Lisabob

OGE: Yup. I guess the medium-range result might be stalemate between Gaddafi & his eastern rebels. But I don't see how that's sustainable and one way or another, I think the idea is to put him in a position where he has no choice but to leave (or be killed). Re: Arab League, I think this is one of those "be careful what you wish for" moments. An actively interventionist Arab League (in whose control?) would raise all kinds of alarms in the region, some of which could prove even harder to manage. (see concerns re: Bahrain.) The Arab region hardly speaks, or acts, with one voice; there's a lot of internal jockeying for position & power as it is. And what about when the Arab League intervenes in ways that we disagree with? You can't have it both ways. Maybe we're better with a weak Arab League that seeks help from the UN, than not. Joebob, I am not downplaying Libya's decision in 2003 to surrender its nuclear research program (in fact I listed that). I also see little point in rehashing the Iraq war here. The two may very well be linked, not denying that either. I recall Gaddafi making statements in 2003 that clearly suggested this link. However I was dismayed then, and still today, that we thought the time was right to re-establish "normal" relations with Libya. That's all. This doesn't need to be an ideology thing. I just thought Bush was wrong to do it. I'd have thought any Democrat doing the same thing was wrong too.

Our council has done a WB breakfast with proceeds going to camperships & scouting scholarships. I went to a couple but haven't gone in a few years. They're ok. My recollection is that a lot of what happens at them held no interest to me, though. (Lots of droning reports from the Wood Badge association, followed by elections to the Wood Badge association, followed by meandering speeches from the winners of the elections. Snooze.)

Well now let's separate facts from opinions, JoeBob. It **was** President Bush's administrations that removed Libya from the list of state sponsors of terror, unfroze Gaddafi's US assets, ended economic sanctions, and re-established normal diplomatic relations with Libya. It was the UK government (technically, the Scottish regional gov't) who let the Lockerbie bomber go. More facts: In 1979, the Carter administration placed Libya on a state-sponsors of terrorism list after Libyan rioters, spurred on by their government, attacked and burned down the US embassy in Tripoli. President Reagan ordered US bombings of Libya on two occasions in the 1980s, including shooting down Libyan air force jets. In 1986 Libyan terrorists, backed by Gaddafi, blew up a night club in W. Germany, killing & wounding many Americans & Germans. In 1988 Libyan terrorists trained & funded by Gaddafi blew up Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland, killing almost 300 people (mainly Americans). In 1989 Libyan terrorists blew up a French plane over the Sahara, killing another roughly 200 people (including many Americans) It wasn't until 2003 that Libya agreed to give up its pursuit of WMDs, including its nuclear weapons development programs. Also in 2003, the Libyan government was alleged to be involved in a plot to kill the Saudi crown prince. These are statements of fact. I don't see how they can be argued. ---------------------------- Now here are my opinions: I think it was a bad decision to readmit this guy to the club of world leaders. As we see most recently, this is hardly a "reformed" individual. My views may also be colored by the fact that two girls from my high school were on Pan Am 103. Would a Democrat have done the same as Bush did? Maybe. It would have been a lousy decision (at least) then, too.

Uh, we need Yemen not to disintegrate into serious civil war. If Saleh goes, we have a problem. There are major US naval base in Bahrain & the Saudis don't want us in their backyard (again). North Korea, in addition to Chinese backing, has nukes. Can't hit us (we don't think) but can hit our ally S. Korea, including Seoul. Tunisia is/was a long-time regional ally. (Besides, neither Egypt nor Tunisia seriously attacked their own people in the way that Libya, Bahrain, & Yemen are now doing.) Darfur? Sadly, no strategic importance & plus we backed the Sudanese gov't for a long time as a regional stabilizing force (ha). Why Bush let Gaddafi off the hook, why the British freed the Pan Am bomber, I never understood, even less so now. BBC News has some decent coverage of the whole mess. So does Al Jazeera English, from a rather different perspective. Both are available on the web - just google them.

