Lisabob

Presumably, people who post on this forum are looking for feedback and alternate perspectives. Otherwise, they probably wouldn't post here at all. Others then come along who are new to the program and read what has already been posted. Especially in the cub forum, we get a lot of new people with little or no scouting experience coming through. Maybe it will be helpful to some of them to see the diversity of opinions on an idea, rather than just the idea, itself. And then a few people always seem to want to reinvent the wheel, without fully understanding the basic structure of the program, first. For all of those reasons, I think it is pretty reasonable for posters to comment as people have. It isn't unscout-like to do that at all. Besides, the initial poster didn't give us a lot of details. Depending on how he or she is using the "bobcat dens" it might be a better, or worse, idea for a bunch of reasons.

Around here, many packs do spring recruiting in May, in expectation of getting new Tigers who can register with the pack officially on June 1 and also attend the district cub day camp with the pack. A few packs also recruit for other rank levels in the late spring, in addition to new Tigers (boys finishing kindergarten). I can see some limited benefit of having a quick start-up den for new folks, particularly those who are not joining as new Tigers. However, it would need to be very, very brief - a couple of weeks, basically, to orient the new families to cub scouting and get them moved into their long-term dens. It would also raise some concerns about age-appropriate activities. How many 4th graders are really going to want to spend much time hanging with a bunch of kindergarten boys (those new Tigers)? And it might add to confusion about how cub scouting really works (typically, age/grade-based dens). Will parents who are new to scouting understand this temporary structure? Realistically, I think the better way to handle things would be to help prepare existing den leaders for an influx of new boys in the spring. Let them fold these newcomers straight into existing dens. Probably, most of the new boys will already know some of the existing scouts anyway through school or neighborhood ties. So it shouldn't be that big a deal.

Different councils and different units operate with different budget constraints and philosophies. 1. Yes, there are scholarships out there. My council offers to pay about half of the cost of the course for scholarship recipients. The council philosophy has been that all participants should have some financial stake in the course, which is why our scholarships don't cover the entire cost. Other councils (and other groups outside the BSA) may think differently about this. 2. Yes, some units fund this. The pack I was part of when I took WB paid for about half the cost (scholarship covered the other half). I paid out of pocket for the additional uniform stuff that I didn't already own. Again, it really depends a lot on where you are and what the local policy is. For my part though, I think that both the council and my unit got enough out of me to justify their financial support. And I could not have done WB without that support.

"when your religion is in conflict with the law, the law wins." For the most part, this is already the way things are. You can *believe* anything you want, but you can't necessarily act on certain beliefs that would result in violations of law. Informal use of sharia exists in some places, but this is entirely voluntary. For example, family members or neighbors with a dispute might choose, by mutual agreement, to allow a respected religious leader to help them mediate/resolve the dispute. But anyone, even within the Muslim community, who chooses to use the formal legal system, can circumvent these informal sharia institutions in an instant. Sharia does not hold the force of law anywhere in this country, any more than my mother-in-law's pronouncements about family disputes do. We may abide by her pronouncements because we choose to, but not because we're legally required to. I wonder what Oklahomans were worried about? At least on the surface, this has the smell of fear-mongering to me. PS: Beavah - I am sure you know that habeas corpus is in the US Constitution (Article I, section 9). While it might also have roots in other countries' legal traditions, it is clearly established in our own "law of the land"(This message has been edited by lisabob)

My son joined because he brought a flyer home from school when he was a little fellow, and he wanted to do it. We wanted him to join because we had just moved from a very different area to the town we live in now, and he was having a hard time adjusting. All the little boys around here were in cub scouts. That seemed like a good way for him to make some friends. Today he's nearing the point where he'll age out of boy scouts. I don't think Eagle is a goal for him although he still has time, if he changes his mind. He's in scouts today because he enjoys it. He likes the guys in his patrol and he likes the things scouting allows him to do.

Since we have not fought a declared war since world war two, I would say that particular definition of "non-war period" doesn't hold much water. Try telling our soldiers and their loved ones that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan (not to mention Vietnam, Korea, and numerous others) are "not wars." I dare you.

