Lisabob

My son came home from a camp out today with the "left overs" from his patrol. Here's what they planned for a menu: Saturday breakfast = pancakes and bacon (they didn't cook the bacon); Saturday lunch = cheese burgers and apples (they didn't eat the apples, which subsequently froze and are now in bad shape); Saturday dinner = lasagna, garlic bread, and carrots (they used the meat for the lasagna to make more hamburgers instead, didn't eat the bread or the carrots); Saturday cracker barrel= crackers (they didn't eat them). Sunday breakfast = french toast and sausage (they didn't make french toast because the eggs were frozen). He came home with huge quantities of unused food, some of which will keep for a future camp out but most of which will not. More over, a good bit of the food is soaking wet and/or spoiled due to improper storage. I'm really irritated by this waste. My son seems to understand that irritation, but said he could not convince his patrol mates to eat the stuff they'd planned for and that besides, all the patrols end up with wasted food like this. He further states that most of the boys don't care if they waste food because their parents, not them, are paying for the cost of the camp outs (which includes an allotted food budget per person in the patrol). Do you see this as a common occurrence? Any thoughts on how to help reduce the waste in the future? I'm disgusted by this.

Depending on the relationship between your unit and the UC/CC's unit, this might work or it might be a mess. I know it isn't supposed to be this way, but sometimes there is a bit of rivalry between units in the same town, and in that case having the CC for one unit also serve as the UC for the other unit is asking for it. At the very least it would cause me to raise an eyebrow and ask a few questions. Scoutmomma, in theory I think the answer to your question "do we need a UC?" is "yes" because ALL units are supposed to have a (functional) UC. Whether it is "right" or "wrong," I've found in our district at least that UCs are often the carriers of important district information. They let units know about upcoming events (often before they're advertised), they help units measure relative strengths and weaknesses, they let units know about new ideas and ways that the district and council volunteers are trying to provide better service to units, and so on. They also provide good feedback to district volunteers about how we can better serve our units' needs with more or different training opportunities, changes to district activities, etc.. Units who do not have a good UC can still be quite successful, of course, but they may be missing out on many resources available to them and consequently might find themselves reinventing the wheel, duplicating efforts that the district or council is already making to help with recruiting, retention, raising their profile in their community, finding out about upcoming events, etc..

Now THAT would be cool! Are you kidding, it might be the biggest single motivator to finish up rank requirements in time for CoH we've ever seen. Hmm....

We don't. I think our boys would consider it childish, something that they did as cub scouts.

Sorry to post twice but - as for exclusion from a group as a form of bullying, this is a pretty common tactic for late middle/early high school girls at least (I'm less sure about boys). When you get a group of girls who were close friends from a young age and then some of them decide to intentionally break off and form their own group minus one former member - no longer talking to/sitting with/doing things with that one member, often including nasty comments or spreading rumors about that former member - then yes, that one person is going to feel betrayed and probably bewildered (what did she do "wrong?"). She may even try very hard to fit in again, but it probably isn't going to happen, leaving her to feel ridiculed for her efforts. This stuff happens with regularity to girls in late middle school and early high school, is more than just friends changing and growing in different directions, and it can be downright mean spirited. I'd count it as bullying because it is an intent to ostracize a single individual - to cut them behind their back for the simple reason that they're no longer "cool" or "popular" or "desirable" as a group member - it is a power game for sure. Whether that's what Scoutmomma is describing or not I am not certain, and it is more insidious than simply forgetting to call a group member and invite them to the movies with the rest of the gang or something like that.

