Lisabob

Hello Sarge, Like others say, cub resident camp is a blast. I'd just add that the advancement vs. just fun divide you seem to start with is a bit erroneous, in terms of how you approach this. Looking at the requirements for Bears, most of them ARE fun. For example, I've never met a boy who did not have fun with archery while at camp. Most boys love swimming and water sports. Kids that age love playing active games with their den. The various nature/wildlife activities tend to fascinate most boys. Telling tall tales around a campfire at night while eating cobbler that the boys made in the dutch oven can't be beat. Building bird houses or other wood crafts is exciting for most boys. And all of those fit somewhere into various advancement requirements too. Think about not only the Bear requirements, but also belt loops and other awards that the boys can earn! But most of all, let your guys have a good time and let them make choices about what they want to do.

There has been only one time when I have advocated for removing a leader in a unit where I was serving too. In one case the person and her husband were involved in a fight (punching and shoving, screaming obscenities, way out of control) with the cubmaster and another parent at a pinewood derby, in front of the boys. Though this was the worst and the only time things came to physical blows, it wasn't an isolated incident either. I refused to support her/her husband's attempt to stay on as den leaders. There was one time when I've cautioned against accepting an application from someone who had been asked to leave another troop after being accused of mishandling of funds AND who then had similar problems in a pack whose leaders I knew well and trusted. And there was one time when I wasn't sorry to see an ASM who consistently used racist language leave mid-way through his first year with the troop. He was well aware that this was offensive to others but didn't seem to care. In fact, if he had stayed much longer, I probably would have pushed for his removal or put my child in another troop. In all three of the above cases, it was a bit tough because all of them have sons who are great kids and who enjoyed scouting. And you risk losing the child when you start talking about adult behavior. (Maybe surprisingly, of the 3 above, only the last one yanked their kid out with them.) And I would never claim to be perfect, but for me personally, all three of the above were pretty clear cases of adults behaving in ways that had very large negative implications for the whole unit.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

It may be that the decision to run the story today was a result of that diagnosis. And I certainly wish Justice Ginsburg a full and speedy recovery. The story itself was not about Ginsburg though. The general point was that it is likely that Obama will have an opportunity to appoint between two and four new Justices in the next couple of years. (Stevens is approaching 90, Souter has apparently voiced an interest in retiring, and a couple of others are no spring chickens either.) Given Bush's choices of Roberts and Alito, many people expect that women will rank very high among Obama's pool of potential nominees for the next couple of openings.

Just thought I'd share this. Today I heard a report about potential Supreme Court nominees. According to this report, the widely accepted list of top 5 likely women to be appointed included: Sonia Sotomayor (current federal judge on the US Circuit Court of Appeals, originally from Puerto Rico) Elena Kagan (Harvard Law School Dean and current nominee for US Solicitor General, taught at U. Chicago with Obama) Another federal judge whose name I don't remember (North maybe?) Jennifer Granholm (current MI governor whose term is up in 2010 and who is term limited) Janet Napolitano (former AZ governor and current Secretary of Homeland Security) I think a large portion of the population of MI would choke on a Granholm nomination. She's not exactly popular 'round here anymore! On the other hand, it would get her out of the state 2 years early, and maybe that would go over well here... How 'bout the rest of the list?

Things aren't looking great here but I'm still currently employed and happy about that. I work at a public university that has been hard-hit by state funding cuts for several years in a row (even when they don't cut, they freeze funding, but costs continue to go up resulting in a net loss). Last year about 10% of the people in my job classification were cut and replaced by cheaper part time instructors who get paid poorly and have no benefits, and it is expected that there will be further cuts of 5-10% again this summer. I'll be one of the ones on the bubble this time around because my contract is up for renewal (and I don't have tenure). Given the nature of academic calendars, if I still have a job in September, I'll be good for another school year. But I honestly don't know if that's likely and probably won't know until August. The uncertainty is a bit scary. I had been planning to take the summer off from teaching in order to work on a research project because research is the lifeblood of academic life (and "publish or perish" is not a myth), but now I'm thinking that if I'm offered classes to teach in the summer, I'd probably better take them. What's much more difficult is talking with my students about how things look from their perspectives. A large percentage of our students come from working class/working poor backgrounds. They're doing all they can to better their chances for the future but they are getting priced out of college in growing numbers. Many have had to drop to part time, some have decided to leave school. Quite a few have told me their families were foreclosed upon, including some who rented and the landlords failed to give their families any notice that the apartment building was being foreclosed. I've had more young students tell me they were living in shelters. I've never had so many students come to me and ask for help getting copies of the textbooks because they can't afford them. Enrollments this year fell about 5% and are expected to fall again next year. There's a real hunger for a college education (well, or at least for the piece of paper), but their options are constricting rather than expanding.

