Lisabob

Webelos. 9-10-11 year old kids are such fun. They're old enough that you can have great conversations about a range of topics and that they can do some more adventurous physical activities, but young enough that they still think adults can be cool, and they'll tell you anything they're thinking about.

I come from a troop that used to do BORs once a month and now does them more-or-less on demand (pending availability). We've gone through some issues with having BORs during meetings, which I do not particularly like to do. Boys and adults alike tend to be distracted, and the boys miss out on whatever is happening during the meeting. It is harder for the other boys who are running the program to deal with the in-and-out flow of kids during the activities too. So I can see your committee wanting to move away from that model to a separate time/day. On the other hand, one of the things that maybe some folks on your committee don't get, is that a lot of pre-teen boys (and girls) are creatures of the here-and-now. Telling a kid he has to wait up to 3 months to have a BOR for a rank he finishes now, well that's an eternity to a 10-11-12 year old kid. It is likely to kill his zest for advancement. So no, I wouldn't support this policy either. If the issue is "racing" through the ranks then there are other, better, programmatic (not bureaucratic!), ways of addressing this. A couple of side note. First: You mention that you and your husband (CC) are both new, just finishing your first year. Adv. chair can be one of the most stressful and demanding adult positions in a troop, aside from SM and CC. I recall being surprised by this when I moved from Cubs to Boy Scouts, because in Cub Scouts, advancement is really mainly about being organized. But there are a lot of additional considerations and pressures related to advancement at the troop level and sometimes it seems the AC walks around with a target on his/her back as a focal point for these pressures. Consequently, I wouldn't recommend that a person who is new to a troop take on this role unless there's no one else to do it. Nor would I recommend being CC or SM right away for that matter. Second: It sounds as if you are in a position of attempting to change troop culture. Good luck with that. Especially if the SM is well-supported by other adults, you will find this to be a tough road to travel. Also you mention receiving a snippy email from the secretary/SM's wife. Well she's probably not going to see eye-to-eye with you no matter what and she may be mirroring the SM's way of thinking too. Decide whether you really want to fight this fight. Long-term SM & secretary vs. 1-year CC& AC? The odds are not in your favor. Third: Is your son having a good experience? If he is, great. Stay out of the adult fray if it gets on your nerves too much, and let him enjoy it. No troop is perfect and sometimes you have to decide to put up with lesser ills. Is he having a lousy time? Then help him understand that Boy Scouts is a national program and this troop doesn't have the monopoly on it. There are always other troops to consider joining too. I can't tell from your post if you're at this point, but given the "other frustrations" you mention, I figure it might be worth pointing out.

The training I've been to has emphasized that there should be no "inappropriate touching." I've never been told there can be no contact at all. If your training really did repeatedly include that, then I think your district's trainers have gone a bit off the deep end and you should ask them to clarify exactly where the regs say that. I do think, in this day and age, it makes sense to ensure that whatever you do is within eye sight of other people though.

pack writes: "Teach it in political science or religion class. But keep it out of the science classroom." Ugh, what did I do to deserve THAT, packsaddle? We political scientists teach how the government works (or doesn't work, depending), why it was set up that way, and how it has evolved. If you want to have a culture war complete with the screaming meemees on topics such as abortion or ID vs. evolution, go do it in some other class. Please!

Judging from what I see in most packs and a good many troops too, it would be entirely possible for a child to be in scouts for years and not even really notice a religious aspect of ANY kind, with exception of the occasional word or phrase in the cub scout promise or boy scout oath & law. That will almost certainly upset some folks and I am neither advocating for nor against it in this post - just stating reality on the ground in my neck of the woods. As for mouthing the words without serious thought or meaning behind them, hey it happens all the time at school. Kids learn, hear, and say the pledge of allegiance on a regular (daily?) basis, yet the similar phrasing there is pretty much devoid of real religious content, at least as discussed and taught in most public schools. So in a unit where religion isn't a focal point, why should we expect kids (or even their parents) to take more serious notice of passing mention of religion in scouts?