It is not an over reaction if it is a kid you know who is doing the talk, The Scout. From Firekat's posts in this and other threads, I gather that's the situation. Trying to tell a distraught middle schooler to gain perspective and it isn't all that bad, etc., isn't real successful as most middle schoolers simply lack the life experiences to put upsetting incidents in their proper perspective. And again based on what Firekat wrote in her latest post - it sounds like the kid in question is being subjected to physical harm, threats of further harm, and adults in positions of power who refuse to pay attention to it. That poor kid. Firekat writes: "Just a head in sand -way of dealing with the problem." This is my major concern with programs like this too. I think it could be compounded by lack of expertise on the part of adult leaders (whether at school or in scouts) in dealing with bullying situations, and/or by the fact that some adults probably were, themselves, bullies as youth and so simply don't see or understand the issue very well. Done poorly, a "fake" or "on paper" anti-bullying program is worse than nothing because it tells youth to do things that simply don't work and may escalate the problem - it gives them false hope that the adults in question will protect them and then causes them further disillusionment when that isn't the case in reality because the adults don't follow through. Done well, you don't need a "program," you simply need caring adults who pay attention and listen to a kid. So I guess I'm doubtful about this requirement in large part because those units who seem to need it most are unlikely to make it work, while those units who are already on the ball don't really need a program to handle this issue.

I'd like to know whether you have scoutreach units in your district or council, and if so, how the program seems to work in your area. I'll start by saying I think I know what the basic purpose of scoutreach is supposed to be (bring scouting to more low-income youth, often in urban areas where there isn't enough parental/community support to maintain a traditional volunteer-based scouting program) and our council (though not my district) does have some scoutreach units. But I know very little about how well they work out on the ground, or how closely they approximate a "typical" scouting unit in reality. What can you share about how the program actually works, based on your more in-depth knowledge of scoutreach units? Has anybody here been a leader for a scoutreach unit?

We just gained a scout who has severe allergies to all sorts of things (not nuts as far as I'm aware though, but milk, flour, and eggs among others). To make matters more interesting, the things he is allowed to eat, he does not know how to cook. We have already had several conversations with his mom and expect to have more so that we better understand his needs. I anticipate that one result is going to be that his patrol will learn to cook and eat a lot of items that are not commercially made. Pop tarts for breakfast and ramen noodles for dinner won't be an issue for them at least! But I also suspect that early on, his parent is probably going to want to attend camp outs and also that the parent may be helping to provide appropriate food choices until both we, and the family, have a higher comfort level with knowing what's ok and what's not. I guess I'm ok with that - if it were my 10-11 year old, I might not be willing to trust their life to the careful thought and attention to detail of a bunch of other 10-11 year olds either.

I have to agree with packsaddle, as I've witnessed the same horrified reactions on my campus to this event, as to the Virginia Tech tragedy last year. Yesterday we had a noticeable increase in security patrols in our classroom buildings which was comforting to some, even more disturbing to others. And yeah, one of my colleagues is now advocating that we should all be allowed to carry concealed weapons in our classrooms too, citing the recent shooting at that town council meeting in Kentwood MO as additional "proof" that carrying a concealed weapon would be beneficial in such terrible situations. As a matter of fact, the thought of most of my colleagues with guns in the classroom is rather laughable, though in a few cases it is downright scary. As for me, I signed on to do this job so that I could talk about ideas with students, not so I could play armed guard and participate in turning our colleges (as well as our K-12 public schools) into prisons. The day when I become so afraid of my students that I feel the need to bring a gun to class, or to my office hours, would be a sad day indeed. I certainly hope it never comes to that. I can't pretend to make sense of what happened at NIU the other day. My thoughts go out to all those who are affected by these sad events.

John, to clarify (lest anyone from my son's troop read this and have conniptions) - our troop did NOT move from "waist up" to "full uniform." In their 50+ year history they have ALWAYS been "full uniform." On the other hand, the pack we came from was much more casual about it and most boys only wore the shirt, belt, and necker (and they only wore the necker because the pack provided it).

Now here's something funny about the notion of European societies as "thoroughly secular;" they aren't. In fact, last I checked, many of them had an official religion and all. And ah yes, there are all those explicitly "Christian" parties in many European countries too. Check out the Christian Social Union (partner to the current ruling party in Germany, the Christian Democratic Union - and a very conservative Catholic party to boot) as one of many, many examples. Try telling the CSU that they're secular and you may find yourself with a big Bavarian pretzel lodged far down your throat for your efforts.

