Lisabob

~ rolling my eyes ~ Should we start a pool on whether he'll go to accept in person? I'm betting no.

I wonder what it means to this young man, to say that he is an atheist. I have known a number of scouts who understand "atheism" to mean that they just don't really know what they believe. Or that they don't belong to a particular church or religious group. Those things are not atheism. The former may be a matter of a young person questioning his identity and beliefs. It may be a sign of someone for whom these issues ought not to be glibly defined without deep examination. I know at least a few mid/late teens who have expressed to me that they don't understand why other people are so willing to just accept one version of religious "truth" when there are so many other (unexamined) versions out there to be sorted through. The latter, I think some folks here have called "unchurched." That's not atheism though. For me, one challenge here is distinguishing between the label and the content behind it. Many people incorrectly apply the label "atheism" and that includes applying it incorrectly to themselves. I would not be inclined to make this - or any other - BOR a religious inquisition. But it is fair to expect a candidate to be able to say something about his broad view of how he performs his spiritual duty, even if the "something" is along the lines of "I struggle with defining my duty in that area." After all, we all struggle with various aspects of any moral code from time to time. Some people see this as a litmus test. I don't. I just don't think most kids have the developmental capacity to have made deeply reflective and life-long spiritual decisions in their mid teens.

Thought you all might like this one... I've been fretting about the really deplorable state of the economy in my neck of the woods. Some places are apparently experiencing a recovery. MI is not one of them. Unemployment, foreclosures, and state budget crises continue to mount here. This week, the state legislature is trying to figure out how much more to cut state education budgets (something to which I'm deeply opposed). The state has been on a downward slope the whole 10 years I've been here and it is beginning to be a little depressing. Well, today I heard a report about air quality in MI. The report noted that 7 Michigan counties are in violation of EPA standards for particulate matter. The report continued on to say that the state of MI figured this would be fixed within a year and that part of the reason for the quick turnaround was that a lot of older factories had recently closed, due to the economy, and were not expected to ever re-open. There ya go. High unemployment + terrible economy = cleaner air. I knew there was a silver lining in there somewhere. (ETA: OOPS! I meant to put this in the Issues & Politics forum. Mods, please feel free to relocate this thread.)(This message has been edited by lisabob)

I swear, we have that kid in my son's troop too. He bugs the stuffing out of practically everybody. I really wish the SM and CC would hold the line because he has ruined scouting for other kids, with his behavior. So I'm glad you're willing to stand up for what's right. As a committee member and BOR participant, my only suggestion is, don't wait for his next BOR. Encourage the SM to hold a SMC with him sooner than that. About certain parents paying kids big money for badges and ranks: Is it Jeff Foxworthy who says "you can't fix stupid?"

Did anybody else see the interview about this issue on (I think) MSNBC with Dick Ebersol? He basically said that the USOC is a joke, that the White House was being fed bad information by people who didn't understand reality on the ground, and that the smart money had been on Rio for a long time. He felt that people who believed the US had a realistic shot at the 2016 olympics were delusional and out of touch. Do I know whether he's right? Nope. But he made a fairly convincing argument, I thought. Did he blame Obama? Also, nope. He did blame (in part) the fact that the USOC has this inflated sense of self and doesn't understand - or appear to want to understand - the changing global realities. Of course, there's always more to the story, and some have suggested that Ebersol's tirade is more about protecting NBC's interests, than about the USOC's competence (or lack of same). Here's an interesting discussion on an LA Times Blog, about this issue: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/olympics_blog/2009/10/nbcs-ebersol-us-olympic-committee-needs-real-leaders.html Can we move on, now?

As I said, I'm not a huge fan of the FYFC concept. But this argument " Thing is, as described, First Class Emphasis means the troop should provide the opportunity to all first year boys. " doesn't work either. A troop can only provide the opportunity. If boys don't show up, then you work with the ones who are there. What I describe is the reality for a lot of troops. Boys join scouts with varying levels of commitment. For some, it is practically the only extracurricular activity they are involved in (especially at the younger end of the spectrum, which is what we're talking about here). For others, it is one of many activities. And of course there's parental commitment too. I wouldn't care to count all the hours I've spent driving my kid around and sitting at scout events, waiting for him. Not all parents can (or will) commit that time and so their kids are less involved per force. That being the reality, it is not unreasonable to say that troops set up programs that allow the boys who show up to work on the requirements. If every kid showed up for every thing, we might have to rethink delivery. But that's never been reality and isn't likely going to be in the future, either. Again though, I'm not overly fond of FCFY. I just think there are better arguments out there, if you don't like it.