So one of the things that I really disliked about the various Republican speakers last night was their harping on this business of "evil." Guiliani and Palin both made comments to the effect that Democrats don't understand or want to appease or downplay evil, while Republicans aren't afraid to call it what it is and stand up to it. Romney made some similar assertions, suggesting that "liberals" are afraid of protecting the country and other such blather. Red meat for a partisan crowd to get them fired up, sure. But really, really bad politics in my view. For me, that's just more of the extremist rhetoric that, as Beavah said so well, makes for good electioneering (gets votes) but awful government and even worse patriotism. If the best any candidate or party or strategist can do is to assert that one side stands up to evil and the other doesn't, that's not an honest or productive debate. It is such a gross over-simplification of the world as to be useless. Incidentally I also took deep exception to Giuliani's crass political use of the projected NY skyline behind him as he spoke about 9/11. As if only Republicans have a claim on the suffering that occurred on that day.

Hmm. A home schooled kid who has difficulty with the "youth led" aspect and thinks adults would do a better job, who also doesn't like camping. OK without knowing the young man it is impossible to make an accurate assessment. So I'm going out on a limb here and comparing what you've written to some kids I know, who have made similar statements. Your mileage may vary. Some types of kids find it easier to interact with adults or with kids of significantly different age groups, than with kids close to their own age. Kids who are extremely bright, only children, and kids with various social deficits are often (though not always) examples. In my observation, these sorts of kids struggle a lot more with boy scouting than with cub scouting, because "youth led" typically means that they will be led by other boys who do not understand them, and who they do not understand either. Opportunities for bad experiences abound. Those opportunities multiply on campouts (as opposed to weekly troop meetings), where there is extended interaction with less adult presence. There is no temporary escape while on a camp out, everything you do is with other kids, and an entire weekend of this might seem interminable for a 11-12 year old kid. For kids who struggle with social interactions then, camp outs pose all sorts of anxiety-inducing possibilities. If that sounds like your scout, it might be worth talking with the scout's parents first, and then with the scout about what worries him and what his coping options/mechanisms could be if he finds he's really getting stressed out over teh course of the weekend. Sometimes knowing that he can take a short break from the other kids, being invited to help the adults out with some special task, or some other "out" if things get past his endurance level, is all a kid like that needs. Another option might be to buddy him up with a very kind, significantly older boy who will include him and hang with him if he needs a break from his nearer age-mates.

For some parents like the ones who called you demanding to drop out I really don't think much of anything you say is going to make a huge difference. Some people just can't be bothered to spend time with their own kids. One of the other things I notice in cubbing though, is that there tend to be two groups of people. On one hand you have folks who have been with the program for a while, maybe as youth, certainly as adults, and they have bought into the BSA's approach. They may or may not be able to spout off the official mission and vision statements, they may or may not have gone to every training available to them, etc., but they know, understand, and want to be an active part of, the BSA program. I'd say the great majority of posters on this board fit into this group. On the other hand, you have a lot of young, busy, inexperienced, new parents who are not that familiar with the BSA. They probably have an overall good impression of scouts or they wouldn't be there with their kids at all, but these folks often do not have an implicit understanding of the program. They see scouting as one of many youth programs out there, on par with rec league soccer or what have you - something fun, something social, and probably something fairly temporary in their child's life. Especially in cub scouts where there is the greatest influx of new families, interaction between the first and second groups is sometimes a challenge. The first group can't understand why the second group isn't more committed to a program that the second group hasn't really bought into yet. The second group thinks the folks in the first group are a little over the top and they get annoyed by that. Frustration on both sides is a frequent outcome. I think that there are three things you can do to begin breaking down the frustration between the two groups. First, market your cub scouts pack in a way that stresses regular family involvement. Point out how it is different from other youth activities in that regard. The presentation using a rope/measuring tape/ribbon of paper where you mark off the amount of time a parent really has to spend with their child in life, can be powerful here, if well done. At least people will know what they're signing up for then (or if not, they clearly weren't paying attention). Second, once you get people registered, be sure your pack leadership is explaining to parents what the mission and vision of the program are, and how the fun activities your pack has are really more than just a good youth program. You probably need to be sure that your leaders are all current in their training, in order to do this well (some of your leaders may not have bought into the program yet either). Third, make sure you have a really fun program that kids want to be part of all year long, as others have said!