My experience is that council keeps out of things like this, and that includes adult leaders, too. First, most units do not have a close relationship with council because they are "owned" by the CO and not the council. Second, most units who have problems and do reach out to scouters beyond the unit level, tend to encounter district-level volunteers (like their UC, or maybe their DC). These district-level folks are often not closely plugged in at council level. Third, council does not (efficiently) track the movement of boys from one unit to another. Chances are very high that most of the council staff have no idea whether a boy is in Unit A or Unit B, let alone whether he transferred from one to another. Fourth, who is "council" here? Presumably when we are talking about revoking a boy's membership, we're talking about the SE. But at the day-to-day operational level, the people who keep council records, serve on council-level committees, and interface with unit leadership are all different people, who probably don't talk with each other much, let alone have a coherent view of the council as a whole. Most of them probably see the SE two or three times a year. So the lack of communication and fragmented organization of "council" makes it quite unlikely that "they" will be proactive to initiate this kind of information sharing. Finally, while at the district level your DE **might** be fully in the loop (and I'm not betting on that) about the boy and the unit(s) in question, the DE is paid to keep the numbers up, not to decide which unit, if any, a boy can belong to. That goal is not well served by spreading rumors (even when true) about membership or units. Most DEs are going to stay as far away as they can from this sort of thing.

First, there is no such thing as "sealing" the boy's records. Volunteers (like the former SM) may choose not to discuss the matter but that's of their own accord. And yes, you have a right to contact them if you want to. Second, let's keep in mind too, that there may have been nothing more than a bad fit between boy/family and troop and that may have led to bad feelings, friction, disagreements, even arguments. Not every boy who transfers, does so because he committed some kind of horrible act. Third, ASK THE BOY and his parents "Why did you choose to leave the last troop you were in?" Ask them separately if you want (hey, most parents don't hang out at the troop meetings and most don't go camping). If you get concerned, or have a strange vibe, keep a closer eye on that new boy for a while until you feel you have a better sense of things. But again, there is no such thing as "sealed" records for a youth in scouting, unless you are coming up against the juvenile justice system - and that raises the bar a bit, doesn't it.

You now claim to know whether or not any of us here have experience? Hmm. I wish you well and hope you'll find ways to address the issues in your pack.

To your last question: Not really. They introduce it and do a little practice in 2nd-3rd grade but that's really it. Or at least, that is how it is around here. I wish they did emphasize this a bit more. No matter how much people use a keypad, being able to write legibly is a skill that will never go out of style.

Am I Polish? Heh - are you Russian? What the heck does that have to do with anything? What I am, is astounded at the apparent dislike you are expressing for these women, largely on the basis of their national origin and native language. You didn't frame this as "I have these two parents who talk all the time, how can I better manage this situation?" You framed it as "I have these two women who are not speaking English and it is bugging me." If the approach you are showing here on this board is at all like the approach your pack leadership and the other parents are using in real life, I am not the least bit surprised that these women don't feel too welcome and have banded together. So far you've accused one of them of having some sort of inappropriate relationship with the CM, you've accused them of talking about you, you've accused them of being rude, insulting, & catty. You've complained that they use their native language to speak to their own children. Now you're insinuating that they must have connections, and you've done so in a way that invokes religious stereotypes as well. Sure, it could also be that these two parents are jerks, themselves, but your pack's approach certainly doesn't seem to be to extend the hand of friendship, either. People here have suggested multiple ways for you to bridge the divide and work toward a better dynamic, but I don't see you responding at all to any of those good ideas, just adding more complaints about how & why these women are so troublesome. Rather than dealing with people as decent human beings, you run looking for some BSA policy that you can use to enforce your views. It makes me think you don't really want to improve the situation, after all. You say you want to end the soap opera drama? Well start with your own words and actions. And that's not a back handed insult, that's my plain-spoken view based on what you've written. Don't ask for input if you really don't want it, you know?