It seems clear to me. The COR should invite these two dads in for a talk. Lay out the "rules of the road" in terms of expected behavior. If adults can't handle it, then those adults are no longer acceptable as leaders in the COR's eyes. My guess is that the dads will opt out, but if not, the COR can explain to them that they are no longer members. Then the COR notifies Council of that decision and everything is finished. If the CO chooses, they can go after the dads for the cash in small claims court. However, it probably is not worth it. As for the boys - well unfortunately, they have goofy parents. Not much you can do about that. If you are going to take on the CC role and you have the backing of all of the other adults including the COR, then this will be a momentary unpleasantness. After the dust settles, the rest of you can get back to the business at hand, which is running a troop.

My son's former troop did several programs with the local K9 team for a while. They were a huge hit with the boy scouts of all ages. When the dog later had to be put down due to a medical problem, the troop attended the service, all boys in uniform, to pay respects. I was amazed at how many boys attended. So yeah, I think the K9 team idea is a good one and could make a meaningful connection between the boys and police.

When my son earned one of these awards as a cub scout, the church ran a 6 week class for boys of cub scout age (and their parent) who wanted to earn the award. This seemed to work out well because a number of boys who are not church members participated. If the boys had been required to do the award one-on-one, those who do not belong to a specific church probably would not have had the exposure to the material at all.

The newly elected governor of my state is foregoing his salary. Of course, as an independently wealthy multi-millionare, he can afford to do that. At one of the debates during the campaign, his opponent was asked if he, too, would pass up a salary if elected. His opponent rightly pointed out that most ordinary people simply cannot afford to do that if they also want to feed and house their families. Since the opponent is not wealthy, the opponent said he would draw a salary if elected. So - passing up a salary is fine and all, but do we really want to say that only wealthy people should be able to govern?

In fact, DARE was cut years ago in my area and probably won't be returning. Another concern is that the statistical evidence regarding DARE's effectiveness is iffy. In an era of budget cutting, programs that sound good but don't show solid evidence of working, are always at risk. Frankly, I don't think DARE is likely to make a comeback, as a result, however well-intentioned it might have been. Once DARE was phased out in our area, one of the ASMs started doing an annual workshop for the scouts who needed to fulfill this requirement. Several local churches run programs as part of their youth ministry, too. In most cases, they're open to any youth participating, not just church members. Maybe something along those lines will work for you.

I guess it comes down to how you define the soul of the party. For me, a Democrat through and through, those "blue dog" Democrats are not Democrats. They would probably be happier in the Republican party - except that the Republican party seems to have been hijacked by its various factions to such an extent that moderates have no home there anymore. As for Tea Partiers, I guess I figure that most of them would be better labeled as Libertarians. And I'd like them to run under their own party label since I don't think many of them represent many of the things that the Republican party is/was all about. But we all know that it is hard for third parties to win in our system, and so I figure that these Tea Party folks made a calculating decision to take over the Republican party and name, rather than build up their own, more ideologically apt, Libertarian party ID. But that's just me, a Democrat who is irked by those blue dogs trying to hijack MY party, as much as by the Tea Party having hijacked the opposition party.

It sounds like your problem isn't attendance, but rather, content. Scouts who are bored out of their gourd aren't going to show up if they don't have a very immediate reason to do so. From what you are describing, the boys who are a little further along in the program (when the newness and relatively quick rank advancement have worn off or passed) have largely opted out. That suggests to me that those older/senior scouts don't have much stake in the program. They obviously aren't running it, since they're not there. Figure out how to return ownership to the boys and help them plan a program they actually want to attend.

keep the tutu!

Err, Scoutfish, I hope you have a long-ish tutu to cover what those leotards don't exactly leave to the imaginatioN? (in general terms - good for you! sounds like everybody is having fun!)