Barry I have written elsewhere on this forum recently that I think Biden's big mouth is an issue for him and we'll see how well he can control himself this time. Because of this, he would not have been my first choice for Obama's VP. But on the matter of expertise and grasp of complicated issues, I have little doubt that Biden knows his stuff. I have many doubts that Palin can show the same mastery of details and complexity. She could prove me wrong, and if so I'll say so. But so far what we've seen from her fits the following two patterns: 1) She's making an identity politics play to middle class, middle aged, middle income women by focusing attention on her role as a small-town PTA'er, "hockey mom," etc. In this role she's attempting to reach beyond the Republican base, although I'm not sure how successful she'll be. 2) She's playing the role of Republican attack dog (pit bull?) by taking the low blows at people's character and making fun of folks for giving back to their communities and trying to help the less fortunate . (here I'm thinking of her snarky comments about community organizers, etc.) In this role she's clearly trying to rev up a good chunk of the Republican base and I think she'll be very successful here, although the tone and substance of some of her comments might turn off the people she's attempting to reel in with the identity politics bit, above. While both of these types of appeals might be expected of a VP candidate, neither is enough to make them worthy of election. In addition to the above she (and any VP) has to show she has sufficient command of the issues that could land on her desk. Without doing this, she'll have no credibility from which to launch those other types of appeals. That's aside from her actual views and policy preferences on those issues. Given her obscure background and limited experience, first she just needs to show she understands the issues, then we can talk about what she wants to do in regard to the issues.

Brent, I agree that she needed to, and did, introduce herself, handle the spotlight, and rally the base. Most of the time that is about all that should be expected from any VP speech at any convention. Biden did much the same thing a week ago at the Dem convention too. Where I think things will be interesting is when she has to talk off-script on issues. I'm not surprised that, as a former sports journalist, she can handle a TV appearance. I agree she delivered the speech pretty well. She can probably use a teleprompter better than McCain, too (). What I want to know is, what does she actually know, how does she think on her feet, and what are her true beliefs (as opposed to what some speech writer scripted for her). To answer those questions, which I think are fair of ANY VP from ANY party, we'll have to wait a bit longer. The VP debate and appearances on serious news programs where she is asked to explain her stance on issues in greater depth, will be most interesting there. Also, given the nature of her speech last night (lots of attacks), I don't think Republicans are in a place to complain at this point, if Dems go after her now. (With agreement that they really ought to leave her kids out of it.) If you dish it out you'd better be willing to take it too. National politics is a rough and tumble game.

On occasion my son has talked about quitting scouts. My response has consistently been that he doesn't have to be involved in scouting, but that he does need to be involved in *something* that brings him into interaction with other people, outside of video games and school. That could be an after school club or community organization, a sport, a class at the rec center, another youth program, volunteering, whatever, but social interaction and connection to community matter and you don't build those by sitting alone in your room or staring at a screen. To my great pleasure, he has chosen (thus far) to remain in scouting, AND to do some of those other worthwhile things too. And I'm glad that he can honestly say it is his choice. I can understand Buffalo Skipper's frustration with parents who seem to let their young children's every whim dictate everything. Sometimes as well, parents who "offer" this sort of choice are in reality, wishing that their kid will take the unspoken cues and quit scouts (or whatever activity). Then when asked why, the parent is off the hook and can say "Johnny just wasn't interested" when really, Parents weren't interested in sustaining Johnny's participation. That annoys me. But beating those parents over the head with a 2x4 (or flyer) isn't going to work anyway. They'll just find some other excuse for their kids to quit.

OGE, Biden himself acknowledges that he did plagiarize some lines. That doesn't make it right, regardless of how intentional or inadvertent it might have been. But I give the guy credit for having admitted to it. Biden is also reported to have met face to face with the guy from whom he plagiarized, and introducing him to others at the gathering as being the fellow who wrote some of Biden's best lines. But clearly he knows it was something he ought not to have done. So while I don't condone plagiarism and wouldn't let him off the hook too easily, given the circumstances I guess it isn't a reason that many people would cite to vote against him 20+ years later.

