Lisabob

A room full of high school students asking questions of the president is entirely appropriate, and actually pretty cool. (Or do only adults get to have questions and form opinions?) A bunch of these kids will be voting in the 2012 election. No time like the present for them to start getting engaged and learning about the issues of our time. Of course some will say, they are still only children! Yeah, true, but then if we take that approach, we shouldn't be too surprised when, at age 18, they become know-nothing adults. Then they can go on Hannity's man on the street segment and look like idiots, and we can heap scorn upon their generation for their ignorance.

Brent, Gern, knock it off. Brent, I wasn't directing my comments specifically to you, or to any one individual. To the extent that I used the word "you" in my previous post, it was primarily because I didn't feel like writing in the more formal style with which the pronoun "one" is associated. On the other hand, I become impatient with people who cannot separate their politics from their scouting, when it comes to how they treat the boys and the boys' families. And I really do worry that as a country, we are teaching the next generation that there is no honor in rational discussion of disputes; only shouting, name calling, and disdain will do. That's a terrible lesson that will rip the country apart.

I agree with Beavah. I'm deeply dismayed that people can't seem to have honest differences of opinions anymore without resorting to the worst sort of emotion-laden ranting and raving. If that's the best our country's leadership can do we're all in big trouble. Think about this in a scouting context. Maybe you take your troop to summer camp. One night some of your senior scouts get into a shouting match with boys from another troop and ugly things are said, maybe worse. What would you do with those boys? Would you say "well the other boys started it?" Would you say "well last year troop 123 had a rumble, so who cares if our boys shouted insults, that's just the way it is?" Would you say "well the boys in the other troop really were jerks and deserved it?" If you would, I hope you'll stay away from my son's troop. But most of you seem to take your responsibilities as scout leaders seriously. So probably, you'd be really disappointed in the poor behavior of your youth leaders. You'd probably have some pretty serious SM conferences with them about the scout oath and law. You might put their advancement plans on hold for a while to drive home the point that their behavior was unacceptable and you expect better. Quite possibly you'd expect them to apologize to the whole troop for damaging the troop's reputation. You might even ask that they resign their PORs since they have shown themselves unworthy to hold them. In some ways this is no different. Boys pay attention to when adults are hypocrites. If we don't condemn boorish behavior among adults, the boys will realize that all this talk about "friendly, courteous, kind" and so on is really just a lot of hot air. Boehner was right to demand this fellow apologize to his fellow House members, as well as to Obama. He embarrassed them all.

Sctdad, a DE who tried to tell a unit when their round up would be, or who independently changed the date without permission from the unit leaders, would be in extremely hot water where I am. Units would tell the DE to suck eggs. Most of the time, units just run their own round up anyway. If the DE or somebody from the district membership team is able to stop in (and if they've secured an invite to do so), that's one thing. But it isn't a district function, to schedule or run round ups for a unit. Are you sure the other CM didn't misunderstand something? Call your DE to double check.

One of the (Democratic) proposals in committee discussion at present is over 1000 pages long. It may leave a lot to be desired but I don't think it is fair to say it is lacking in detail. I think one problem in this whole debate is the question of scope. Do we want to (and can we) tackle the big picture, or do we want to just fiddle around with the edges? Do we want overhaul, or do we want incremental change? Seems to me that more Democrats want big-picture overhaul, while more Republicans want incremental tweaks at the edges. Overhaul is scary. Incrementalism is often stagnant. (This message has been edited by lisabob)

What I think I'm hearing is that people who don't live there are being told by people who *do* live there, that this is a non-issue over there. And then the people who don't live there suggesting that the people who *do* live there, might be wrong. Huh. Regarding the Congress & proposed knife bans. You know that isn't ever going to pass, right? Just because some goofball proposes something doesn't mean anything. Heck, if I get elected to Congress someday, I intend to introduce a bill mandating that large slices of homemade peach pie be served with every meal. Mmmm... Pie....

