Lisabob

Our troop attended Rainey Mt several years back now. They had an excellent experience and those who remember it have been pushing to go back ever since. I don't know if it is within your 500 mile range? But we went to Camp Bonner/Pamlico Sea Base in NC two years ago and it was outstanding.

If you lose this guy you are also going to lose his 2 kids, no doubt. By the way you might want to check on the meaning of extermination. I hope that's not what your little brother has in mind. Regardless, troop membership is not determined by voting. This isn't "Survivor" or "American Idol." 2 questions and something to consider: 1) Where is your CO in all of this? If they are supporting one side or the other then that's how it is going to be. If they are oblivious then that's a different problem. Remember that the CO has the right to accept or reject adults as leaders for THEIR troop. 2) Who in this group has been trained for their positions? It doesn't sound like folks know what their own jobs are, let alone how to do them. Something to consider - problems in troops are often traced back to bad dynamics among so-called adults. What a shame. If the adults cannot get along in a reasonably civil manner then they should not be attempting serve as leaders and role models for young men either. Put aside whatever bad feelings linger between you and this other ASM from your youth days - they are irrelevant to the roles you are both now in. Sit down with ALL of the other adults, map out what each of you are going to do at upcoming events, maybe see if everyone would consider attending leader training together so you're all on the same page. If that doesn't work and/or you can't set aside past differences and work well together, consider finding a different troop to serve or stepping back for a while. (This message has been edited by lisabob)

Ouch, that sounds high to me. Our troop charges $30 dues. No increases in the 5 years we've been involved. The packs we were part of had dues ranging from $20-$60. In our area, dues over $100 would probably not be sustainable for many families and would have the effect of driving people away. Sad to say. Maybe the economic situation where you live is better.

Hey a ski weekend probably IS a lot of fun. I do sort of question how that fits with "a scout is thrifty" and hotel "camping??" isn't terribly typical of what scouts do, but then, if you think you can pull it off, go for it. Around here snow tubing is as popular, maybe more popular, than skiing. And a whole lot cheaper. You might also want to look and see if there are any scout camps with cabins available for rental, near where ever you plan to go. That can dramatically cut cost, can still be a lot of fun, and is a little more in line with what scouts typically do. Our guys (a boy scout troop, not a pack) typically do one cabin camp each winter and the kids always have a blast playing board games and just being goofy. They can go out and run around in the snow half the night and still be toasty in the cabin with little effort on their part (or their parents' part) when it comes time to sleep. About the fundraising business. No, technically a den cannot do a fundraiser by themselves. There's no reason a pack couldn't set up the fundraiser though, and maybe the bulk of the participants happen to be from that den. The intent of that rule, as I understand it, is to keep every single den from haring off in their own fundraising direction, causing havoc. If the pack leadership is aware, in agreement, and officially in charge as evidenced by filling out the appropriate paperwork, then no problem. We did a pop can drive one year. It amazed me, just how much soda (and beer) some families drink!

I think there's a middle ground here. One really well organized and creative camporee can be a great thing for boosting a troop and supporting skill development. But 4 of those a year is overkill. As mentioned it takes too much away from the troop's own program at that point and incidentally puts an awful lot of strain on the adults, because it is typically the same core group of folks who do these (at least that's what I've seen, maybe it is different elsewhere). What Neil describes, I think go to the questions posed in the "Older Scouts" thread too, particularly this part: " Creativity, imagination and initiative cannot occur in a vacuum unless one is a true super genius. One needs to have a background and experience to build on and use as a framework of creativity." The way a lot of troops seem to teach T-2-1 skills is "here's a skill, learn it so you get your sign off." or "learn it because it is required." What I would really prefer is to see guys be taught skills right along side of, "and here are some really cool real-life things you can do, once you learn this skill." Maybe that would help them think more creatively about activities they are equipped to do.

