Kahuna

It's really a moot point unless the CO wants to take legal action to recover the equipment. Usually, they could not care less, which sounds like the case here. I always made it a point to acquire equipment in the name of a 501©(3) corporation that I controlled. The corporation leases it to the unit for $1.00 a year. That way, there's no issue as to the CO keeping the equipment. The public is protected, because under the laws of (I think) all states, a non-profit corporation can only transfer assets to another non-profit, so there's no question selling it to private hands and keeping the money.

I nominate you for National Skipper of the Year (which I don't think exists but should). I wouldn't even think about staying up past midnite. You have certainly got what it takes! If you can't have more kids than you need with a waiting list, nobody could. BTW, we can find a ship for you in Hawai'i if you really get tired of winter. Bravo Zulu!(This message has been edited by Kahuna)

The advice you have gotten above is pretty good. I am absolutely appalled at the notion that your council is cutting summer camp. My first move would be to go after the Executive Board like Jesus after the money changers in the Temple. This is not limited to your council, btw, so I'm not just picking on you. In the history of most councils, the first thing the Scout Commissioner or Executive would do is figure out how to run a summer camp. Usually it meant the SE would go out and run the camp himself. I would ask the SE what he and his staff are doing this summer that is so important they can't go out and hold a camp. If a council can't run a summer camp, they should close their doors and merge with some other council. End of rant.

(This message has been edited by Kahuna)

Pretty historical. Check out the Founder: http://www.pinetreeweb.com/B-P.htm

I think originally the uniform distinctions were designed in part to prevent Boy Scouts feeling ripped off because their little brothers could join scouting and partly to give the younger kids an additional incentive to stay on when they reached a certain age. Maybe those rationales are overtaken by todays scouting? I don't know. I'm amazed it costs $104.00 to uniform a Tiger Cub and I didn't know that there were that many uniform changes in Cubbing. Of course, a lot of units maintain a closet of "experienced uniforms" and you can find a lot of stuff at Goodwill or Salvation Army. Every little bit helps. I guess Sea Scout uniforms, not made by the BSA, work out to be the best deal going, especially for those who are close to Naval bases where thrift shops always have tons of cast off uniforms. Sailors just junk 'em when they ship out, rather than go to the trouble of cleaning the grime off their whites. We can pick them up for $1-$5 per item and cleaning is easy.

I don't think morality has that much to do with it. My experience with coed Venture crews, include Sea Scouts, is that the biggest problem they have is when boy members date girl members, then break up. Creates awkward situations. Of course, you have to be out of your mind to not consider the attraction factor and take precautions. Actually, the working together seems to create a mutual respect that probably prevents some of the problems you might otherwise imagine.

CNY: There are no more Explorers. BSA separated that program into two groups: Ventures and Learning for Life. As Eagle mentioned, Ventures tend to do high adventure and outdoor stuff. Learning for Life is often based in schools and it may be that there is an LFL unit doing vocational auto repair in a school. Check with your council.

Eamonn, I understand your feeling. However, I know they were doing the same thing at the Jamboree in 1969. Of course, the prices were lower, but gas was 25 cents then!

Holy Macaroli! Every time I've checked eBay stuff, I've never seen anything over about $100. That OA patch bid is unbelievable. I don't have anything in the OA line, but I do have a Schiff neckerchief signed in my presence (actually, on my back) by Olave Baden-Powell in 1970. I guess I'd better talk to my insurance company about that and be sure my heirs know not to throw it out.

I couldn't decide whether to place this here or under patch trading. I don't know beans about selling or trading patches and other memorabilia, but I keep hearing about huge sums being offered for patches and memorabilia. When I look at stuff selling on eBay, though, it appears most items there sell for very low prices. That was my experience with the few uniform items I have sold there. Only did that once, the effort wasn't worth it. So I'm wondering if these stories I hear about huge prices being paid for certain rare OA patches, 1937 Jambo patches and that kind of thing are true or just urban myth. I'm not thinking of going into business, I'm just curious.

LongHaul: That's very well put.

