Lisabob

never said they "fell out of the sky" TS. And in point of fact some of the supers may be appointed rather than elected officials. But that is not really the issue. The question is, how much power and control are party bigwigs willing to surrender to ordinary voters? (going back to 1968 here) I find it interesting that the answer from the Dems is "less than the Republicans" in some respects. That is noteworthy when the Democrats seek the mantle of "friend to the little man" (to quote one of my favorite, if fictional, politicians!) ETA: OGE, I know open primaries where any registered voter can vote in either party primary give candidates and parties fits. Living as I do in a state that has open primary laws, I kind of like them though, if only for the reasons you describe, heh heh. Let the sabotage begin.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

You guys are such good resources, I hope you'll give me a little further guidance on this question. So my son, a lean and smallish 13 year old, will be doing a 3 day backpack trip toward late March. It could be snowing and single digits, raining and mid 30s, or sunny and mid 60s (or all three). Of course we'll check the weather more carefully as the time draws near, but help me develop a better sense of what he needs to have or what to skip in terms of clothing. I don't want to be that parent that encourages overpacking (he isn't used to backpacking and I don't want him to carry way more than he needs) but I can't see a single change of clothes working either - he gets wet on night one and he'll be miserable the whole time.

Lots of good advice here. Just a head's up, pack212, the rules for trip/tour permits vary from council to council. Some require them for all off-site events, even if it is just down the street from your regular meeting place. Some require them only if it is a certain distance away or if the event isn't at a council-run facility/campground. My council requires local permits only when a unit goes out of council for an activity. So posters should check these rules with their local council first.

Interesting take on the issue, davlafont. I guess my thought is that the BSA shouldn't be making a premium on an item that those who are less fortunate cannot get elsewhere. It is one thing to ask people to voluntarily support the BSA with an extra $10 or $20 (or more) and to decide for themselves whether they are able and willing to do so. It is another to build that expectation into the cost of the uniform, knowing that some families really don't have the extra cash on hand but they still want to support the uniform as a method and symbol of scouting. In that case, families have no say because they can't get the uniform from anywhere else. So if in fact that were the explanation for why the BSA shirt is so much more expensive, I'd find it to be a rather poor policy in need of revision.

Good description John! I hadn't seen unclejay before either. TS - yes superdelegates are part of the system, no doubt about that (though only on the Dem side this time, I think). But why should we have them at all? Pretty undemocratic, really. Unless, of course, the party doesn't feel it can trust the primary voters to make a good choice of candidates.

We faced that problem with our pack too. And in a pack it is much, much harder to rely on the boys to tell their parents the details of an event (7 year olds' attention spans and capacity for long-range planning leave a bit to be desired sometimes!). So we fell back on printed news letters that we handed out at pack and den meetings. I know another pack that has a website as their primary means of communication with parents and although they face similar issues, they've been unapologetic about it. There is a large, easily accessible library in our town with a nice computer lab. They invite those families who do not own a computer or have internet access to visit the library once or twice a month. Especially for younger boys there are some arrow point/electives related to libraries too so they could even make a cub-family event out of their visits. I don't know how well this works for them, but it may be one option (depending on how rural your community is).

I agree with others that you cannot accommodate all families' schedules all the time and I don't think you are under an obligation to do contortions to try either. Bottom line: don't let one parent push you past tolerance or dictate the plans of the whole group for his convenience!

TheScout, sure there is - it is called the elastic clause! (tongue in cheek here...)

This argument always makes me shake my head. Whatever you may personally think or believe you know about a person's financial situation is really irrelevant in the end. If a parent tells me they are having a hard time affording the uniform and I respond with a litany of (judgmental) comments about their lack of priorities, this is not going to change the fact that they view the uniform as too expensive and hard to obtain. In addition they may view me as rude and stuck up for having responded that way to their expression of concern and chances are good they'll simply decide not to join after all. At that point we have missed an opportunity to provide scouting to an eager young man who probably would have benefited a good bit from the program. In my experience the problems are greatest at two stages. One is when boys first join cub scouts and parents face uniform sticker shock for the first time (well before they've bought into the value of scouting, and when they still see scouting as simply another activity that their son will try out for a little while). The other is when boys transition into troops. Often they need not only new uniform parts but also additional gear, plus payments for monthly campouts, higher summer camp fees, etc. And while a lot of gear/uniform parts can be borrowed or purchased used for less money, many parents are ill-informed about their options, overwhelmed by the variety of choices, and just don't know what to do. Consequently, if the pack or troop does not help parents identify options, many will simply assume they are priced out of the market. My son is in a "full uniform" troop. Every year we spend a good bit of time helping new scouts and their parents with these matters. Every year we get a few thankful parents who tell us that they don't know what they'd have done if they'd had to pay full price for new gear. After the first couple of months we practically never have boys who don't have a uniform. So I know it can certainly be done, but it takes effort on the part of the leaders to make it accessible and it takes a lot more than just condemnation of those who have to stretch every dollar they have at their disposal.