Ah, I see a few more Republicans have stumbled into the pro-America anti-America morass. Here we have NC Republican Robin Hayes: "Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) has conceded that he did tell a North Carolina crowd that "liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God," even though he initially denied making such a statement. Now he says he didnt mean it that way and he was just trying to rev up a campaign rally. " http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14797.html And here we have Minnesota Republican Michelle Bachmann saying Obama might have anti American views, that some of her other Senate colleagues might also be anti American, that there should be a media expose to find out, and then denying that she ever questioned Obama's (or anyone else's) patriotism in the first place! http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/10/21/bachmanns-campaign-implodes-anti-americans-run-wild/ Bachmann's (previously anemic) opponent apparently raised $800K already this week as a result of her comments. Are there any other October surprise Republican nut jobs out there? Because I hear that there are still a few under-funded Democrats running in close races out there who could use a boost. (sheesh!)

Hi ParkerMom, and welcome to the forum. You might get more responses if you post in the Cub Scouts area (just a head's up). Are the boys wearing the tan or the blue shirts? If the blue shirts, the bobcat can go on the top/center of the left pocket. If the tan shirts, bobcat doesn't go on there at all, as I recall, but they could put them on the red vests.

Ya know I could be wrong about how this would go over. But these pins remind me of the webelos activity pins! Why on earth would that be an appealing idea for a bunch of older teens? These guys need something to reach for, not what are likely to be perceived as "little kid" awards. That's why there's an emphasis on "high adventure" in a lot of venture patrols.

Three cheers for all district membership chairs! I've decided it is a pretty thankless job most of the time, but an important one anyway. Here's wishing you the best possible luck and great turn out for all your units' recruiting drives.

I'll answer that 2nd question first. My son's troop, for all the things I sometimes don't care for in terms of adult association method, patrol method, and advancement method, at least camps a lot. They camp almost every month of the year. Now yes much of it is the dreaded "car camping" but at least they are outdoors. So there are plenty of chances to practice most of the basic T-2-1 skills. As for the first question...Short answer: a 1st Class scout should be able to be reasonably comfortable outdoors under "normal" conditions, so that he can have fun and be safe doing other stuff while he's out there. Longer answer to follow. On the spot and without prompting or review: I would expect a typical 1C scout to be able to select a site and put up his tent without help, to cook (beyond ramen noodles, hot dogs, and pop tarts!) and clean up for himself or for a small group, to hike without major discomfort, to know what at least some common local flora and fauna look like (poisonous ones in particular), read a map and know how to use a compass, at least in a basic manner. I'd expect basic competence with "hurry cases" and with minor 1st Aid. I'd expect a scout to know enough about 1st Aid to know when he's in over his head too. A 1st Class Scout should have enough experience that he knows how to dress appropriately for the weather and stay reasonably warm (or cool) and dry on a camp out in "normal" local conditions. Perhaps with a short refresher: I would expect he'd be able to use woods tools in a safe and appropriate manner. I add the "refresher" qualifier mainly because many troops do the type of car camping where these skills really aren't all that necessary most of the time. Axe yards might be set up so the kids get some practice using the tools but dinner isn't usually dependent on chopping a supply of fire wood, when you are cooking on a coleman stove. With more review: I'd expect him to be able to use the lashings & knots he was supposed to have learned along the T-2-1 trail. Reality for many troops is that these do not get used on a regular basis and so I would not automatically expect a random 1C scout who wandered over to the campfire to know them cold. In terms of attitude/temperament/comportment: Knowledge of the Scout Oath and Law. A 1C scout should know about and respect the symbols of our country (flag, for example). He should know that service to others is important, and that his behavior (good and bad) has a real impact on other people. He may or may not be able to fully articulate how service and behavior fit into an understanding of character though. More often than not I'd expect him to be sympathetic to (sometimes annoying) younger/less experienced scouts who may be struggling to learn the skills he already has. He should be beginning to offer assistance to others without needing to be prompted. He should have learned how to adjust to (moderately) changing circumstance, improvise or do without when a non-essential item was forgotten, and put up with minor discomforts that go with being outside from time to time, all without too much moaning and groaning. He should have some sort of feeling for the beauty of the natural world and also the camaraderie that comes from sitting around a fire together, though again it might be something he can't clearly articulate. What I wouldn't expect: Crack outdoor skills good enough to qualify him as a wilderness guide. Judgment befitting an adult with years/decades more experience and perspective. Loads of leadership skills or initiative. Unwavering patience and stoicism. A deeper appreciation for, and ability to articulate, the meaning of the Scout Oath and Law in real-life terms. Sitting still for more than 5 minutes at a time. (these things will all come with time and maturity, one hopes, but in my book, 1st Class is merely the starting point for developing these other aspects.)

