johndaigler

It's pretty hard to argue that the song's point is to remind the Adult to keep announcements short when the song itself is invariably longer than the original announcement. I doubt many adult leaders need the group acting as instructor. Wouldn't a polite word discretely spoken serve the purpose better and model the preferred behavior?

Secondly, I think the original point still holds. Whatever the intent of the song - it intrinsically teaches several things that not all of us want to teach. I agree, it's just a silly song -- so why try to keep it, if it's not helping you accomplish what you're trying to accomplish with your Cubs? If it doesn't bother the adults and doesn't disrupt the meetings, keep it. Enjoy. If it troubles adults and slows down a meeting that people are always asking you to speed up, then get rid of it.

jd

I didn't want to step on Barry's lines, but since he hasn't been around . . .

This Scouting Stuff . . . I'm lovin' it!

jd

John in KC,

What she said.

jd

The problem isn't his right to rave -- he uses it quite well. The problems are: #1)it's a book we've all read at this point; #2)there's never any thought given to solutions; #3)jk's posts have in the past set us all up for conversational failure and in-fighting.

I'm happy to see that we're not falling for the traps this time.

jd

Well said, Proud Eagle.

The idea that what is legal or approved by parents should be a good enough standard for us and all Scouts is, I think, a rather empty idea.

I don't think this idea was presented. It may be splitting hairs, but there is a significant difference between what we try to teach our boys and what we see as our role to regulate.

The standard we should strive for is the Scout Oath and Law.

I agree wholeheartedly. That seems simple enough, but do the Oath and Law, or any policy, morality, etc., give Unit Leaders the role to create Scout-time consequences for non-Scout-time legal, parent approved activity?

jd

BTW, Do the cul-de-sac complainers respectfully burn their newspaper magazine pictures of US flags? Do news pictures of partially burned flags from the Middle East need to get the same respect and treatment? Do they refuse to use stamps with the image of the flag? All of these situations are considered and viewed as "flags" under the flag code. If the postal service doesn't feel obligated to respect the flag code, what are we doing publicly chastising a few kids for their art work? Sometimes we make ourselves crazy . . .

Named after old BSA council, town strips of those colors?

jd

BrentAllen, Great story - thank you. Mr. McCord seems like a great SM, and a great person.

I think my point rests in the difference between the behavior you credited to Mr. McCord and the threatened behavior (over flag burning) of the adults in your unit. I think it's an important point and a huge difference between the grace an SM shares with the lives of his Scouts and the punishment of a legal behavior with which the Unit Scouters are uncomfortable. Mr. McCord's behavior was welcomed by the boy and focused on the best future for the boy. Your emotionally-charged response to the earlier post doesn't show in the same light. And I don't mean to focus on you - I apologize if this seems challenging - it's a much wider topic than individual Scouters. In truth, I can't imagine Unit Leaders, after reflection, following through on that knee-jerk reaction mentioned earlier.

If our efforts are welcomed by the boy and the family - fine. I agree we can a have a great impact on our kids - in fact, we should strive to do so. But, if it's not a Scout thing, and we disagree with the boy's family approved legal behavior - I think we're overstepping our role.

Fred and Trev, it seems pretty gray to me. I think most Scouters' emotions would run along the lines of BrentAllen. Is there some training or material that explains how BORs, SM conferences, etc. might handle such a complicated scenario?

jd

Welcome, Akela!!!

Return greetings from a former WNYer - now in IL.

jd

BrentAllen, burning the flag while in uniform WOULD be inappropriate and worthy of a chat with the lad to help him understand the reasons why we don't make such political statements while representing the group by being uniformed.

Outside of Scouting, I can't see that it's the SM's business -- given the parameters you originally proposed.

jd

Are you only a Scout when you wear your uniform, or are attending a Scouting event? Is that what you teach your Scouts?

Good points, BrentAllen, but I think the first question is for the boy to answer not the SM. A corollary to these is, "As SM, are you in charge of (responsible for, able to create consequences for) a boy's behavior when he's with his parents or acting within the rules of his family and NOT in uniform and/or at a Scouting event?