Generally speaking, I've decided I'm not a big fan of FCFY because I think troops misunderstand it in the way that OGE described. But my son's troop adheres to it anyway, and some boys do make it to 1st Cl in about a year. (I think the norm is probably 18-24 months though). THat said, let's talk more about the cooking issue. Suppose a patrol has 8 scouts. But not all 8 go to everything. More realistically, maybe 3 attend 95-100% of events, another 3 are a cast of rotating characters who each go to 40-60% of events, and the remaining 2 hardly ever go to anything except troop meeting nights. So on a given camp out, there are probably 3-5 boys in a patrol, 3 of whom are the core. Those 3 will get their cooking requirements done fairly quickly. The rotating crew will cycle through more slowly but, when they do attend, of of those boys will probably get to cook because the core boys have already done so and won't mind a break from cooking. Because advancement isn't lock step and because attendance varies pretty widely beyond the core group of boys, it isn't so hard for at least that core group to get a lot of practice and get their sign offs pretty quickly. Those core guys are typically the first to get to 1st Cl as a result. The rotating crew come along 6-12 months later in most cases. The ones who hardly ever show up, of course, are going to take a lot longer to get to 1st cl. (As are the ones who show up and do things, but aren't all that interested in getting their books signed.)

That sort of an action certainly raises red flags. Let's start with an assumption that everyone is in earnest and nobody is trying to play politics on any side of this. (That might not be an accurate assumption but sometimes it helps to suppose that good will and common sense can prevail, and proceed from that assumption to a range of possible responses.) Based on that assumption, this might be a "goof" of an inexperienced committee who either did not understand the BOR process, or who did not realize the implication of their action. Friendly communication, perhaps including the CC and SM, can fix this. Perhaps your son can request a SMC and ask the SM to help him understand what happened here, as a way to get this particular ball rolling. It might be that there was genuine question about the time frame in which your son performed his den chiefing duties. That might have arisen from a lack of record keeping on the troop's end (or the pack's end). That can probably also be resolved by your son politely showing the SM a calendar with dates of his DC service marked off. For future reference it might also help to teach your son to confirm all sorts of details (like purely verbal POR appointments) in an email to include all relevant parties. And then to save that email in perpetuity. (A good skill for adult working life, too) Something like "Dear Scoutmaster Smith and Den Leader Jones, I am excited to accept the opportunity you have offered me to be a den chief for den 3 of Pack 100. As we discussed, I'll expect to begin on ___ date. I look forward to working with you to flesh out the details of my den chief service. Thanks again for this great opportunity. Yours in Scouting, Jimmy Scout." It might be that there was a miscommunication between the den leader, the cubmaster, the committee member, and the scoutmaster. Who knows exactly what might have been misconstrued there. This can be resolved by your son politely asking to be clued in, and rectifying any misinformation that was passed along. It might be that your son (somehow unbeknownst to you) has been routinely skipping out on den meetings, not doing as the DL has asked, or otherwise doing a very poor job as a den chief. While unlikely, it remains possible. In that case, I agree that the troop and the pack have been remiss not to bring up any problems long ago. And to some degree, this is one of those where "time in POR" counts, whether the POR is done well, or not. That's the policy side of things. On the other hand though, if it were my kid and he was doing a really lousy job, while I'd far prefer that nothing came out of the blue months later, I'd also want him to learn a lesson that poor performance does not entitle you to promotion. If that's the situation, I'd encourage my son to come to some agreement with the SM about what he needs to do in order to improve, and then to do it. And later, I'd have a side conversation with the SM about how the troop might better prepare and monitor boys while they are in their PORs, too. In all of the above scenarios, I would also hope that the troop (and pack) adults would do a refresher course on their training. If a friendly and competent UC exists, that might be a good thing for that individual to advocate and arrange. If no such UC is present then a friendly chat with the SM, the CC, and the Cub leaders all at the table together might still result in agreement for better training and better communication so that future boys don't have to deal with this adult miscommunication. And for what it is worth, I don't think it is fair for your son to have been caught between adults like has apparently happened, no matter what the explanation.