I too would really appreciate it if the squelch feature worked. There are very few whom I would wish to squelch, but I have no use for the narrow-minded arguments of those who consistently display certain racist, sexist, self-absorbed, and rather childishly simplistic views of the world.

Beaver is right that in most cases, the actual elected official doesn't see the letters that are written. That's a large part of what they have a staff for. I used to be one of those *very* junior staffers (though not at the national congressional level!). My job? Basically to answer phone calls and letters, to provide summaries of the contacts we had with constituents, and to draft letters of congratulations anytime any of our constituents did anything at all noteworthy. There are exceptions of course, but probably the majority of elected legislative officials works like this. Still, contacting your member of gov't in writing is worth it. Most elected officials do pay attention to the volume and trend of contacts. So if an issue is important to you, let 'em know! When they start getting more than a couple of contacts on the same issue and in the same direction, they tend to perk up and listen.

training, training, training. As others have already said, it sounds like that's important for all involved. That includes you, if you haven't completed the basics yet. As for some of what you've written, I'm sorry but it sounds a bit petty. She looked at the SM the wrong way? Really? It "seems as if" she's using the treasury for personal scouting expenses? Now look, if the last is true, that's not acceptable. That's a pretty serious accusation though so you need to have more than "it seems as if" to go on. If you don't, then perhaps some of this can be resolved by adults sitting down and calmly and openly and politely talking with each other. That may get you past insinuations about each other, at least. Re-starting a troop in a different direction is very hard work. It requires that everyone involved have a common vision of how things should work, and that there's some agreement on concrete steps to reach that vision. From what you write, it sounds like that's lacking. Accusations against each other are unlikely to fix that. Talking things out in a friendly and respectful manner just might though. If you can manage to do it in a more relaxed setting you may fare better with this. (I find committee meetings to be a bad place to do big-picture vision stuff - someone's backyard over a bbq potluck or something along those lines is better - you can change the dynamic and maybe actually build a little teamwork in alternate settings)

Ed, I'm not sure how I feel about those types of laws, but my understanding is that they tend to apply only toward the later part of pregnancy. In contrast, most abortions occur very early in pregnancy. It seems that the law recognizes the difference between a near-term viable being and a microscopic clump of cells.

John, I don't care what your views are on the current president, but please get his name right. OBama with a B. It is not too much to ask that we show just that much respect for whoever holds the office. As for the current situation with the appointees. Maybe this is cynical. But finding someone who is both highly qualified for the job and who has enough experience to make Washington work, on one hand, and who is spotless and completely above reproach on the other, seems somewhat unlikely. People who've been around Washington long enough to really know how to play the game are frequently a little muddy. That goes for both parties, whether you like and agree with the individuals or not. It isn't as if Obama was the first new president ever to nominate controversial people. So, what do you want? Neophytes with spotless records? Or insiders who can get things done but aren't so spotless? I submit you can't always have both.

I work at a public university. In the last 5 years we have made physical changes like installing foot baths in some public restrooms, which was aimed primarily at a couple of religious groups. However, it isn't the case that only members of those groups are allowed to use them (and in practice, they've become somewhat popular). We also have reflection areas. These too are open to any group. The university also frequently allows scouts and other groups with ties to organized religion to use its facilities. This is very simple. Don't designate rooms or buildings for exclusively religious use. The local church that rents the elementary school cafeteria once a week for service is in no danger from this proposal, and neither are scout groups. But it sure makes a good story and stokes the fires, don't it?

OGE I have to agree with you. Of course, you started with the premise that some teens will engage in behaviors, regardless of what they're told/taught. Some people won't even acknowledge that much and so feel we'd be best off just denying any kind of precautionary education to kids at all. Now there was one group whose take on abortion was that it should be "safe, legal, and RARE." I'd like to think that most people would have some common ground on that last part, it is certainly the easiest part of the whole abortion discussion to address, and yet that's also the part of their slogan that tended to get the least attention. In fact, to hear some folks talk about it, you'd think that this group was PROMOTING abortion to every teenage girl in America or something. (By the way, I find this whole discussion about executing teenage girls absurd.