Slouchhat I think there may be some confusion as to what is and is not optional, and also as to what most units do in reality. The BSA does not require members to own a uniform. However, my understanding is that packs and troops are also not supposed to modify the official BSA uniform (say, wear the official shirt with alternate pants or something like that). The idea is either wear the whole uniform or don't pretend to wear the uniform at all. But troops can choose to customize neckerchiefs and hats for their whole unit. (note, rules for crews are a little different) In reality, most cub packs and many troops only wear part of the uniform (typically shirts only, or shirts & belts only). Some try to get all their members to choose something similar for their non-uniform items (like olive pants from wal-mart, etc.) but many don't go that far and are just happy to have all the boys wearing the BSA shirt with whatever pants. Of course this upsets uniform purists, perhaps even for good reason, but it is pretty common none the less. A few units are really full-uniform right down to the belt and socks (my son's troop, for example). But even the minimalists in terms of BSA uniforming tend to have the BSA shirt in common. What you are proposing - that a troop eschew the official uniform in its entirety - seems like it might actually fit better with the notion of "wear the whole uniform or don't wear it at all." However, a unit that chose your approach here in the states would stick out like a sore thumb at scouting events, even worse than those units who wear only the official shirts do.

And by the way if he is wearing the same clothing all week and his family isn't insisting he shower on a regular basis, these might be signs that there are some problems at home too. Allowing the other boys to drag him off to the showers won't uncover those problems but it sure will humiliate the kid. Sometimes a little peer pressure can be a useful tool but it is often a blunt instrument and so it wouldn't be my first choice of tools in this case. Is there a trusted adult leader, or (even better?) a kind older scout that the boy looks up to, who could have a heart to heart with the boy first? I mean in a semi-private context, not "Hey Joe, you stink man!" in front of the whole patrol. Maybe you've already tried this - I am not sure from your post. What can his former Webelos Den Leader tell you about the boy? Might be worth asking.

Might we see fracture at some point towards a multiple parties and alliances as other nations have? " I don't think we will see this unless we also change the electoral rules, which right now, heavily favor our two party system and make it practically impossible for "third" parties to get a foot in the door. Most of those other countries with lots of parties also use some type of a proportional representation system so a party that gets, say, 20% of the vote nation-wide would get 20% of the seats in the legislature too. Could be fun though. Did you know that for a little while, Russia's national beer party had a couple seats in the legislature? I'm for that... I'd agree that there would be some pretty irritated Dems out there if the nomination came down to these super delegates. But hey, with the way things have been going this month for Obama, it could be a moot point by August (We'll see what happens in Texas and Ohio in a couple weeks!). And anyway, even though they may have a preference, most Democrats seem ok with either of the two major candidates so after a little grumbling I think they'd get over with haste.

Interesting. The only place I've ever been (as an adult) where anything was explicitly mentioned about headgear was at Woodbadge. And incidentally, the "no hats indoors/under dining fly" expectation there was applied equally to women.

For the second time in the last week or so Pappy has made a comparison between something the BSA's supposed enemies are up to on one hand, and Hitler's policies against Jews on the other. I can't ignore that. The problem with equating anything the BSA or its opponents are doing to the holocaust, Pappy, is one of scale. Similarly, when Nessmuk claims we're in a "culture war" and being "attacked" and so on, the problem is one of scale. Folks, war really is horrible. It is not about running around in the woods playing "soldier" for fun. People die. Six million (or more) people were killed as a direct result of the holocaust. As far as I am aware, not one individual has died as a result of disagreements about the BSA's exclusionary membership policies. Such comparisons are therefore not apt and in fact are an insult to people who understand the costs and tragedies of war or genocide on a personal and family level. I am disgusted that anyone would consider using such a comparison to promote their own seeming patriotism. Pappy - you can accuse me of warping or misunderstanding history all you'd like but I will only say that "revisionism" cuts both ways. I'm done commenting on this thread, which I think has become a dead horse to be beaten by those who prefer not to think, and nothing more.