I thought we had been through this recently. The current AoL requirement is **not necessarily** to be active for 6 months after the 10th birthday. The requirement is to be active for at least 6 months after having completed 4th grade (or at least 6 months after turning 10), and to have earned the webelos badge. The webelos badge, in turn, is meant to be earned by a boy who is in 4th grade (or age 10) and who has been active in his webelos den for at least three months. It is not uncommon for boys to be ages 9, 10, or 11 and in 4th grade. So. Hypothetically, if the school year runs from September - June, a boy could earn his webelos badge in 4th grade at age 9 (or younger or older, so long as he's in 4th grade!). When school lets out in June and he is done with 4th grade, he could start working toward his 6 month tenure for AOL. He could earn his AoL as early as January of his 5th grade year, possibly still at age 9 (or younger or older, as long as he's now in 5th grade). Boy Scout Joining rules are different from AoL rules. 9 year olds cannot join a boy scout troop. 10 year olds can join a troop, if they have finished 5th grade or earned AOL (or both). 11 year olds can join a troop, regardless of rank and grade. The latter two options appear to apply to original poster's son. Since he was held back, there is some wiggle room. Parents might choose to hold him back in cub scouting to be with his grade-based buddies (do a 3rd year of webelos). Or they might choose to let him cross over with his age-based buddies (cross over in his second year of webelos, as long as he has that AOL and is 10). The choice should belong to the parents, in consultation with the cubmaster or den leader, and the scoutmaster of the troop he wants to join. Do what you think will be best for your son.

Brent, you don't get to be state party chair for nothing. This is a big deal in the hierarchy of party organizations. Just because you can't name yours doesn't mean much. Heck, think of all the people who can't name their Senators, but I kind of doubt you'd argue that Senators are not powerful as a result. Anyway, my point was that there are plenty of examples of people in positions of power, authority, and party leadership acting like dolts. This time around, many of those dolts happen to be on the Republican side. In past times, there have been Democrats in that category too. It seems to be one of the few truly non-partisan, equal-opportunity, groups in America. I believe their rallying cry is: Dolts of the country, unite! You have nothing to lose but your credibility. As for who came out in support, when, well you know Mr Greer of FL only made his ridiculous attack on Saturday. The Sunday of Labor Day weekend is a notoriously slow news day. Bush and Gingrich and a number of others came out in public defense of the president's speech and with calls for a little respect on Monday. Unlike many others, neither Bush nor Gingrich spent Saturday and Sunday acting like the sky was falling because the president of the United States had a back-to-school message for students. I'm glad you agree with them now, Brent, but it seems to me there are plenty of folks still all a-tither about the matter. Just yesterday that Greer fellow was still insinuating on CNN that Obama might have been trying to pull a fast one by publishing the transcript of one speech, but actually giving a totally different speech. Yup, he's a dolt alright. Got a membership card to prove it. And I also hope that next time some wild eyed partisan hack starts spouting nonsense, people of all political persuasions will take a deep breath right from the beginning, instead of jumping on board for a day or two, enjoying the ride and bashing away at the "other side" first. Bad marks, in my book. Certainly evidence that someone is a dolt-enabler, and maybe on the path to full membership in the Dolt society, too.

Brent, in case you missed it (must've been camping?), the fellow in FL to whom I was referring is Republican Party state chair, Jim Greer. He wasn't speaking merely as a private citizen, but as the head of his state party organization. Does he have a right to voice his opinions and sound like an idiot? Well yes, he does. Is this the type of inflammatory rhetoric and thoughtless fear mongering we'd like to see from real leaders (of any political party)? Well no, it isn't.

Thanks Merlyn! Brent - who was that Republican fellow in FL, ranting and raving about Obama's socialist indoctrination of children and "invasive abuse of power?" He's not a member of Congress, I'll grant you that much. Tell me how what he's doing is really any different, or better, than what you're pointing out from your previous example though. Ken, there are lots of really good private schools in the Oakland/Macomb/Wayne area. Maybe it would be wise to look into some of them, if you feel that strongly about the people who are currently educating your child. Of course, I've always felt it was healthy for kids to hear differing opinions and learn to think for themselves. Evidently that's an outdated view though, judging from some of the stuff I'm reading here. By the way, Laura Bush gave her support to the president's speech and went on record saying she felt people ought to be respectful of the president (whoever holds the office). Yeah. Laura Bush. Wild-eyed socialist commie feminazi. You can't trust those school librarian types, can you.