I don't much care for the video game beltloop even though some of the requirements are better than "go play a game." My distaste for it comes from the fact that I think cubs should be focused more on getting the kids out the door, not encouraging them to be glued to the screen. I imagine the original poster is thinking something kind of similar. But I think this is not a battle I would want to fight. Come on, it is a belt loop for a 7 year old. You could make your principled stand on this hill but let's think about how it might end. Kid will be in tears because he thought he had earned something that you are now denying. Parent will probably be angry - as much at your harsh stance toward the kid, as about the actual substantive issue. Adults may end up in a verbal shoving match (or worse!) . Kid may decide he doesn't like cubs any more, or parent may decide they don't want their kid in your program any more. Kid drops out. Over a belt loop. You might say that's an exaggeration and hopefully, it is. On the other hand, I've known people to get pretty worked up about some pretty insignificant stuff! Let's look at another path: You don't need to promote awareness of this loop. Chances are that few parents and boys will find out about it, if you (pack leaders) don't tell them. Instead, you could actively promote a few of the more traditional loops - pick some you really want the boys to try! Make your den and pack program rich enough that the boys & their parents are content with what they're getting and not looking for other outlets. Then, if a boy or two do unearth the video game belt loop and they earn it, award it. Don't make a big fuss about it, keep your program focus on the other outdoorsy activities, and move on. You keep the kid in the program where you can expose him to all sorts of other activities that don't include the glow of a screen, the kid gets the award he legitimately earned, no drama ensues, and life goes on. That's the path I'd take. All the while holding my nose at the existence of the video game belt loop.

Those book interviews confirmed my belief that the world would have been better off if the Supreme Court, rather than giving "W" a country to run, had given him a major league baseball team. I bet he would have gone for it, too. Affable and folksy he might be. Those are fine qualities in a neighbor (whose political views can be taken and discounted at will) or a baseball team owner.

Seems we have a lot of large, grey, wrinkly, slightly alarming creatures getting ready to thump around the halls of Congress. In the Alaska thread someone mentioned that they hated to see any "RINOs" (Republicans in name only) in Congress. Frankly, I hate to see Republican (majorities)of Unusual Size (ROUS's) in Congress, which seems to be what we're about to have in the House, not to mention in certain state legislatures, like mine. But I must ask: do you folks all really think that these tea party types are actually Republicans? If there are RINOs among us (yikes! run!) then maybe the tea partiers are actually the ones who are usurping the party name. They certainly don't seem to believe the same things that the party establishment seems to believe. I am thinking that the elephants are being endangered by a herd of enraged rinos. And when the rinos win, why would they put on elephant suits and pretend to be creatures of a different sort? Sometimes I feel like we're watching a game show. "Will the real Republicans please stand up?"

Interesting point about chair vs. coordinator. Semantics, maybe, but the first implies control over the situation, where the last implies facilitation rather than control. I'd like to echo platypus and Barry. One troop I'm familiar with, the adults do all of the record keeping and any attempt to shift some of it to the boys - even when the boys are plainly, literally, asking to help and do more - is met with stiff resistance. If it isn't "their handwriting is sloppy" then it is "they aren't careful and don't pay attention to detail" or "it is too hard to coordinate among the boy(s), advancement coordinator, troop secretary who keeps troopmaster up to date, and SM." Or some other reason. There is always a reason. Another troop I'm familiar with, the scribe not only keeps the advancement records (with help from the PLs), but collects monthly dues, too. Awards are presented by youth leaders, not by the SM or Adv. coordinator in this troop. Guess which of these troops is growing? Guess which one has more older boys involved? I don't think it is too surprising that in both cases, the answer is the second troop - the one that trains the boys and then gives them real responsibilities.

"Since then, there has been quite a bit of evidence that same-gender couples don't actually get ALL the same rights as "married" couples" I'd be curious to hear more about what you meant here. There is a lot of support in many places for civil unions (or call them whatever, so long as it isn't "marriage!"). Most of these supporters begin with the assumption that civil unions would provide the same basic legal rights as marriage. If that is turning out not to be the case in NJ, then that's both interesting, and problematic for the more moderate crowd who are seeking compromises on this issue.