Thank you Barry! We have a couple of parents in our group who absolutely insist on doing an end-run around the MB process, and who attempt to set up meetings for their children. One of them in particular gets so upset with me because I just won't do it. My answer is always that I'm thrilled to work with her children as soon as they contact me. They've known me since they were 5 and 6 years old, I was both of their den leaders, they see me weekly at troop meetings and have both my phone and email addresses. Not like it is a hardship for them to find/talk with me! I'm certain their parent sees this as me being stand-offish or putting barriers between the boys and their goal. I see it as teaching them to do things and take responsibility for themselves. Same is true of patrol calls, etc..

hops, to be fair, Congressional approval ratings are routinely low and it does not matter which party controls Congress. And the irony is that if you survey most Americans, they'll tell you how much they can't stand Congress as a whole, yet they like *their* guy or gal in Congress a whole lot (just those other 534 idiots that are the problem I guess). As for Hillary, yeah she got called a "carpet bagger" and worse when she conveniently moved to my home state back in 1999 or so. But to her credit, she spent the next 6 years coming to understand her adopted state reasonably well and in her re-election she won something like 60+ percent of the vote (though with little opposition to speak of). It seems she did a better job of representing NYers than most of them expected. There are plenty of reasons not to support her - I'm just not sure this is the best one of them? I envy you though. Like you, a lot of my students are of an age to vote for the first time. I think it is a lot more exciting to be in that position now than has been the case in several election cycles since no matter who wins, "change" and lots of it will be one certain result. If you haven't already - make sure you register! I always feel badly for students who get all fired up around mid-October, only to realize they missed their state's registration deadline some weeks or months prior to that time.

I don't think it is unreasonable to have a yearly calendar and as many families have multiple kids, trips for work, and other obligations, advance planning can be crucial to getting participation. I also don't think it is the SM's job to do this. Has your CC been to training? If not, s/he might benefit from attending. If so, maybe a reminder of the actual roles of different positions is in order.

"Oh yeah, here's a weird thing. Almost all of the parents come to and STAY at the troop meetings" You might want to consider whether there are less noxious reasons for this. You mention that this troop is the only one available in the area, which suggests to me that maybe some parents are driving quite a ways to get their sons to the meeting. I know this is the case in my son's troop, and most parents do stay because it would be silly to drop the child off, drive home, sit at home for 10 minutes or so, and then drive back to pick up their child. On the other hand, with a couple of exceptions of hover parents (and we try to wean those), most parents hang out in the back of the room during the meeting and are not involved in what the patrols are doing.

I am really beginning to wonder about you folks. I have only pity for those who claim to be leaders and role models for young men but who have not yet learned to understand courtesy. And I find it telling that you only seem to personally attack women Pappy. But if you want to know, I teach political science for a living. I am well aware that this does not make what I say received truth and there are plenty of other ways to develop knowledge. My favorite interpretation of phd is "piled higher and deeper." But FWIW, that is what I meant. (This message has been edited by lisabob)

Nessmuk writes: "Just because somethings is legal , don't make it right.. Just because it's illegal don't necessarily make it wrong either.. " This may be true. However, when I read the explanation of "obedient" that the BSA provides, here is what I find: A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them. If people think the law prohibiting HUD from funding programs that discriminate against some people on the basis of religious belief, then lobby your member of Congress for that change. But in the meantime, the law is the law. I find it problematic that a bunch of Scouters are making the argument that the BSA should be allowed to ignore the law when it suits them to do so. This isn't a question about whether the program might be a good one; it is a question about whether or not HUD has to follow the law and whether or not the BSA, in seeking funding from HUD, did or should have been reasonably expected, to know that their program didn't fit the legal requirements. There are stupid laws aplenty - we teach scouts to follow proper procedures for changing them, so why should that not also apply to us?

Again I will suppose you were trying for humor. Again it fell flat.