Our district has done the following to try to make spring tiger recruiting a viable option: 1) Allows all tigers+adult partner to attend day camp with or without a pack. (Yet I agree with Scouting Mom about the problems with this if they don't make that connection to the pack as part of the daycamp experience) 2) Promote the heck out of the pack summertime activities award. If the pack has three summer activities and the Tigers know about them then that may keep them active enough to maintain their interest into fall, and pack activities take the pressure off new Tiger parents to really form a solid "den" right away. To that end, the district provides several "easy" summertime activities for all cubs with an emphasis on including Tigers (a district-wide archery and BB gun day, a fishing derby, district day at the ballpark, that sort of thing) 3) Provide Tiger DL training at the same time we do our spring tiger recruiting so that packs can start off with a "trained" DL. However our spring Tiger recruiting isn't phenomenal either. In a district of about 1900 scouts (total, incl. boy scouts) we might get about 30-40 new Tigers each spring. No one has previously tracked how many of those stay active come fall. I'd like to do that over the summer if I can get council to open up the records to me. About holding parent info meetings so they know what they're getting into - around here I think it would really depend on how/where/when you did these. Several school districts in our area have reorganized their K program so that all K children are in one building, yet they are re-distributed across all of the elementary buildings for 1st grade (with assignments sometimes not being made until late summer). This makes it extremely difficult for packs to recruit new Tigers based on a boy's "home" school in K. I don't know if that's becoming more common elsewhere or is just a local oddity. But a short announcement in a church bulletin, a meeting after church services, etc., seems to work better around here for us than school-based recruitment for new Tigers does. And if you have a community recreation center (often part of either the school district or town gov't) you might try advertising through them since they are also the ones who typically run pre-k and tot-age activites/classes for families and parents of young kids therefore are familiar with them. Also our districts try to provide template language that packs could use with minimal alteration (just drop their own pack contact info into it) so that they have very little they have to do to creat advertising for their unit. That plus a list of contacts for local news outlets might be useful to pack leaders. Just a couple of thoughts Eamonn, I don't know how helpful it is to you.

Joni, Sounds like he had a good time, glad to hear it. Yet that's exactly the sort of thing I admit I'm worrying about. A 50-60 pound pack would weigh more than half of what my son weighs! Thanks for all the advice from everybody. I'm sharing your suggestions with my son and he will talk them over with his backpacking MBC too.

Joni, I completely understand your frustration and you have my sympathy. However, many of the things you voice concern over are really the domain of the SM and not of the Advancement Chair. Consequently I think you may want to reconsider your approach and instead of making it one directed toward the boys (I won't sign off on BORs, won't file adv. paperwork, won't allow MBs, etc.), make it your goal to help the SM get some training or a refresher - NOT FROM YOU, but rather from a really good district or council trainer (It'll reinforce what you're saying without you having to play the "heavy" all the time). There is also that thing about choosing your battles. You can't do much about past lapses so getting angry about them is only going to raise your blood pressure. Does your unit have a good UC? If so, you may be able to enlist his/her help in getting your SM back to true north as well. But be careful that you are not trying to do all this alone; build consensus where ever you can. Good luck, hang in there!

Nessmuk writes: "Hey folks the current cultural war is a war more real than any armed conflict between nations,..." Try telling that to the families and friends of people killed in NY, PA, and DC on 9/11, or to those who were killed or injured in Iraq, Afghanistan, London, Spain, Bali, Lebanon, Israel, Palestinian territories and elsewhere in the last 8 years. Nessmuk, I believe that the biggest reason most people are unwilling to see what you are describing as genuine "war" or even "attacks" is because what you are talking about, important as it is, is simply not the same as the what happens in the genuine article. Ask any sailor, soldier, or airman (or -woman) and I think they'll be glad to confirm that for you.

I was in my council office this morning to drop off some paperwork. One guy was wearing the BSA tan/khaki uniform and another was wearing a Venturing uniform. But I think the term "business casual" is the best descriptor of how these folks typically dress, unless they are going to some kind of unit function or public event where they are there to represent scouting (in which case, ours are usually in uniform)