Scoutldr writes: "Whatever you may think of Hannity, his "man on the street" interviews, where he interviews those barely old enough to vote (18-20something) really scare me. His point is, "these kids are clueless, and they are cancelling out your well thought-out vote". " Yeah, Jay Leno does something similar in his "Jay Walking" segments. They are simultaneously hilarious and depressing. Of course as a political science professor, my answer is to TEACH THEM. Most of them actually want to be better informed, but lack a solid factual base from which to build. The current emphasis on math & literacy in schools is great and all, but many states and school districts have minimal or no social studies requirements to graduate high school. Funding for subjects that aren't covered by NCLB has dried up too. This is one reason I'm a big supporter of the BSA's three citizenship badges and do not want to see them reduced or eliminated. At least we know that our boy scouts have some clue about their own country's history and political system! Tell your scouts who are college-bound to take a history class and a political science class, no matter what they plan to major in (also a writing & composition class, some basic math & science, and some kind of culture - music/art/theater/literature, etc.). And incidentally, young voters were one of Ron Paul's biggest blocs. Does this mean Paul's older supporters were ill-informed too? (just kidding there, scoutldr)

Are you telling me that the boys don't already have their own ideas for costumes? Isn't that half the fun of dressing up for halloween, that you get to be whatever you want to be and everybody is something different? Don't reinvent the wheel here. Just tell the boys to show up in whatever their actual halloween costumes will be. And if you want to identify yourselves as Cub Pack 123, have them make/carry a banner or sign. (PS, if you are concerned about people not having time/money to put into making or buying costumes, look at the rank books. I know there's a masks option in the bear arrow points. I think there's something similar for the webelos showman. I don't recall the wolf and tiger books very well but I bet there's something in there too. Let the boys be creative and make some masks in den meetings.)

Mike, what is your goal in encouraging other parents to attend? You say you want to increase adult involvement, but to what end? For example, is this a troop that struggles to have enough drivers or 2-deep leadership, resulting in canceled events? Or is this more a matter of just wanting parents to have a better understanding of the program, or more bonding opportunities with their sons? Depending on where you're coming from, the answer to your question might be different. My son's troop has a large adult leadership contingent. Sometimes the troop has gone on events where more adults than youth attended. Often these adults are there to hover and parent. Some of them are there because they enjoy camping and seem to use the BSA as their family camping club. Others are there because they really want to be mentors to young men. And of course many are probably a combination of all of that. I don't go often. Not that I don't like camping, but it is my son's experience and I think it is important to respect his ownership of it. He and I spend plenty of time together doing lots of other things (and driving to and from scout events). Also, I have a hard time putting up with adults who spend the entire time tailing after their kid or usurping the youth leadership's roles. In the name of preserving friendships with some of these folks (who I like very much) it is probably better I don't go. In my son's troop then, more adults are a) not needed and b) often a management problem. When people in troops like his start advocating for more adult involvement, it is usually because they don't understand the roles adults are supposed to play in a troop. If that describes your troop's situation, you will need a very firm SM and CC who "get it" in order to educate and enforce the roles of the additional adults. Otherwise they'll end up overwhelming your program. On the other hand, there's another troop in town that has had so few adult leaders that they've frequently canceled outings due to inability to provide two-deep leadership. The SM also kept saying he wanted to step down, but there was no supporting cast of adults waiting to step up and replace him. Those folks desperately needed to get more adults signed up. I hear that the solution they chose was to tell every family that they were required to be involved in some way (whether as ASM, committee member, or just occasional parent helper/non-registered). I'm not sure what they did to over-come the helicoptering issue though, as the CC herself tends to be a very protective individual.

Yes and it was stupid then, too. Just because your political opponent did something dumb, does that mean you should do it too? Are we really a nation of 9 year olds, playing tit for tat? "He started it!" is our rallying cry? Sheesh.