Pack212, that's not a bad idea either but please note that if a Tour Permit is the trigger then that doesn't necessarily mean anybody who camps must have completed this training. In my council, one needs a tour permit only when traveling out of council. Many units (cubs especially) rarely or never go that far away.

New SM needs to meet with the patrol - not with a bunch of other adults on the spot, though perhaps one or two within hearing distance. Have an honest conversation with them. What do they want? Why are they still there, if they're so bored? What would be fun for them? Maybe past SMs have not given them enough leeway to do much exciting stuff. Maybe they haven't really approached the situation with a positive attitude and haven't brainstormed what "cool" would be for them. You might need to encourage them to think bigger, and maybe help them lay out a plan for a couple of patrol-based activities. Let them have a little (clean) fun and adventure again. Sometimes I've noticed that mid-teens are easily stuck in a rut. They know what they've done in the past and they're good at thinking up reasons why they can't (usually some adult won't let them) do anything really different. They're also sometimes afraid of putting ideas out there for risk of not being supported by the adults or the group - better to complain about being bored than have the rug pulled out from under a cool idea. So you might need to do a little convincing that you really want to help them reach a little. But the exchange would be that I'd also lay out clear expectations of them, in terms of what I want them to do at meetings. Give them something meaningful and specific to do, maybe something different from the younger scouts, and expect great results. Don't let them cop out with just sitting on the sidelines snickering. Does your troop need new gear? Maybe a new place to camp? Put them in charge of researching the options instead of the adults doing this for the troop. Bring in a pile of good catalogs and Backpacker type gear guides one meeting and ask them to make suggestions. I haven't met guys yet who didn't drool over gear guides (the stuff, mind you!).

"one would easily see the dichotomy of red vs blue. That government is the answer does not occur to the people living outside the blue zones it is a fact of life to those within." Gee Scott, I think you're making some pretty broad assumptions, and incidentally they're not necessarily supported by fact. Just to fling a little sand on things I live in a fairly rural area. I'm as blue a Democrat as there is. I have good friends who are urban Republicans, though I pity them for their misguided ways. The red/blue county divisions also don't work so well once you get past the few really large cities. In fact, county-by-county breakdowns tend to show a lot of very purple counties on the map. As for Palin, I think her narrow-mindedness is showing. I think she probably meant exactly what it sounded like she meant when she first said it, and that's not a good thing in my book. Why we should elect someone who plays to the basest emotions to pander for votes, I'm not sure I can fathom. I defy her to tell me that I'm not "pro-American" just because I hold different political views than she does. (Heck, even Pat Buchanan agreed this "real America" thing was silly this weekend on Meet the Press. Not like Ole Pat is a flaming liberal now either)(This message has been edited by lisabob)

Calico, you nailed it. I'm truly sorry to say it. That's a tough conversation to have with a disenchanted kid, I'll tell you.

My understanding is that OLS for Webelos leaders is strongly recommended but NOT required. BALOO, while certainly a very good idea too, applies to PACK camping (not webelos den camping). Personally my preference would be for a WDL to have both OLS-W and BALOO training and perhaps they ought to be mandatory, but at the moment my understanding is that they are not.