In another thread people have begun getting side tracked and discussing the relative merits of some types of jobs so I figured I'd spin off. Yeah, I teach political science for a living. There's lots of jokes out there about that, I've heard most, some are even funny. I like to tell people that I study the rats, I'm not one of the rats. And when you study rats, you tend to get a lot of negative feedback from people who are ill-disposed to rodents. Still I admit I have to grin when people question the worth of doing what I do. (I have a cousin who always amazes me. In one breath he can condemn the fact that his teenage son's high school social studies teachers don't teach enough gov't and civics, and then he manages to make fun of what I do for a living not three words later. He is a stock broker.) See, I teach American Government to large numbers of first year college students from all walks of life. The overwhelming majority know so very little about our system of government that it hurts. Most do not know that Congress has two chambers, that the President is not directly elected, or what a primary delegate is, let alone understanding different views on policies (or even the existence of policies at all). Most want to blame the president for everything from the price of gasoline (and sugar) to natural disasters, to human disasters, and everything in between or nearby that has gone wrong in their eyes. Most do not vote and don't know how to register either. Most can't identify the basic ideas of either major party and have never heard of any third parties. Most can't find Canada on a map (remember I live in a border state, 30 minutes' drive from the border) and have never left the country, yet are quick to mock other countries as being sub-par. When I teach American Gov't I am careful to present many viewpoints in a serious manner, not just my own, and students often do not know which party I support until after the final exam, when I will answer that question if they ask. I do not view it as my job to make party converts for any particular political party or ideology, nor do most of my colleagues view this as their job either. I do view it as my job to teach students the basics of how their gov't works, the pitfalls of assuming your side is always right and the other side are always idiots who crawled out of a hole for the first time last night, and the fallacy of assuming that there are easy answers to complicated problems. At the end of the course, students who pass will be able to hold an intelligent conversation about politics, understand what the heck the candidates for office are talking about, know how to get information about issues they care about, and make their views known to their elected and appointed representatives. They will have read the Declaration, some of the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, and the Constitution (esp. the bill of rights), most for the first time in their lives. They will have participated in debates over current events and important Supreme Court cases. They also know a little bit about polling and what makes a good from a lousy poll, and what to watch out for when interpreting results. And they are likely to be better citizens or residents for it. I love it when I have Eagle Scouts in class - and I can nearly always tell who they are - because most of them have learned a good bit of this somewhere before (think those citizenship MBs). I wish these MBs were required for all high school students and not just for boy scouts. So yes, actually, I think what I do is fairly meaningful. Goodness knows I don't do it for the money, which incidentally is not anywhere near as much as what most people think I (or my colleagues) make. You're welcome to disagree but then I suppose that means you think we should probably do away with those three Eagle-required Citizenship merit badges, and the whole notion that the BSA teaches citizenship at all. After all, who cares, right? That's part of what I do. What about you?

LOL OGE, pronouns can be such trouble. I meant Segretti, who was a senior adviser or something like that to McCain's 2000 campaign. Kind of funny to think that the "straight talk express" would employ such a twisted talker. So, to rephrase and try again: What is SEGRETTI doing now? I wonder if he's working for McCain this time too? (He is still alive, right?)

jblake writes: "I have also found that the more value one invests in something the more it is worth to them in the long run" And here is part of the problem, even among those who could theoretically afford the uniform with no problems. We here on this forum are pretty much invested (in terms of valuing the program, not in terms of money) in scouting, or we wouldn't be wasting our time here. But to the parent of the brand new cub scout, or the parent of the boy who crossed into boy scouts last week and isn't sure whether he'll stay, those folks have NOT yet become invested in scouting and the value it holds for their child. Consequently, they may have different views of the relative worth of the uniform. You have to get that mental buy-in first, before you can expect people to accept the financial buy-in as being worthwhile (and even then, like Eamonn, sometimes I cringe at the price of outfitting a growing boy!) Scaring off new families with uniform sticker shock means they aren't around long enough to develop a mental investment in scouting for their child. This is why our troop spends a good bit of time trying to help new parents understand where they do and don't need to spend big bucks, and also why we explain very clearly the reason behind our uniform preference (in a full uniform troop). None of the 10 cub packs in our town are full uniform (most are shirts, hats, neckers, belts only - some are shirts only). All 4 troops in our town have gone full uniform. That's quite a transition for all those cubs to make. Don't tell me it can't be done but it needs to be done well with significant and kind assistance and explanation from leaders, or it alienates new folks and they quit! I've seen it!

OGE, apparently John McCain thought so too, at least in 2000. What's he doing now?