THere's actually quite a lot of research on how people decide whom to vote for in the absence of party identifiers. For example, in countries where elections take place but formal parties are banned. (People run either as independents, or as part of some less rigid "group" or list.) Or in a lot of state and local judicial elections (and school board elections, and county dog catcher elections, etc.) in the US, which are often officially "non partisan." To summarize, I'm sorry to say, scoutldr, it doesn't work out as you might hope. People use other identifiers instead of party labels. They might use perceptions about geographic origin, race, ethnicity, gender, linguistic identifiers, etc. Research on non-partisan races in the US also shows that voters have a statistically verifiable tendency to just pick the first name on the list. Hence you have major squabbling over whether the incumbent should be listed first, or whether listings should be alphabetical, or what. Ballot design, not well-reasoned and -researched preferences, largely determines the outcome. And in a lot of these officially non-partisan races, campaign staff hand out "voting cards" to as many voters as possible, showing which candidates a particular party supports (even though the candidates themselves are officially non-partisan!). I'm all for people having a better grip on who and what they're voting for. But I think the research shows you aren't going to get that just by banning party labels.

Woo Hoo! A very nicely written article, thanks for posting it OGE. Think I'll forward that to the SM and CC. Maybe they can use it to allay the fears of some of the troop's helicopter parents.

Having a 10 year old with AOL join a troop is permissible. Having a 9 year old in a troop is not, regardless of grade or AoL status. Those are BSA rules. Can they be bent? Maybe, maybe not, but they are the rules we have to work with. Now, do they make sense? Yes, in most cases. Reality is that boy scouting is quite different from cub scouting. THe boys are expected to be far more independent and frankly, a good bit tougher, than the typical cub. There is a lot of emphasis on teamwork (among the boys - not with adults hovering over them) in their patrols too, and already the youngest guys in most troops I've seen struggle with that. The age range is already very wide (10-18). To make a comparison, how would you feel about your son suddenly skipping from 4th grade over to the high school? Academics aside, do you think he's really ready for that? And there is a burden placed on the youth leaders of the troop to help, mentor, and shepherd the younger boys along. That burden on the existing troop members increases exponentially when you start adding younger and younger boys to the mix, who need more help, hand holding, etc. For this reason I think it is unfair to the boys already in the troop to expect them to accommodate a 9 year old. I also think it might be a bit unfair to expect most 9 year olds to thrive in a boy scout troop, where they'll be the youngest, least experienced, by far, and probably socially a bit behind the curve, too. The first year of boy scouting is a difficult transition for many boys; I don't think you do a service to your son by pushing him into it prematurely, and you might just find he sours on the whole experience if he isn't really ready. And with great respect, he does not know whether he is ready. That's the nature of being 9. He is still a child. And finally, if you do manage to get your son into a troop, consider that he may have difficulty establishing the legitimacy of any rank, merit badges, or other awards he earns prior to turning 10. In my council, when a boy sits for his Eagle board of review, a panel of well-versed adults look carefully at his boy scout record. They look at the dates listed for each rank earned. All it would take is for one of them to notice that he earned his Tenderfoot rank as a 9 year old (hypothetically) to cause an uproar. Do you really want to worry about that? Sure you could game the system to get around that, but is that ethical and in keeping with what the boy scouts teach? I'm sorry if any of the above sounds harsh. I'm sure your son is a great kid. But pushing him into this is probably not a great idea, even if you can convince a troop to take him early, and the council to look the other way while he violates national BSA rules. Very few 9 year olds would thrive in a troop of older teens, and the great majority would suffer for it.

Smith, if you want to ensure that the adults who accompany the boys on camp outs are all checked out, then have a policy requiring all adults who attend events with the boys to be registered leaders. That will require them to go through the BSA's background check. I have heard that some CO's also require certain types of background checks, separate from the BSA. But they don't do it surreptitiously, as far as I know. They make the requirement known to their prospective members right up front, and people can opt not to participate (which also means they won't be leaders for that scouting unit).