BadenP: You, sir, are defending a rapist. I am stunned and disgusted. Attitudes like the one you are displaying here help explain why rape is a prevalent crime still today. People find all sorts of (irrelevant) "justifications" for what should simply be intolerable behavior. This is not a situation where the facts of the case are unclear and still under investigation. There is no ambiguity about what Polanski actually did. Your other arguments are irrelevant to the specific situation. This has nothing to do with understanding the ins and outs of the legal proceedings or "spirit" vs. "intent" of the law in one country vs. another, which is not to say I agree with your attempted characterization of European countries' laws on this matter. Nor does the Knox case in Italy have anything to do with this situation. I don't know what your point was in bringing that up. I will not discuss this further with you, BadenP. You have no credibility on this issue.

Well if you're "down south" in MI you are quite possibly in my general neck of the woods. I can tell you it is pretty rare for WB courses to fill 8 full patrols in our WB cluster, and you aren't likely going to be turned away for lack of space. So the real issues are: cost and attitude. I agree, it is sort of a bummer that you'd have to pay to re-take the course, but as you know, there's no such thing as a free lunch. The course costs money to put on. Many councils offer WB scholarships. I know mine will pay about half the cost (about $100) for scholarship recipients, making it much more affordable. By attitude, I mean two things - first, "I took it before, my beads should be good!" And to that, I say, they are good. Nobody is asking you to turn in your beads at the door, though I am told that prior Wood Badgers are sometimes asked to set aside their beads temporarily, while participating in the new course. I've heard various explanations for this (avoid intimidating other participants, a sign of open-ness to new ideas and learning, etc.). Personally I don't see it as a deal breaker, but then I only have one set of beads. THe second thing I mean by attitude is, "there's nothing new for me to learn." To which my answer is, there is always something new to learn, or something that you'd forgotten about and could benefit from a refresher. And to be honest, as a participant, I had a bunch of staffers who had NOT taken the new course. (This was back in 2003 when it was still feasible to staff without taking it.) I think it would have been a far better experience, had they gone through the course first. Not only would that have suggested to me - a first time participant - that they respected the students in the course enough to experience it for themselves, but also there would have been a lot less of the "back in the day..." stuff which served no purpose for those of us who were not Scouters back in the day and wanted current instruction rather than 30 year old war stories. I hope this doesn't come across as harsh because it isn't meant as such. But I think there are good reasons for expecting staffers to take the course first. I think many of the objections people raise are often minor and easily surmountable. And I think the best teachers are people who are willing to be life-long learners, first and foremost. Current WB participants deserve those sorts of teachers.

Hello, and welcome. I would recommend you talk with a fellow named David Harrison in your council. He's a great resource for LHAC folks, and a nice guy, too.

He met with McChrystal on airforce one while in Denmark. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/10/02/Obama-McChrystal-meet-on-Air-Force-One/UPI-71191254492312/

Congratulations! I hope everyone is doing well.

To clarify, John, I did not intend to imply that *you* were saying Obama is a Kenyan, either. But we both know, I think, that some of those nutter birther people would probably seize upon the matter to try to make their argument.

Hold on now, **I** certainly never said Obama was a Kenyan. I have nothing to retract there. What I actually said was that if he had not gone, those birther folks on the lunatic fringe would probably start using his absences as "proof" (and I use the term in the loosest of ways) that he's "obviously" not a "real" American. The point was, the guy gets slammed no matter what he does, or doesn't do, deserved or not. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on his trip to the IOC event. You see it as a wasted trip. I see it as a necessary, though perhaps not earth-shakingly-important, show of face. But he did also meet w/ some NATO folks while there, including McChrystal, in order to discuss Afghanistan. Or was that a waste, too?

"I know of one customer that dry cleans her son's uniform after every wearing(wish I had that kind of cash). She freaked when she found out that he'd have to wear it daily at camp for meals without a cleaning in between uses. " I couldn't pass this one up. This poor lady will be in for a real shocker if/when her darling joins boy scouts. I know "clean" is in the law and all, but it doesn't seem to be the most central point for most boys. Hey - Eagle92 - Pssst - you're right about the diamond thing - that's why the Webelos badge is available as an oval now a days. The diamond = bobcat, tiger, wolf, bear.