I can't answer to all of that, but about the "new" math: The idea behind "everyday math" curriculum, which is widely used these days, is to introduce topics to kids multiple times, rather than all at once and then move on to the next thing. For example, intro decimals a little bit now, and again in a little more depth later, and again later still, etc. Think of it like a spiral, growing wider (deeper) each time. The advantage is supposed to be that kids see that different math topics are connected, and also that if they don't quite "get it" the first time, that's ok because they'll see it again soon. The disadvantage can be that it is fragmented and can feel like jumping around, especially in the hands of a less effective teacher. But if you think about it in comparison to scout skills, we kind of do the same thing. The requirements for T-2-1 all kind of build on each other. Many times, something you are introduced to at a pretty basic level at an earlier rank, comes back again in a little more depth at a later rank. And scout skills tend to be inter-related too, of course. You don't teach a kid to build a fire only for the sake of building fires, and then next month you teach a kid to cook (on a fire) just for the sake of learning that skill. Probably most of us teach in an integrated fashion - here's why using an ax to chop kindling is useful, so that you can build a decent fire, which you might then use to cook on. When done well, the "everyday math" curriculum is kind of like that. When done poorly, it is just one big jumble.

OK so do you speak Polish? How exactly do you KNOW they're talking about someone there? Sorry, but this sounds a bit silly: "I don't speak the language & don't know what they're saying, but I'm sure they're saying something rude." Deal with it by becoming more inviting and open to them. Extend a hand of friendship. Don't exclude them. Then, maybe they'll feel more comfortable interacting with the rest of you. I guess if you were glaring at me all the time and telling me I couldn't speak my own language with my child & friends, I'd have a few things to say, too. The environment you are describing does not sound as though you're setting the tone to be friendly, helpful, courteous, or kind. In fact, it sounds like something that might happen in a Housewives of ____ episode. Is that what you're aiming for? (This message has been edited by lisabob)

I like Oak Tree's suggestion as well. It honors the mother's request and doesn't put road blocks in the boy's path, while providing all the info a person could need, on the other end. Hopefully, the new troop will ask the boy, his parent, and possibly council, to provide them with further detail. They may still accept the boy into their troop, but keep a much closer eye on him. And regardless, you will have a clean conscience.

These parents are an incredible potential resource for you, not a liability, unless you insist on making them into one. In Tigers, parents are deeply involved in their sons' cub experience. Expecting the parents to go elsewhere is just not likely going to work. Of course if they're being very disruptive because they won't stop talking (in whatever language) that becomes an issue, but I am supposing that this is chatter that takes place while the boys are working on a project together with parents, and not impeding the projects from occurring. About the language issue: I've lived in countries where there were few Americans around to talk to in my native language (although most of the time, there were plenty of locals who spoke English, but that's just not the same). I can recall being very happy to occasionally get together with other Americans so as to relax back into my own language again. And, while learning those other languages, I've felt incredibly frustrated because I couldn't (and still can't, in some cases) effectively communicate my thoughts, views, wants, needs, etc. It can be humiliating and deeply, deeply frustrating to be in that spot. It is worse when others assume you aren't smart, or coherent, or multi-faceted because of the language barrier, and people tend to treat you like some kind of child as a result. Sometimes you just want to scream (or cry), which of course, makes it worse. I also speak some fairly obscure languages with relative fluency, like Danish. When I occasionally run across another Danish speaker, I'm usually overjoyed that I have someone I can converse with in Danish. And ways of expression, even some personality aspects, really do "translate" differently from one language to the next. So there are some things I can better express in Danish, than in English. So I can imagine that these mothers were very happy to find another to speak Polish with, and also that they may feel most natural or comfortable communicating certain ideas, ways of thinking, etc., in their native languages. I also imagine it seems quite natural to them that they communicate with their children in their native tongue. Many multi-lingual people do this intentionally to impart an inherent understanding of the language on their children, and others do it because they're just more comfortable in that language. Obviously, the women feel excluded by the larger group. Trying to forbid them from speaking their native language is NOT going to improve upon that. The larger group could be a little more understanding and inviting. Ask these moms (*and their boys!) to help you in some special way, like maybe sharing a favorite food or tradition, or teaching ALL of the boys a few words or phrases of Polish, or learning some traditional Polish games or songs. Quit complaining about them for speaking another language, and see them as a resource and as possible friends too. And who cares if one of them has a thing going w/ the CM! Unless you are married to the CM, that's a whole separate kettle of fish and not your problem in this situation.