Reading this forum for a few years and having watched my son's troop and other local troops in action over that same time, I've come to the conclusion that the way we do advancement in the BSA these days is really not that hot. At least at the T-2-1 ranks there are tangible measures and skill sets to be accomplished, though I am doubtful about the degree to which some scouts actually master the skills in question. (Master? Heck, I'm doubtful that some have even a passing acquaintance. But at least there are some specific requirements that set out expectations of what a T-2-1 scout can do.) The Eagle rank at least has a fairly thorough and meaningful BOR process attached to it, and often outsider involvement (district) so that it is less likely for a troop to just hand out Eagle badges like Halloween candy. But where I really see problems is in the Star/Life ranks. The requirements are vague, subject to all kinds of personal bias and interpretation, they're not that meaningful or exciting to many boys who see them as hoops to jump through, and the temptation appears to be to let practically any boy with a pulse through, only to try and "hold up the bar" for Eagle later on. This is unfair to all involved and causes the kinds of intra-troop fights among adults that we hear about frequently on this board. It can also result in souring other boys on the whole experience of scouting, and of rank advancement as a meaningful method in particular. SMs seem to feel they have to sign off if the boy has jumped through the hoops, regardless of whether a boy exhibits what we'd think of as scoutlike behavior and character, because to do otherwise opens one up to second guessing by higher-ups who are unlikely to back the SM's judgment. And BORs are frequently cowed into going along even against the better judgment of some members. To do otherwise opens individuals up to charges of personal bias and can tear an otherwise reasonably good troop to shreds. Because the adults involved have often known each other (and each other's kids) for years, all through Cub Scouts, it can be hard to set aside old grievances too. Case in point: Recently I watched a young man be awarded his Life rank. I've known this fellow and his family since he was 7. He can be a nice kid sometimes (when he knows adults other than parents are watching), but he has learned to be a bully and a manipulator too. Far from showing scout spirit, I would argue he is exactly what scouts are supposed to teach kids NOT to be (self-centered brats, out to get what's theirs) He learned this from his parents. Just in the last 6 months he's been caught breaking laws, damaging other people's property, pounding spikes into trees, fighting with other scouts, repeatedly using foul language in addressing other scouts, and causing so many problems in his patrol (of which he was PL, at least on paper - he didn't do most of the actual job) that the patrol was disbanded. Why was he awarded Life? As far as I can tell, because nobody was willing to stand up to his mother. Attempts to call this child on his behavior inevitably result in screaming, ranting, raging encounters with her. I know because I've been on the receiving end myself on occasion. Nothing is ever her child's fault - it is always someone else, no matter how implausible. And any adult who dares to speak up is accused of holding a grudge against her/her kid. The great majority of adult leaders in the troop don't trust this boy (or mom) and know he's a problem scout, not a leader and not a role model. Yet he was awarded Life at a recent CoH. The SM announced that this boy was just a few inches away from Eagle. I had to bite my tongue hard. This boy was recently appointed to a POR for the next 6 months so he can have Eagle. His POR? Librarian. My kid, meanwhile, wonders what value any rank holds, when a boy who behaves like this is granted the award. My standard response (the value of awards is in the heart of the recipient) did little to make him feel better. He noted that out in the wider world, Life and Eagle are understood to have meaning, and that people will treat this boy as if he were worthy of respect just by virtue of having attained those ranks (however he got there). He feels let down by adults he trusted to show better judgment than this too. This boy will get his Eagle and then I think he'll be gone. My son jokingly asked if maybe we couldn't just give him Life and Eagle at the same time to have done with it, since many of the other boys in the troop dislike him and would be happy for him to leave. But this boy is typical, in some ways, of how the advancement method breaks down at Star and Life ranks, and how easy it is for troops to misuse this method of scouting. It happens all the time (as seen reading through threads on this board) and there doesn't seem to be much chance of making large improvements within the current framework. So: my solution? Let's just get rid of star and life ranks altogether. Go straight from 1st Cl to Eagle. Make sure there are checks in place to ensure that a boy who is awarded Eagle has actually earned it. Either that, or just openly allow scouts to buy Eagle as an alternative to having to earn it. Color me cynical today.