Yes, you could, nolesrule. The program is set up to be either age *or* grade based. While most packs follow the grade level basis, some do not. Some allow boys to move to the next rank based on age. And sometimes there are special circumstances, even in packs that typically follow the grade-based guidelines. We had a boy who did 3rd grade twice. The first time he was a Bear. The second time, his family, in consultation with the pack leadership, opted to allow him to move ahead with his den buddies based on his age. The result was that he earned AoL while he was in 4th grade, and he joined the troop as a 4th grader with his AoL. Several years have passed. He's still happily in the troop, doing fine. One of the things about cubbing is that there's a lot of flexibility. That's good, but it appears to lead to mis-statements. I can see where a typical SM who doesn't often deal with the minutia of cub life could lose track of all of it.

Head of State/Head of Gov't. It's one of the things I teach my students, but let's get real. In the US the president is expected to play both roles. Jumping on someone for choosing the "wrong" comparison mode really is a bit over the top. And by the way, I haven't bothered to look but I bet it was the Japanese Head of Gov't that lobbied the IOC too, unless perhaps the Emperor showed up. Was it a waste of a trip? Maybe. But that's the way the game is being played, and had Obama not attended (and Chicago wasn't picked) then people would undoubtedly have questioned *his* patriotism, or competence, or what have you. No doubt some would've used that as "proof" that he was a secret Kenyan national or something, as well. Eamonn - are you really going to the London games? I can't wait to hear all about it if you do!

Are you so sure that none of those presidents campaigned for the olympics to be in the US? I suspect that they did. LA in '84, Atlanta in '96, Salt Lake in '02 were not flukes and the IOC didn't pick us just 'cause we're nice people with a good country. Maybe it was more behind the scenes back then, but smoke filled rooms are even more likely to produce bribery and scandal than pandering that occurs out in the open.

John, come on, Presidents are supposed to lobby on behalf of their cities who apply for these things. If Obama had not done it, people would've been hollering even louder. If McCain had won the election, he'd have gone off to do this, too. But yeah, I'm with Merlyn in this case. What is it you actually want here?

Well that does seem a bit high, but there could be other factors in there that neither you nor we on the forum are aware of. And (or) it could also be that your troop is planning too many outings that are just really expensive. I know that my son's troop has a couple of extraordinary outings. One popular event is dog sledding, which costs more than a week of summer camp. Another is luging, which is also fairly expensive. But those are also off-set by other local activities for which costs are low. They are doing a fishing camp in a couple of weeks for which the cost is $11. That includes food and site fees. Again, the only way you'll fully understand what is behind the higher fees you are describing is to ask. Be polite and explain that you're asking for the info so that the PLC can plan affordable outings, and you should not run into much resistance.

No. There is absolutely no need for that. Please be aware that you will receive better answers, and more of them, if you post in the Cub Scouts forum. The Issues & Politics is really more of a free-for-all area, not necessarily related to day to day questions about how to run a pack. There are many people on this board who don't ever read the Issues & Politics forum, but who do read the rest of the forums here.

Well it depends a LOT on what else the troop is paying for. Some troops charge the bare minimum dues of $30/year or so, while others are much higher. My son's troop charges a bit more than what you list, but they use the additional money to buy gear for the troop. Some troops include camp out fees in their dues/others don't. Some include a special troop T shirt, hat, necker, etc./others don't. Last year, some were talking about including a gasoline or transport fee (when gas was $5/gallon). So there is no simple answer to your question, except to politely ask your Scoutmaster to sit down and look at the numbers with you.

I don't think there is any harm in asking this question. THe trick is framing it so that you don't put anybody on the defensive. A respectful request that you'd like to understand how the costs are arrived at so that the PLC can assist in planning more affordable activities (during tough economic times, especially) should be well-received by the adults you are working with. You should certainly feel comfortable bringing up this issue with your Scoutmaster and asking him or her to help you get the information you need. If such a request is NOT well received, then it might be time to find a committee member or maybe one of your parents to start asking a little harder-edged questions.

"not to mention that most of Europe has a very different view of the crime he committed," Unless you are suggesting that much of Europe has a stricter view of this sort of crime, then I would have to respond: Cow Pies. European attitudes towards sex and nudity in general may differ, but I've lived and traveled pretty extensively in Europe and have not noticed that raping 13 year olds is socially acceptable anywhere I've ever been. Police and court systems may be weak in some places, particularly in Eastern Europe, but that does not mean this sort of behavior is widely accepted.