A couple of thoughts on the fly between other obligations: 1. I've taught inner city students, mostly African Americans, too. I think type-casting by race does a great disservice to all. There are lazy, disrespectful, awful, unsupportive people in every racial group and caucasians are not immune. In fact, when I think about the types of students with whom I am most likely to have problems, they are often white kids from the suburbs. Eagledad I am not discounting your son's experience, but I would caution that he should not extrapolate from his specific situation to an entire racial group. 2. Although I'm no fan of GW Bush and certainly not of NCLB which was the biggest federal intrusion into education in, well, ever, at the same time I reckon that Bush got it right when he talked about the "soft bigotry of low expectations" that we as a nation have for poor, minority, and difficult-to-reach students. 3. Local standards can be terrible. In my area, until recently, the only state-mandated high school grad requirement was one semester of civics. Local districts might (and the good ones did) add all sorts of other things. But in many local districts, graduation requirements were ridiculously low. And there were no federally mandated comparisons across districts so it became hard for parents to know whether or not their child's school was doing a good job or not. More so, for low-income neighborhoods where parents might lack access to or knowledge about more sophisticated comparisons. 4. I don't think there's a teacher alive in the country today who would argue against what OGE said, that parental involvement matters. There are probably some who would quibble over what "parental involvement" ought to mean. And a few who don't really want to be bothered dealing with parents who are involved. And there's a fine line, just as there is in scouting, between "good" and "not good" parental involvement. 5. Charters have their place but aren't a panacea. More thoughts later on what to improve.

While I'm not a big fan of this stuff, in general I hope you'll push for items that at least might get used. How about: 1. A halfway decent pen - even if left somewhere or landing in someone else's hands, it is still advertising scouting. 2. Eating utensil(s) for a mess kit with the course logo or whatnot stamped, engraved, or stenciled on them. Maybe they'll end up in the troop or pack's "guest" equipment but at least they might get used. I've seen some fairly decent lightweight yet durable plastic ones that aren't too expensive. Agreed with nole, super-cheap crap isn't helpful to anybody and should be avoided. And in my view, skip the mug. I absolutely don't need another one in my cupboard, don't know about you! Also the only places where mugs get used in scouting are at indoor meetings and that's not where most of scouting is supposed to happen. If you absolutely must have a coffee container, at least go for one that is better suited to the outdoors (a travel mug).

This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of collective bargaining. In most states where public unions exist, by law, wages, working conditions, etc. are mandatory issues for bargaining. This means that changes cannot simply be imposed without discussion. Of course unions will do what they can to protect their members' interests - that's a major point of having unions - so you can't expect to see unions roll over and say 'take whatever you want from us!'. They are going to bargain the best they can, but bargain, they will. If you don't like the results, at least half of the blame rests with management, not just the unions. Now as to getting wealthy on the backs of taxpayers, HA! I say. Very few union members that I know are looking to buy beachfront property in Miami with their extravagant union paychecks. In fact, in a lot of places and sectors, union members are just barely hanging on to the middle class status that they've fought long and hard to achieve. Here's a good example: article in today's NY Times on public sector jobs in Gallipolis, OH where people are making a princely sum of $9/hour working for the state. If you work at $9/hour in a public sector job and, let's say you work 40/week for 50 weeks/year. That means your gross pay annually is $18,000. These are the people we are going to accuse of getting wealthy on the public dime? Really? Now new laws passed in OH will make these folks pay more for their health insurance and reduce their pay (give backs). Great, ok. I admit, that rubs my sense of fairness pretty raw.

Mr Boyce, you are not describing anything that remotely resembles my experience in academia. Apparently both Pack and I work in atypical institutions, based on your description. After more than a decade at this institution, I'd have to say I actually think we're quite a typical school in terms of the promise and problems faced by public universities these days - but we don't match your description well, at all. I'll just go back to being (apparently) a dominating lefty liberal in my leafy discipline now. I'll let my numerous conservative colleagues know they won't be working here much longer unless they change their political stripes and get with the program. (apparently they didn't get the memo on this up until now) And maybe this afternoon, I and my other lefty colleagues will stage a pinko commie coup over at the dean's office, or something, just for fun.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/education/14winerip.html?_r=1&hpw Just another example of teachers - unionized teachers - rising to the challenge, under very difficult circumstances. Make sure you read the second page of this story and not just the first couple of paragraphs.