Easy answer: the SM is wrong. OK, that's the easy answer. The hard one is, what should be done? Let me ask you this: Does the troop meet or do any kind of activities over the summer? While I think that the SM is out of bounds in terms of the actual requirement, perhaps the SM is also thinking that "hey, Billy here was a Troop Instructor yeah, but during that time the troop didn't meet at all. So how could that count?" In that case, while the SM is still technically wrong in how he dealt with it, the underlying thought pattern is more understandable and the best response might be different as a result. Honestly, if you want your son to continue to be happy and reasonably well-received within the troop then you have got to choose your battles. Depending a bit on circumstances, this might be one you want to pursue, but as noted, it is likely to cause some uproar. Is that going to negatively impact your son more than waiting a couple months for Life would impact him? That depends a good bit on exactly why the SM wants him to wait, I think. And as noted by John and others, it is your son - not you - who ought to be making the decision at this point since it is your son - not you - who is reaching for the second highest rank in boy scouting here. Once your son has decided how he wants to approach this then there are opportunities for mentoring and for modeling appropriate conflict resolution behavior for him (ie, he may need to be guided away from a scorched earth approach here, and you may - or may not - be a good person to guide him). And once he has had the opportunity to handle his own problem, a quiet, friendly, helpful, courteous, kind conversation between you and the SM and maybe the CC might also be in order, to resolve such issues for future scouts. But give your son some space to figure out how he wants to handle this first. We moms cannot always make the world work the way it should for our kiddos, and consequently they do need to develop their own skills at dealing with such problems too.

We just did a palm BOR last week for a young man who turned 18 a month or so ago. He had completed all requirements prior to his birthday and he came back from college over a long weekend to hold the BOR. Actually it was kind of a nice occasion, had an opportunity to talk with him as a grown up rather than as a youth member and to help him round out a few ideas for how he can make the transition from scout to scouter in the next couple of years.

I certainly think there is a role here for scouting to play in terms of encouraging all scouting families to follow the scout law and oath - not just the scouts themselves. I can see the outlines of a good scoutmaster minute out of this, maybe at an upcoming Court of Honor where a wider audience will be present. I will say I do think adults have a bit more responsibility than eye rolling when they hear something along the lines of what you described, pack, especially coming from the SPL to a group of younger, more impressionable young scouts (or from an adult to a group of scouts). Living as we do in a very conservative area and being one of a small minority of liberal Democrats, I recognize that my political views are not widely held and even less so, it seems, in scouting circles. That's fine with me. I've had some very interesting conversations with adults - and sometimes with older scouts who have an interest in politics and ask a lot of questions - around the fire. I don't expect people to share my views. On the other hand, my son has been on the receiving end of "lectures" from other senior scouts, both about religion and politics. He was drummed out of some merit badge sessions at a summer camp in NC a couple years ago because the scout instructor kept calling him an atheist and other (ruder) things, after asking my son to declare his religious and political affiliations on the first day. Apparently my son's responses were not acceptable to this scout. On that occasion my son chose not to make a scene (though I sort of wish he had) and didn't say anything to his troop's adult leadership while at camp - he just stopped attending that session. If some adult had overheard this kid do that, I would have wished for correction to occur, not just eye rolling. It is a lot to ask of a young kid to confront an older authority figure and demand an end to the mean-spirited teasing. Not only did that scout/instructor cause bad feelings for my son, but he also modeled to all the other kids present, that it is ok to behave like that. No doubt some of them probably learned that lesson at least as well as they learned astronomy from the young man. And worst, that scout may not have had any inkling that he was misusing his position of authority, or for that matter, that he was mis-stating BSA policy (last I checked, non-Christian, non-conservatives are still allowed to join?).

Oy! Go debate abortion in your own thread! Quit hijacking this one. Thank you.