No it is not acceptable to have law-enforcement types run prospective committee members through a background check without the approval of those committee members, and without the authority to do so via the law. This constitutes an abuse of power/position by the law enforcement officer in question. Does it happen? Yes. Should it? No. And supposing you turn up something, then what? Are you going to actually tell the person this happened (which may, among other things, cause the law enforcement officer to be reprimanded or even lose their job)? I doubt it.

"WHy doesn't BHO focus on WHY parents are failing their kids by not providing a stable household to grow up in?" You know what else, scoutldr, "BHO" has done this too. Just a quick web search shows speeches on the importance of parental responsibility in April, May, and June 2008 and June and July 2009. He has made this speech, or some variation of it, to mostly white, mostly black, and racially mixed audiences. He has made it to women and men and children, of all economic backgrounds.

Wow scoutldr, no snooty classist bias there. I teach plenty of poor and working-class students. The stereotypes you are perpetuating here are totally off-base and do not hold up to the light of day in the overwhelming majority of situations. And what in tarnation does this: "we all have the same last name" have to do with anything at all. As if patronymics (or matronymics) had anything to do with propensity for academic achievement.

Brent, I disagree. I don't know how old your daughter is. But I have always thought it better to allow children to be exposed to different points of view, even and maybe especially those I disagree with, rather than attempting to shield them. Kids are smart. Talking honestly with them about what you like and don't like about something some political leader says isn't going to scar them or something. If you opt her out, she'll undoubtedly hear about it from her other classmates anyway, without even the benefit of having heard it first-hand herself. And it isn't that I think we ought to treat our leaders like rock stars who, by the way, I have little use for. There is something to be said for seeing the people in positions of great power, and recognizing their common humanity. Also I think it matters to teach children to respect their president for the sake of the position and all of our shared history that it represents even if not for the sake of the individual. Whatever my views of President Bush were (and they weren't positive, by and large) I tried very hard to teach my kid to appreciate the difficulty and gravity of the job. Like him or loathe him, he's still the President of the entire United States and not just those who voted for him. That's one reason I hustled to get my kid to one of McCain's events. I wanted him to see that here was an honorable man who (had he been elected) was going to have one tough job to do and who deserved some respect for attempting to do it. I figure it is better than teaching my kid to blindly hate the "other" side. But hey, that's just me.

I don't understand all the hand wringing and moaning about this current matter, and think it is just silly. Presidents address school children all the time. This isn't that big a deal. People should get over it. (President Bush did it too.) If the president - ANY president - were coming to my child's school, I'd be delighted. What an exciting opportunity to see someone in such a position of power up close, and later in life to be able to say that "I saw President X." I've made no secret of my political affiliations here. But last year, when John McCain was touring the region, I made sure to get my son to a small campaign event where he could see, hear, and practically touch McCain's sleeve, had he wanted to. Had McCain won the election I wouldn't have been happy about it, but my son would've been able to say he'd met the president. Every one of his teachers expressed how cool it was that he was able to do that, even though it meant he missed school that day.

The judgment being passed in many posts here has nothing to do with elections.

That's a really great idea, to get the two SPLs together. This may also ensure that anything questionable the scribe does or says, will get back to his home troop. Might help keep the scribe from embellishing anything. Should the scribe have talked with the SPL? Should the SM have guided him to do so? Yes. Is it the end of the world? Not necessarily; but the SPL and SM should probably talk over what the goals are, in having the scribe make his visits. Better to coordinate this in advance, rather than have a blow-up when the boy returns. And yes, the SPL needs to take a firm hand in terms of deciding how the troop will use its time at meetings. But on the other hand, he also might benefit from taking some time to talk with his "officers" (PORS) about their views. Maybe the scribe is wrong in his actions because he is speaking for the SPL without the authority to do so - but maybe too, the scribe has some good ideas. Good leaders also listen to the ideas of their subordinates. (And maybe the SM should have a little talk with the scribe about how good subordinates sometimes have to go along with what their leaders decide, like it or not, too.)