ASM915, I have a better idea. Let's just sterilize the men instead. After all, a woman can only produce a baby every year or so. A virile fellow could conceivably impregnate any number of women. Yes, if we are going down the road of sterilizing people, I say, start with the men. (sarcasm intended)

I'm curious, what merit badge are we talking about here? There is no formal rule barring you from working with your son. That said, many troops discourage the practice under most circumstances. Part of the purpose of the merit badge program is to help kids get to know a range of adults (the adult association method of scouting), and working with mom & dad doesn't further that purpose. Not to mention that even the merest whiff of favoritism can be extremely problematic in a troop. That's not to suggest that you would actually treat your kid any differently than someone else's kid - but perception matters sometimes. So, if it is a common merit badge for which there are lots of counselors in your area, I'd say you might want to encourage your son to find another person to work with. That way he gets the benefit of multiple views on the topic at hand. (For example, I counsel some of the citizenship badges. My son already knows how I think about a lot of the issues involved. He'd benefit from hearing other perspectives.) On the other hand, if it is an uncommon MB for which qualified counselors are tough to find, go for it.

I would say that more than half the guys in our troop are athletes. Some play major sports (baseball/basketball/football). Most, though, play sports that don't even really have a professional life and they certainly don't do it with starry-eyed dreams of scholarships and the lifestyle of a pro football player in mind. Lacrosse. Swimming/Diving. Track. Ski team. Particularly at the JV level, many are just looking to try out a sport and have fun. Nothing wrong with that! Especially with some lesser-known sports, it can be the first time in some kids' lives where they have much success with a sport. For the kid who is never going to make the football team because he's not big enough, that's a big deal. And by the way, most private schools around here mandate that their students will be in some sport (as well as service obligations and of course academic requirements). Now, the kid who is on the travel soccer team fall/spring and the travel baseball team spring/summer/fall, I am not even sure what he looks like and I don't know why his dad is so insistent that he be in scouting because he's only there once in a blue moon. But he's an oddity. Most of our athlete/scouts are only absent occasionally, or only during one season. And a few of them even take the opportunity to work on merit badges related to sports and conditioning during their sports season.

I was a cub leader when I got my beads. I completely understand what you mean about not wanting to do it in the pack. It might have meant something to some of the other pack adults, but not much to the boys. And I felt pack meetings should be focused on the boys, not us adults. I had my beading at a district pot luck dinner at the local scout camp, along with two other WB class members. Although it was a RT and ours (like yours) are not always well attended, this one tends to be the exception, and more so when the word went out to our three WB patrols and the local Wood Badger Association that we hoped they'd be there. They were, and it was nice.

Yup, a lot of boys I work with choose that movie. Just out of curiosity, how many of you try to push boys toward a movie they have not seen before? I find that nearly all have seen Remember the Titans, either in school or in sports (and some, in scouting). I do try to get them to watch something new, but I don't require it. I can see an argument both ways. Watching a new movie means they need to pay a little closer attention. Watching an old favorite maybe allows them to focus in more on the role of an individual character, rather than the story line.

Yes pack, thank you. It was not my intent to paint with too broad a brush, just to respond to the idea posited by one person that somehow men have been left out of this discussion which is rather absurd.

Somebody made some comment about men being taken out of the issue. I find that almost funny, since the vast majority of both politicians and doctors and religious leaders in positions to control access to information have been men. You know who I think often gets over-looked in this debate are women who, when faced with an unexpected pregnancy (for whatever reason), make the decision to have the baby. Some get married, some do not. Some of those marriages stand the test of time, some do not. Some put the baby up for adoption, some do not. But it isn't such an uncommon situation. And it isn't only 14 year old girls from inner cities we're talking about here either. I'm willing to bet that almost everyone on this board knows somebody whose family started out that way. And you know what? I've found that women who have walked a mile in those shoes, no matter what choice they made and no matter how it worked out for them and for their child, tend to be a little bit more uncertain about ALL of the options, a little less high and mighty and dogmatic. And a lot more compassionate to others who find themselves in a difficult position. Hmm.