Yes Lieberman is fairly conservative. These days, technically he's not even a Democrat although he remains part of the Democratic caucus in the Senate (he got re-elected as an Independent after losing the Democratic nomination the last time he was up for election). If the Dems get a large enough majority in the Senate, I'm sure there are more than a few who would daydream about formally kicking Lieberman out of the caucus in return for his endorsement of McCain though. But still, W.F. Buckley endorsed Lieberman back when he was still really a Democrat. Beaver, looks like we posted at about the same time (and my response was directed at Brent's post). I guess it depends on what the basis for comparison is. In comparison to a lot of liberals, Lieberman is relatively conservative on some social issues. For example he supported parental warning labels on music or videos that contain violence or explicit images/lyrics. He supported NCLB and charter schools (usually opposed by Democrats). But I can see where some of his other stances (pro-choice, in favor of supporting stem cell research) do not line up with typical social conservative views.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

Michigan law says that people cannot campaign for/against anything related to the ballot. So, this year, no T shirts with buds on them (there's a marijuana ballot proposal) and nothing that could be construed as stem cells, or probably petri dishes either (stem cell research ballot proposal). Could you wear a "W" T shirt? Well yes, I guess you could in MI since W is not on the ballot. No McCain or Obama or Barr or McKinney T shirts though.

Gee Brent, the NR didn't oust William F. Buckley when he endorsed Joe Lieberman (then still a Democrat)...nor when he called for the decriminalization of many drugs, in an acknowledgment that the "war on drugs" wasn't working and a different approach might be necessary. Scoutldr - I encourage you to read C. Buckley's sort-of endorsement of Obama. I've put the link below. He comes right out and says that he disagrees with the man on a variety of issues. What he laments is the disintegration of any ideologically consistent and defensible position within the conservative movement. What he finds inviting about Obama is Obama's "first-class temperament and a first-class intellect." Buckley takes McCain to task for not showing either of these characteristics in this election cycle (in Buckley's view). Of McCain, he writes: "This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget by the end of my first term. Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?" http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama Buckley's point transcends specific issues and goes to the notion of having people in power who will really, deeply, examine the options that are on the table and then pick the right one(s). Now that may be naive. I do not think that any candidate is likely to suddenly change their ideological stripes upon being elected (though I think circumstances will force either candidate to be more moderate than they sound right now). But this willingness to think! Not to belittle people who have - and also use - their intellectual capacity to the fullest, even when it means reaching uncomfortable or inconvenient conclusions! Yes, I believe Buckley has it right that this matters a great deal, and seems to have been sorely lacking in recent years.

You may have heard that Christopher Buckley endorsed Barack Obama last week, much to the consternation of many conservatives including those who run his father's magazine & conservative standard, National Review. Today he announced his departure from the National Review. I thought this quote from Buckley, explaining his logic and his departure, was pretty interesting as a summary of the collapse of the conservative movement's ideological standards in the last decade: "So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say its a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me. While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of conservative government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case." http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired As a liberal and a Democrat, of course I'm happy that Obama received Buckley's endorsement, no matter what his reasoning. But I'll be honest. I'd be happy too, to think that the conservative movement had a coherent and sound ideology these days. I find I have to agree with Buckley's assessment (echoed here by several regular posters as well) that the conservative movement has lost its way down some particularly unpromising back alleys. It is always better to be able to respect your opposition. On that, I suspect Buckley would agree.

If you dig still deeper into the rules that accompany this Act, it states that the BSA is to be accorded access no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded to other groups. So, if there are take-home packets with flyers from other groups then no, schools should not be allowed to limit BSA flyers to a rack by the door. Note I am not saying that all schools abide by the provisions of this Act, nor that it is always always always in the best interest of the local BSA group to mount a full battle. There are circumstances under which picking your battles wisely might be more appropriate. But that's what the law says, anyway. (Also note this is all fairly new, I think from 2006 or 2007.)