I understand your disappointment in the Scout's behavior, but I think it would be tough to follow through with the consequences you laid out. Given your scenario, he didn't hurt anyone, didn't break any law, . . . once you get past the raw emotional response, how do you explain your actions (those from your post) to other Scouts and Scouters -- even if they all agreed with your thinking, numbers don't make your actions correct. What expalantions would? Seems tough to me.

(Not being a BOR specialist) I suppose a BOR could focus on "living the Scout Spirit" and slow advancement for this Scout.

What else would be an appropriate response?

jd

Sure, the Scouts support the pledge, but would we support it any less if it didn't say "under God"?

I worry that the Scouts attending may be making a more politicized statement than is appropriate for uniformed Scouts.

Certainly we want our boys and adults to be politically aware and act on their beliefs, but to do it in uniform is getting into a very gray area. We run the risk of politicizing our uniforms - (even more?) - and making it acceptable to praise or condemn Scout uniforms based on political ideologies and goals -- based on which side of a political hotbutton you're on.

Seemingly, this rally was not in support of the pledge but in support of a proposed bill that would put restraints on the federal and Supreme Courts. At first glance, this strikes me as more about politics than about the Scout Oath and Law.

I'll have to think about this some more and see if I can find more info.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . .

jd

I agree with baden. All you've got right now amounts to gossip. If the boy wants to join, and he reads and submits an app., how can you do anything but celebrate a new Sea Scout? I don't think you can talk to parents (his or any others), and you can't take the word of the other guys. Maybe your young woman dancer is close enough to talk with him about it, but it doesn't seem fair to put that responsibility on her, or the stress on their friendship.

I doubt any boy in his social position is ignorant of his public image, or the public image of BSA. Seems like the ball is in his court.

My one difference of opinion with baden concerns, "The problem I see however is that if he is gay and the members of your crew know it, if you accept him, the crew members know you are breaking the rules."

I don't think Eamonn is in position to be worried about breaking any rules or having the other boys consider it such. I'm not just defending Eamonn's feelings either - trying to push responsibility off onto the new boy. Actually, I think Eamonn runs the risk of "breaking rules" in the other direction. There is no way to know this boy's "avowed sexuality", without a direct (emotionally confrontational to the lad) conversation -- a conversation that would be less than appropriate to have with any Scout. So, IMHO, the greater risk for Eamonn is being so worried about doing the right thing that he's overly cautious and does the wrong thing.

I see the risk for Eamonn's credibility with the other boys, but I'm afraid I don't see a "right" way to fret about that, and treat this potential new scout with the appropriate respect and welcome the lad deserves. Personally, I think lessening our treatment of individuals in order to protect the group, lessens the group and its ideals -- though that's obviously not a practical or pragmatic view.

Eamonn, good luck, please keep us up to date. This topic grows more and more important to more and more Scouters.

jd

SSScout, WELCOME!

IMHO,

The UC and parents should react respectfully, and away from the Cubs. I'm hoping the CM's conniption wasn't public and/or embarrassing to the boy, but even if it was, it would be better if the moment wasn't made larger by an angry public response.

The standard for every action a Cub Scout undertakes is "Do Your Best". Given the family's beliefs, the boy is performing fine - perhaps better than that, given peer (and other) pressures.

Seems like the CM could use a bit more training.

In general, a Scouter needs to show the same level of respect for Scouts as he/she shows to other Scouters.

jd

OKScouter,

WELCOME!!

Scoutnut is right on target. I wish he had a different answer for you, but I've looked and there doesn't seem to be one.

I also think he's probably right about how to spend that money. Perhaps a quick but important ceremony at a Pack Meeting to celebrate leaders who reach trained level -- or to acknowledge any training completed. Less involved parents probably don't understand, and therefore can't appreciate the effort your leaders put forth. Give them a chance to understand it, and cheer for it.

jd

Kahuna, wouldn't a VAT - like a national sales tax - take care of underreporting in cash businesses? -_ While keeping the simplicity and some other benefits of a "flat" income tax.