I worry about this more on the Sunday trip back, sometimes. The kids return dog-tired. The adults often look pretty crusty, too. Especially on winter camps where a comfy warm car after a weekend of cold outdoors might really be conducive to napping. How DO you all deal with this, I would also like to know? I've seen a bit of macho chest thumping when this topic has come up locally, and it always bugs me.

John, I think pay-go is a great idea. My recollection is that this was in place through most of the Clinton administration. A certain later president who chose to fund 2 wars without paying for them, while also pushing big tax cuts, seems to have abandoned pay-go. Not that the current admin has been a strong and vocal advocate for it, either though. In most circumstances, I wish we would go back to it, although I admit I'm more of a Keynesian in certain situations.

Well no Eagle, it hasn't "been shown." It has been asserted, though. That's "trickle down economics" for ya. Thing is, people of relatively modest means already spend pretty much all they have left in the pockets and seat cushions, once they pay their monthly bills. Yet, that's not really the point of trickle down because the absolute volume of "additional" money (from tax cuts) that gets spent by lower income folks is just not going to be that much. And in fact, at the lowest end of the scale it is "zero" because people below a certain income level pay practically no federal income tax to begin with. Wealthier people tend to pocket the tax savings and put it into some plummy investment accounts. It has not been definitely shown at all that these folks go and spend more or open new businesses, etc, thus stimulating the economy. That's more in the realm of conjecture and assertion. Now the middle class - maybe THEY'LL be the ones who make enough additional (tax cut) spending to really keep things cooking in the economy. But wait - isn't the middle class shrinking? Oh, yeah. Probably a bad thing. So much for that. And anyway, we all know that if you have 3 economists in the room, you'll get 5 different answers to any question about the economy. So I think it is healthy enough to be skeptical whenever someone says that some economic theory has been shown (to do much of anything).

Eamonn, John, tell you what, you write that check and maybe the gov't can cancel out your part of the debt. But under your plan, no future taxes = no future services. Don't you guys both work for government entities (state prison and military)? About that mortgage deduction: I did the "smart" thing earlier in the decade and decided not to buy a house I couldn't afford, in a market where now large numbers of people are "under water" and/or in foreclosure. How come I don't get any sort of tax reward for my carefully considered economic behavior? In the bigger picture I suppose I'm glad I didn't buy, because in this market I'm not sure I'd ever be able to sell at a reasonable price and I don't want to stay here for ever. But I resent the fact that my taxes subsidize others who either were less careful and now find themselves in piles of house debt or who are comfortable enough that they wouldn't have really needed that mortgage deduction in the first place. I say, level the playing field - get rid of the darn mortgage deduction. It just further perpetuates income inequality in this country and rewards greedy, short-sighted economic behavior. Bah. (feeling cranky, these days)

A couple of thoughts from the other side. 1. Schools neither control the cost, nor make any money from, textbooks (in most cases). The beef should be with the textbook publishers who print new 4-color glossy editions every semester. Few subjects really require that much constant updating. Then again, try assigning a textbook that is fairly dense and doesn't have a bunch of pretty colored pictures to a first-year class, and see what happens. (HINT: they won't read it, and they will complain bitterly about it) Come to think of it, maybe some students secretly want those expensive glossy color-picture books? 2. Schools that take lots of students' tuitions but don't graduate their students end up with major issues elsewhere. Recruitment and retention suffer. Difficult questions about the school's accreditation (and thus, students' eligibility for federal and state financial aid) arise. Attracting and keeping quality faculty becomes more challenging. While many schools might string failing students along for a little while, schools that make a habit of this typically end up having to face the music. 3. In a lot of cases, students get out of a class what they put into it. It would be nice if people were a bit more pro-active about their own educations. I get a bit tired of students complaining about how this or that teacher/prof didn't "make" them learn. Now perhaps the teacher/prof in question is truly a dud (yes I know they exist). But I defy anybody to "make" someone learn abstract material that they do not want to learn. Some students demand too much spoon feeding. That type of student isn't really interested in an education. They just want a degree, and preferably for the least possible amount of effort expended. Bah! Clearly time for me to give it up for the night.