Well that's one of the dumber things I've heard. Somebody somewhere just isn't thinking this through. You might point out to them that this young man has ALREADY given a great deal to the troop just by virtue of all the things he did on the trail to Eagle. Leadership, teaching younger scouts, service, etc.. If his shadow never crosses the door to the troop's meeting place again, he has already done a great deal for them and they ought to be a little more gracious about it. And what's to say he won't be involved with a pack, troop, crew, or ship somewhere else as he goes through life? "Giving back" doesn't always happen in a linear fashion, but I'm willing to bet he'll use the skills, tangible and intangible, that he developed in this troop to help scouts somewhere else down the line. That's really all any troop could ever ask.

John asked (several posts ago, sorry) about what I'm seeing regarding how colleges treat extra-curriculars like scouts these days. I have to preface this by saying that the school I teach at is not highly selective in terms of its admission policies, and so what I see is not the same as what might happen at the flagship campuses of a Big 10/Big 12 school, an Ivy, or an elite liberal arts college, where there is intense competition for admissions. However, there are literally thousands of colleges and universities in the country and the bulk of them are probably more like my school in terms of not being highly selective. (We're not open-enrollment either. You do have to have a minimum GPA and test scores to get in. But that means most people who apply will be accepted.) Anyway, all of that said - scouting and other extracurriculars play very small roles in our admission process. The primary determinants are GPA and test scores. GPAs in a school like ours are NOT typically weighted based on difficulty of curriculum and "extras" are NOT stripped out. We do not have an essay component of our application; the one place on an application where someone might indicate achievements like Eagle, or OA, would be on the list of achievements and honors - which, to be honest, holds practically no weight in the admission decision. We also do not conduct admission interviews - no option to highlight one's scouting accomplishments there, either. Most of our university-wide scholarships for entering freshmen are also based solely on GPA and test scores. Now, all that said, once you get admitted, there may be some places where being an Eagle Scout makes a difference. Personal relationships with faculty are important when it comes to applying for various in-house scholarships, and getting strong letters of recommendation matters. Many faculty will still be impressed with scouting accomplishments and that may factor into what they include in their letters. I know that it matters to me, at least. And we do have some scholarships for continuing students that are based in part on demonstrating leadership, and of course Eagle rank or OA, or various Venturing recognitions, etc., are helpful there. But for admission? Nah, Eagle is not even looked at. A good grade in Band (or what have you) will probably do more to help you get in to a school like mine than scouting will, because it will likely raise your GPA. I'm not saying that's always a good way to think about it, but that's the view from the trenches where I am located.

We still have one of the largest middle classes on earth, are still one of (if not THE) wealthiest nations on earth, and these days we moms are not forced into straight-jacket "wife and mother" roles, thank goodness, but have many more options to develop and use our many talents beyond the living room walls if we so choose. As for who started digging this hole? Well now we can push that back and back and back, at least to Reagan, probably well before him too. That's kind of beside the point though. Playing the blame game sure as heck isn't going to get us out of the hole. You do agree we're in a hole, don't you?

Well Beavah we will have to disagree. But I can't sit back on the racism comment. It is no less "racist" to deprive poor people (well maybe "classist" is better) of medical services, which is often the result of refusing to fund family planning organizations that include information about abortion (among other approaches - generally not in isolation) in their work. Let's face it. Wealthy people have lots of opportunities to gain access to family planning information and services; poor people are often reliant on programs designed specifically to target them, whether gov't programs or charitable/non-profit enterprises. Without funding for those programs, poor people of whatever racial background have few other avenues of access to info and care. This is completely aside from the abortion issue. But the reality is that most programs that provide non-abortion-related family planning services to the poor ALSO include info about abortion. So, until or unless the structure of such providers changes (which is unlikely in the near term at least), you either allow funding for family planning writ large, or you deny funding for it at all. The practical result of denying any funding is likely to be that abortion occurs more frequently, due to lack of info and access to contraceptives.

I've never understood why some packs seem to want to get really pricey and rent out banquet facilities or something. Keep it simple! We used a local school gym/cafeteria. Nothing fancy, low or no cost for facilities. Our school district policy was that we only had to pay janitors for weekend events and B&G was usually on a Friday, but we always invited whoever was on duty to join us for dinner as a courtesy and we made sure not to leave a big mess behind. Believe me it was worth the cost of feeding that extra person or two, to be in good with the janitorial staff.

Hey Guy, just a question. Did the summer camp have a lake or a pool? I know some kids who are good swimmers but just don't like the mucky feel of the bottom of a lake (some lakes), or the fact that they might be unable to see the bottom if it isn't real clear water, or the idea of "swimming with the fishes" either. Could that have been the case?