I believe (tax non-expert, that I am) this plan is also purported to motivate saving over spending, and preparing for the future over spending for the moment. Though, I'm sure, that's an optimistic overstatement. And eliminates much of the IRS infrastructure and bureaucracy.

jd

Thanks, Voyageur, I knew you would make sense - and I agree, snakebites are definitely a time when everyone needs to stay within their knowledge and skill zone.

jd

kittle, search these forums. I know similar threads were around last year - my guess is, >> every year.

Are you going with "Cubs in the Future" as a theme?

Do you want generic blue and gold?

In a nut shell, here's a quick idea that was explained in detail last year.

glue a 1/2 styrofoam ball to a square base. (easy to cut a styrofoam ball in half, but be careful -- a ceramic tile makes a great base)

Cut blue and gold colored cocktail napkins (?maybe a dozen of each color for a 6 inch ball?) into quarters.

Have the Cubs randomly pin the colored squares into the ball until it's jammed up like a chrysanthemum. When pinning be sure to pin the squares into the ball without pinning down other "petals" - just hold them up out of the way. We used stick pins of the opposite color, but they mostly get lost in the puff of blue and gold color.

For added detail, use pipe cleaners to form the Pack's Number (or this year's date)and push those down into the top of the styrofoam.

good luck

jd

Rooster, you might be older than me, but I don't recall an Olympics when the nations "knew they were accountable to God".

Wouldn't it be complicated (beyond our frail, imperfect humanity) in such an international event to focus on God? Whose god? Whose peace?

It is much more common to find public displays of appreciation of God in sporting events these days than ever before.

Perhaps invoking God in something as frivolous as a sporting event is less than respectful?

If a set of cartoons can create such international chaos, maybe we foolish humans can't be trusted with God during an event where there's competitive tension, political tension, language tension, fair-judging tension, financial tension, security tension and a history of human error and evil?

IMHO, God belongs in my personal life, but he's too busy (and too wise) to be involved in my public games and my public politics.

BTW, how adorable was it, having that little one sing the Italian Anthem???

Though, I can't say I really felt compelled by ferrarri doughnuts or the modern dance. The ski jumper formed by dozens of people was fun. And, Sophia is still beautiful. Best hats/jackets to the Germans -- a bit melony, but interesting and fun enough to help keep the whole thing in perspective.

jd

Try other Units to scrounge up more participants. Your district/council may see more value and work out the details.

Offer to take a starring role -- or a supportive role -- whichever will help the training group put this together.

Voyageur,

You've piqued my curiosity!! Why the "leave it to professionals" secrecy? Aren't those the guys most likely to have better skills and info? Isn't it the rest of us who need your advice? Especially if we're "backcountry"?

jd

Roger,

WELCOME!!!!

I wish you luck with your efforts! Thank you for them!!

With all due respect, I would be more comfortable shipping books to your local council office. There are probably others who are just as cautious and it might simplify your efforts in the event you get a large response. We might even be able to get our local councils to support your efforts and ship boxes. Could this be possible??

Is there a similar program specifically for Scouts: equipment, uniforms, handbooks, etc.?

jd

Beavah, can you please give some background, explanation or evidence for the following sections of your post. I'm trying to read your posts with a more friendly, kind, and courteous eye. Unfortunately, these statements seem like typical, agenda-ed rhetoric. You say that's not your intent, so if you could help me, I'd appreciate it.

jd

Conservatives are more comfortable with the language of universal truth and common, shared belief. They are more comfortable seeking it, they are more comfortable declaring it, talking about it openly, evangelizing. They are more comfortable viewing themselves not as strictly independent personal opinions, but as an integral part of a bigger society/group/church nation... and they are willing to sacrifice some of themselves for those bigger concepts. "

. . .

Conservatives are more comfortable with that language and those consequences... of pledging their "lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" to the "universal" cause.

. . .