Far be it from me to get into an argument between Ed and Merlyn about anything. Nevertheless, I want to make an observation about policy. A notable and frequent poster on these forums once completely lost any credibility he might have had with a statement to the effect that neither he nor any member of his family had ever knowingly broken the law. I doubt that any Scouter of any duration can make the statement that he or she has not disregarded policy with which s/he does not agree. I would also suggest that all of us have disregarded policies of government with which we disagree. I'm sure non of us has ever cheated on taxes, but have we put an item down as a deductible that we might not be able to substantiate? We can argue until the cows come home (no offense to the cows), but we all follow rules we consider important and disregard those we don't. We can only pray that we have the wisdom to know which ones are important and which ones aren't. Experience, of course, is a great teacher in this area. Does it make us less of a Scouter if we decide to operate in the absence of a policy with which we disagree? I don't know. It certainly makes us human and those who made the policy are certainly human, as far as I can tell. Do the policy makers then have the right to terminate our charter and our membership if it comes to their attention? Of course they do. They aren't any smarter than we are, but they're in charge.

Your lawyer friend is more or less correct. The job of a lawyer is to be an advocate for the client. Within the bounds of professional ethics, it's perfectly proper to attempt to persuade a court that a certain statute means a certain thing. The job of the judge is to listen to both sides of the argument, read the law and then interpret it according to his legal training.

Mahalo (thank you), Prairie Scouter! I would have had to look it up too and my Hawaiian-English dictionary is upstairs. You are correct that confirmation was a much more civil process in prior years. I don't know if ABA blessing had anything to do with it, but the parties were much less contentious. Of course, there was the Judge Bork debacle, which I still feel came out wrong. He is a right-of-mainstream conservative, but a brilliant jurist and certainly able to keep his personal opinions out of his decisions. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, on the other hand, is a left-of-mainstream liberal who was confirmed without much fuss by a Republican controlled Senate. I'm just tired of all the bickering and wish they would (all) try to act in the best interest of the country and not for the sake of party gotcha's.

Aloha, Prairie, Actually, I have a good 2 wood, but I'm missing a 2 iron. Maybe if I work on the 50 caliber . . . Ah yes, Judge Alito. He was the topic of this thread before it started on a rabbit trail, wasn't he? I don't know if he gives mixed signals or not. Obviously, he believed that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but so do other jurists who you probably would not guess: Ruth Bader Ginzberg, Alan Dershowitz and me. I am decidedly pro-choice and I'm glad the law has been stable on that point for so many years, but I can't find any right to privacy in the Constitution. So, if I was on the Court, what would I do? I don't know. I guess it would depend upon the case in which the issue arises. I would be very reluctant to overturn it, because we would waste a lot of time in state legislatures trying to pass anti-abortion laws. Alito probably would see it the same way, although I suppose he is pro-life. At any rate, he strikes me as a jurist who can read the Constitution and figure out what it means rather than depending on his "feelings" about the issue as some have done on the Court. The way the Democrats and Republicans have been behaving lately (a pox on all their houses), it's sure to be a big food fight in the Senate when they take up the issue. Can't we just elect adults to office?

Prairie: I would argue that MAD is not being dismantled, although there has been some disarmament between the superpowers. You are correct that MAD is less effective today because of the breakup of the Soviet Union and the resulting proliferation of nuclear weapons in the hands of who knows who. However, the superpowers are only reducing the numbers of weapons they have. The analogy I see is that if I feel I'm not threatened by armed gangs at my home I don't need all these 50 caliber machine guns and bazookas I have in my golf bags anymore . I can probably get by with a couple of Berettas and a shotgun. I certainly agree with you that we should not all go out and arm ourselves. There are lots of folks I know that I don't want anywhere near a firearm. In fact, I would be very happy if I was the only one who had one. I also concur that we are made to believe the world is more dangerous than it really is by virtue of the way the media reports things. But that doesn't mean I won't ever need to use my handgun. Besides, I find it very relaxing to shoot at Usama Bin Laden targets at the range. (No Scouts involved.)

