wood for the fire? Why ask the question of staff and PLs? It seems that by asking, you're willing to establish, even if only by oral agreement, that women are not welcome. Hmmmm, women Scouters and/or parents are not welcome, but girlfriends are????????? Shouldn't your leaders be encouraging women to particpate?? I think I'm gonna suggest Cajuncody have a talk with you . . . I think I know the answer here, but, ... Why encourage parents not to come on the first two campouts. Are they welcome thereafter?? jd

Stormbear, WELCOME! Although your Pack seems to have taken the concept to the extreme, many Packs "take the summer off". It seems crazy to me, and this year we're aiming to improve how we use the summer months. Our Pack historically does the obligatory minor league baseball game and of course there's Day Camp, but our Dens have not "worked" through previous summers. This year we're (as new CC, I'm) urging them to keep their efforts and meetings going - if only on a less urgent, more activity based, get outside and play, kind of way. As a model for what we're really shooting for - Our Wolf Den is throwing a graduation Party in early June. We'll plan it as Wolves but celebrate it as Bears - the planning helps meet several Wolf Electives and the actual day in the park will help us meet several Bear Achievements and Electives. We're also inviting this year's Tigers and many of the activities we're planning (the obstacle course, treasure hunt, nature hike, large area game, etc.) will help the new Wolves meet Achievements, Electives and Bobcat requirements. Being, A Game With a Purpose, it seems wasteful to let summer slide away without taking advantage of it!! Summertime theme's are perfect: Destination Parks!, Play Ball!, Campfire Tales and Traditions. Definitely perfect opportunities to work on Cub Outdoor Award, Leave No Trace, some of the sports belt loops and pins, etc. Good Luck, Have Fun -- Just model the desired behavior and watch everyone else start to get the idea!!! jd

WELCOME, Scoutscooter, sorry that one of us has treated you poorly. There are plenty of good ideas above, so I won't repeat them. Just wanted to add my support and reassure you that the vast majority of Scouters welcome you. Semper, and everyone else, is right - this SM isn't going to change his spots willingly. Cajuncody is right, also, about a gathering of comrades. I'd find as many other moms, and female Scouters as you can (I'll bet there are bunches locally who would be very willing to teach this SM a lesson), to go camping with you. It's time to draw a line in the sand. However, such a conflict might not be immediately welcomed by your son, but I'll bet he's still young enough that you're in charge of what he learns, and from whom. Good Luck -- and if your son struggles with this, bring him round OUR campfire -- this is a great place for Scouts and Scouters to share. jd

"Lead, follow, or get out of the way."

Leo, WELCOME! The Pack and Family earn those awards as Units. The Cub as a member of the unit can help earn and, yes, receive the Pack and Family patches.(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

fgoodwin, Thanks for the article. Parts, I appreciate; parts, I don't. But rather than get into a thread where we all just repost what we've already shown, in other threads, to be our beliefs, I'll leave it at that. jd