Exactly. You go from being a Babel of individuals into being a community... just like when you stuff a bunch of boys into uniforms and teach them to live by common values of duty to God, and nation, and neighbor, and self.

Well done!

jd

Yah, JD, dat's a bit much, eh? Perhaps a separate thread for each topic?

Beavah, you start a thread where you address Lisabob's various ideas but you don't have the patience to read through other posters' responses?? Hmmmmm. . . so much for a dialogue of ideas. Give my comments about "skimming" another look.

One thing I think that's apparent in your postings that I didn't catch before is the insistence on presenting/categorizing things as personal opinion/belief, absent any group label. Of course whatever any of us writes or says is our own personal understanding. That's so obvious it doesn't merit comment.

Beavah, that's so obvious it's become a cliche' - accepted but no longer valid. Do you want each of us to assume that everything you say is just opinion and really has no factual basis? I doubt you want that little credibility. Opinions are not ideas.

But I think one big difference between the Blue-L's and the Red-C's is that the Red-C's are more comfortable with the quest for objective, impersonal truth, that goes beyond what "I believe" to "What really works" or "what makes us us." In that way, they are more apt to use the language of objectivity or "common belief" like patriotism, even overbroadly. This drives many deconstructionist Blue-L's batty, as you illustrate. Great, now I'm a special kind of Blue-L! You just can't get away from trying to throw me into some group that you can dismiss because you KNOW me. What drives me batty is posting thoughts/ideas without risking yourself. "My team thinks this, your team thinks that." Comments like that protect the writer from personal responsibility. Just, please, give it a try. . . What does Beavah think about Lisa's ideas and what makes him think that?

Red-C's are more comfortable with the quest for objective, impersonal truth,.. Apparently what you're saying is that Red-C's are more capable of intelligent, clear thinking and have a strangle-hold on truth. Therefore, the Red-C team is "better". To even consider such a statement about the "quest for objective, impersonal truth" is ludicrous. It's the kind of thing a "team" says - it's corpspeak. Individuals who need to be responsible for their own written words would immediately feel the inaccuracy, the foolishness inherent in such a statement. Using objective language and searching for objective truth are hardly the same thing. My point is that you, Beavah, limit yourself by speaking as anything other than Beavah and by judging me to be anything other than "johndaigler".

Deconstructing any argument to a matter of personal belief makes an argument much easier to dismiss - you believe that, I believe this. There is then no need to work together to find an objective truth. Everything is "belief sharing" or, in the media "belief shouting." At the same time, such deconstruction prevents runaway "common beliefs" like Islamists or Maoists which can be very destructive. Objective truths are based on objective facts - if that's where you wanted the discussion to head you should have tried using a few. You've twisted this backward. Your first post is nothing more than belief sharing - and that would have been fine, but you pitched it as some high-brow attempt at a respectful discussion of ideas.

But deconstruction and individual centeredness doesn't build community. People keep votin' for even weak "Red-C's" because they are using the language of objectivity, common belief and purpose which you seem to dismiss. It isn't a bad thing to define oneself in part as being a member of a group - an American, a Jew, a conservative, a Boy Scout, a Steeler's fan. That's genuine, it recognizes commonalities beyond individual differences, and it builds communities.

Identifying as part of groups is vital. . . To deny our individuality and give over our thinking and our responsibility for that thinking is a bit scary. Communities are based on commonalities, not on clones. You don't speak for the community and it shouldn't speak for you. You certainly can't label others as belonging to a community and then KNOW who they are and what they think.

What I dismiss is the acceptance of groupthink as objective truth and the dismissal of alternate ideas as different and therefore "less". What I dismiss is the pomposity of groups, the anonymous arrogance of Teamspeak, and the lessening of individual thought and personal responsibility.

So, we come back around to the original problem. Why don't you try addressing Lisabob as Beavah.

jd

Hmmmm, now there's an idea . . .

How about:

There are many ways to measure success; not the least of which is the way your child describes you when talking to a friend.

- Unknown

jd