I think the MAD analogy is a good one. Remember that MAD has prevented nuclear war. The reason that MAD became policy was that, once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in. The same thing is true of personal weapons. If I thought there was any realistic chance of getting guns out of the hands of bad guys, I would be willing to give up my handgun. I have lived too long and seen efforts in too many places fail to have any realistic expectation of that. Another factor is that people today are subject to a lot of dangers that, years ago, we didn't face. Road rage, gangs, racially inspired violence (well, okay, the minorties faced that kind of thing) and just random violence. I'm not a big guy and I'm too old to learn karate. However, the thought that I have or may have a weapon may be a deterrent to an attack. I can think of a couple of people I know who have been in those situations. Displaying a handgun will make most people leave you alone. I wish it wasn't so. But it is.

The cabin boy/cabin girl programs I am familiar with involve chartering a Boy Scout/Girl Scout troop under the same CO. They then operate as usual troops do, except they have an extremely nautical orientation. They can join Sea Scout activities that are appropriate under the guidlines for their program. In at least one case I know of, the Scouts wear a chambray shirt and jeans as their normal uniform. Totally off the charts as far as the BSA is concerned, but seems to work for them. It can be a great way to provide a feeder for your SS unit if you can work out all the logistics.

I think the answer is quite different at the unit level than at the district or council level. Most leaders in the unit come and go. They join because of their sons and leave when the son does or when they lose interest. In my own unit experience, personality clashes had a lot to do with it. If the SM is a strong leader, whether competent or not, s/he will have followers and enemies. The burnout factor is always there, since the better and more involved a leader is, the more demand there is for their time. The BS factor has been a big deterrent to my own involvement in anything other than Sea Scouting, mainly with adults. It is just too difficult these days to keep up with all the G2SS rules and other constantly changing guidlines when you are working directly with kids. It used to be a lot of fun, but nowadays you have to consider so many things before you can even sit down and talk to a boy. Most of it is necessary, of course, because of the litigious nature of everyone these days. It's just very sad.

Wow, what a pain. I have been lucky in being retired military and being near Navy bases can just go in there and get the stuff we need. Much easier than listening to the Battle Hymn! This stuff is expensive no matter how you do it, but those whites, properly fit, look really sharp. Hope you get your account number soon!

Sounds like your group is off to a great start. Going to regattas is always one of the highpoints of the program for the kids. They get to know each other and look forward to meeting at the next regatta. It also really helps you to decide what kind of unit you and your kids want, as you mentioned. I have always preferred the Navy uniform to others and nowadays the national committee is pushing that. The problem with it is it's very difficult to teach the kids how to wear it correctly. I just can't abide outgrown uniforms (bony arms and legs sticking out a few inches from sleeves and cuffs) and would much rather see a unit in a nice looking homegrown outfit than improperly worn uniform. Regardless of the uniform your unit wears, I always recommend the adults have a proper Navy style uniform to wear at roundtables and council events. It really stands out and promotes the program. I was at a council dinner last year and was talking to the new Council President who was about to be installed. He said to the Scout Exec: "I'm told I can wear any uniform from any of the programs and that's the one I want!" Indicating my uniform. We made sure he got one.

I realize that the uniform is a method as are other parts of the program. However, I don't see how a Scout can be, well, a Scout, without the uniform. I don't know, maybe if a whole troop decides to not wear uniforms they could run some kind of program, but you can't have some kids in uniform and some not, IMHO. I believe the reason that a uniform is not required is 1) to avoid the expense to those who can't afford it - can be avoided by keeping a uniform closet of "experienced" uniforms; and 2) to give religious groups who object to uniforms an out. In Sea Scouting, uniforms are relatively difficult to obtain unless you live next door to a Navy base. Most units either own their uniforms or at least keep a closet of old Navy stuff for the kids. I just don't think it's that big a deal to keep the kids in uniform for scouting activities. I certainly don't expect them to wear them out where their non-Scout friends can see them.

Shame! I only visited there once, but can still remember the feel of the place. A lot or all of his stuff had been moved to the museum at Philmont, so I guess the loss wasn't as great as it could have been. It was a beautiful piece of Southwestern architecture.

That's okay, packsaddle, I tend to zone out sometimes too.