John, Yes you're right that most survey data is now showing that, among voters in the Dem primaries, blacks are voting overwhelmingly for Obama, white women overwhelmingly for Clinton, and Latinos tend to break for Clinton. The data also suggests that white men are voting in much higher numbers for Obama than Clinton. But I do think, come general elections, whichever candidate the Democrats choose will be able to unify their party in ways that John McCain is currently struggling to accomplish. And yeah, if Hillary tears up one more time to "soften" her image I may be ill. (Can you imagine Margaret Thatcher taking that tactic?!)

makes more sense than what we're doing now!

"Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." (Lloyd Bentson, in a VP debate with Dan Quayle in 1988) Every time I hear people call John McCain a "liberal" I am reminded of this quote. So with apologies to Bentson, I know liberals, and John McCain is no liberal! (Stop hijacking our label) I had a much longer answer pointing out that many of the positions McCain's critics call evidence of liberal heresy are really better understood outside of the liberal/conservative prism. But it got too wordy. So for those who are so inclined, look up his views on why states, not the federal gov't, should decide gay marriage laws though (new federalism and devolution were Republican ideas going back to Nixon at least), and exactly what the "Gang of 14" opposed (nuclear option - would that be preferable to conservatives now that Republicans are in the congressional minority)?.

That overlooks the larger question Bob. Yes the BSA has the legal right to determine its membership requirements and the DRP fits within that right. Yes, parents have the right to decide what organizations, especially what religious organizations, their children may join. The larger question is a judgment call on whether the BSA should have this requirement, whether it makes good sense. Clearly people differ on their response to that. IMO the DRP keeps out many families who would have been a great fit for the organization, and it does so to little real benefit. As others have suggested and as has been argued here before, dropping the DRP might not even mean dropping "reverence" from the program but would merely require that people not declare their faith in writing (by signing) to join.

The difference, John, is that most Democrats are reasonably happy with either of the two major candidates, while the same cannot be said of the Republican party's willingness (at present) to unify around McCain. However I think that will change and most Republicans will reconcile themselves to McCain over the next few months. All this talk about how "liberal" McCain is makes me laugh. Yes he's a little to the left of Attila the Hun but he's no liberal. The other day I heard someone describe his current views on abortion (severe limitations except in rape, incest, life of mother situations) as "liberal," equating his stance with "baby killing anti-life types." Ouch. If that's liberal, I shudder to know what people think is conservative? But the mass hysteria will pass I think (hope).

It does not matter GW. The argument stands on its own merits, not on the basis of the identity and marital status of the person making it. So let's discuss the argument instead.

local I'm really glad you aren't interrogating 11 year olds! This, I think, is part of the problem lots of people have with the BSA joining requirements, which either require a form of "Don't ask, don't tell" with all the difficulties that entails, or which requires inquiry into matters that children, by their very nature, are not fully prepared to understand or discuss. I'm neither gay nor an atheist either but that doesn't mean I can't understand why the rules of the US Constitution (as interpreted by the US Supreme Court) should still apply to people who are one or both. The Constitution is not a document of convenience! And thank goodness that minorities, women, the disabled, and others did not have to rely only on the views of people living in their state to gain federal recognition of and support for their constitutional rights. Heck, some states would still be actively denying voting rights to African Americans today if that were the case, I'm willing to bet. And HUD is a federal agency and those tax dollars it redistributes don't come only from the states in question. I question the effectiveness of Merlyn's strategy (it seems unlikely that he will single-handedly make a big picture difference in HUD allocations or in BSA policy either, for that matter). However I understand entirely where he is coming from.

Oh for goodness sakes people, can we not have a discussion without devolving into silly name calling?! Let us start with the premise that everyone is "for the children" here. I think that is a fair premise and people who start with the opposite assumption are usually simply trying to paint the other side in a (false and) ludicrous light. Whatever you think about the relative worth of the Scouting and Soccer program as a means to provide services or opportunities or just safe fun to a bunch of kids who undoubtedly would benefit, Merlyn's larger point is still true(even if unpopular here) - public tax dollars simply cannot get used to support private religious programming in this country. Since the BSA identifies itself as a religious organization then there is no room for gov't funding of BSA programs that DENY membership to a segment of citizens. I heard an interview recently a former director of President Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, John DiIullio. He made the comment that one of the early challenges he faced occurred when his office insisted that faith-based providers of social services would have to make their programs available to people of any religious background if they wanted to receive federal funding. He said that this angered a lot of social conservatives who had planned to have an explicit proselytizing aspect to their programs, but the predominant interpretation of the Constitution doesn't allow for much leeway here. Seems to me this is Merlyn's point too. So it seems there are two options here. One is for the BSA to alter the requirements for this particular program so that any youth may join. The other is not to use HUD dollars to fund this program.

I'm going to assume you were attempting humor there Pappy.