This isn't about advancement. It is about manners and troop culture. Suppose that this boy never wants to advance past Tenderfoot (or 2nd class or whatever). Are you telling me that you'd be ok with these outrageous behaviors in that case? Because I wouldn't. Calico & Twocub are right. Some adult leaders - probably the SM and CC - need to sit down with boy (SM) and parent (CC) and tell them what's what. The parents are doing no favors to their boy by allowing this behavior. The boy will make no friends in the troop by acting this way. The troop will gain no benefit to allowing it to continue, since every boy in the troop might reasonably decide that their parents should also pay for motel rooms and cook them steaks. What's happening here is a behavior issue. Rank advancement is secondary to that. Nip the behavior in the bud. (Then, we can talk about rank advancement. It is NOT adding to the requirement to expect the boy to do his own rank advancements, and to do them to whatever the common standard of competence in your troop tends to be. This is not parent-scouts or family-scouts, it is BOY scouts. The SM should make it clear that boys whose fathers do things for them simply won't get the sign offs they seek. Don't fall for the argument that the book doesn't say dad can't cook for him. The book doesn't say I can't use a blow torch to light a fire while snorting coke and chucking throwing stars at the wildlife, but I bet you wouldn't let me do that at one of your campouts, either. Right?)

"pocket full of mumbles, such are promises" (unless they're on paper and signed by both parties, then we call it a contract)

I'm seconding (or thirding?) this: "Let all cub scouts wear the same hat and necker." (And slide) Changing them every year is silly. A scout is thrifty, after all.

I have wondered that same thing, actually. In some troops it is a tradition that Eagle scouts are given a lifetime membership. I am not sure why? Now I'm a member of a couple of non-scouting honor societies that don't do a darn thing for me at this point in my life, except that they're a line on the resume - and probably not a terribly important one, either - and that's ok, I suppose. Is NESA like that?

http://aft.org/newspubs/news/2011/030711nylocal.cfm Just one of many frequent examples of teacher's unions and school administrators working together. (And pack is totally right in his analysis of public vs private sector.)

jamist, it might be a bit late in the game for you, but do you have anybody who has done BALOO? BALOO teaches a bunch of useful things about how to plan a pack camp out that would probably be helpful to you. Since you need to have a BALOO-trained person at your campout anyway, you might want to pick his/her brain while you are still in the planning stages. Aside from that - I agree that the real trick is to convince parents to participate. Depending on what the pack has available, you might want to offer that you can help equip parents who lack the appropriate gear. You might also consider joining up with a local troop for a little help. Not that they have to camp with you, but maybe they'd be willing to lend gear, or host a campfire at the campout (maybe only for those who stay overnight?), or take your webelos hiking as part of the program, or cook one of the meals for the pack, or do a joint service project with you at the campout, something. Of course you can probably do these things on your own too, but sometimes there's an added cache that having those older boys there can lend to your program.

Troops I've seen have had boys with various types of disabilities, ranging from physical to cognitive to emotional impairments. Physical disabilities can be dealt with to a large extent by modifying aspects of your program as necessary, for that boy. Learning disabilities, I find, really aren't that big a deal in scouting. Even a boy with fairly serious learning disabilities can go camping, learn some new skills, and have fun. The emotional impairments are much more challenging because it is so easy to assume that the boy is just a pill/is spoiled, and because there are often few overt clues to help people accept that a boy has a medical issue. Also, emotional impairments don't necessarily show up in a predictable manner. Sometimes, the boy may seem perfectly "ordinary," until all of a sudden, something happens. Kids are not always terribly patient with each other under the best of circumstances so group relations are sometimes a real challenge here. Even many adults get frustrated and lose their cool or resort to blaming the kid and/or blaming his parent(s). Let's face it, most of us are not trained to deal with these things, most of the time. For a while, one troop I'm familiar with had a boy with bipolar disorder and another boy with severe behavioral issues (I don't recall his medical diagnosis, but he was on and off of all kinds of serious anti-psychotic meds, some of which appeared to make him worse). That wasn't an easy time.