We lost him. After the meeting between the SM, past SMs, CC, and parent, the boy did not return for any additional meetings. I have heard that he was considering other troops but I've watched and his name has not appeared on any rosters of any troops in our district. I doubt "mom" would have bothered to find a troop in another district so I can only conclude he's not in scouting at this time. I have mixed feelings still. On one hand, I know that the troop collectively breathed a sigh of relief and the boys were very happy not to have to deal with him. On the other hand I didn't, and still don't, think the troop was pro-active enough in trying to work with the boy's parent from day one. If we had been more pro-active, the boy might even have left sooner, but at least I'd have felt we truly did everything we could do to try to make things work. If there's good news, while we haven't had any new boys join who present the kind of behavioral challenge that this young man presented, I've seen a greater willingness among many adults to reach out to parents of other new scouts with special needs. I can't be sure that's a direct result of the above experience, but maybe.

kraut, your point about training and mentoring is a good one. On the other hand, we don't generally see people go from knowing practically nothing about scouting or the outdoors, to being Scoutmaster of a big troop with an active outdoor program and some knotty problems to work out, overnight. If I have things right, what I believe I'm hearing from Palin supporters is that experience and professional background are far less important than character and mindset. Is that about right? I'm not criticizing and certainly am not taking shots at Palin's character or mindset. (Like practically everybody else, I can't say I know enough about her to make those judgments at this point in time.) I'm just trying to sum up what I'm hearing.

I'd say no too. Just because some paper pusher from the district says it is ok (no doubt in order to improve attendance and the bottom line) does not mean it makes sense. Your instincts seem to be right on here. Maybe you can offer the new leader a friendly suggestion that he call the unit's UC or the district training staff to try to scare up a second adult who could legitimately attend with the unit in question.

hops, about the same as McCain's choice of Palin goes with his continual hammering on the need for "experience." (honestly? I think it is pretty tough to sell Biden as a "change" candidate. And Obama probably won't do that either. He'll continue to promote himself as the candidate for change, with seasoned supporters like Biden as simply back-up. If Obama is smart he will point out that Biden is not the one setting the course and so you can have both "change" and "experience" in one ticket. Now he could theoretically say Biden's a maverick in his own right and I think that's true to some extent - he doesn't act like a typical Senator in many regards. But my feeling is that Obama picked him to be an adviser and to shore up Obama's weakest areas - foreign policy and ability to get things done in the convoluted Washington beltway world. And on those, one must admit, Biden is quite a capable individual.)

ursus I never said Biden has executive experience. Neither do Obama and McCain for that matter. What Biden does have is 36 years of Senate experience, including long service on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Whether one likes Biden's viewpoints or not, I think it could be agreed upon that 36 years of national government service, much of it in extremely important committee assignments, translates into more than a passing acquaintance with the issues that the country might face.

Not that I want to get into a big abortion debate (please) but acco, I think that at least some pro-choice people take the stance they do because their most honest answer to the matter truly is "I don't know" and therefore, they believe that it is better to let each individual figure it out for themselves rather than to have gov't impose a possibly arbitrary blanket solution to an unknowable issue on everyone. As for the young Ms Palin, well I wish that every child who finds themselves in her challenging circumstances could have the love and support of their family. Certainly many of us know someone, maybe someone very close to us, who has struggled with similar circumstances. In that regard I can't imagine what else her parents could possibly have said to the national media. But to the extent that her daughter's pregnancy is a political issue at all (and here I'm in agreement with Obama that it really should not be), it is only an over-reaction to the hyper-moralizing and sometimes morally hypocritical grandstanding that some in the Republican party have engaged in, in the past. Not that this makes it right.

ursus, in a way she is (as is Biden of course). VPs are the bench warmers, mostly held in reserve in case something happens to the first stringer. In McCain's case, given his age and past health issues, this seems more important than usual to a lot of people. As for me, I sure hope that the bench is deep and ready to play if called upon. Joe Biden would not be my first choice for president, but at least I believe he has enough experience to draw upon that he wouldn't be in way over his head if something happened and he had to step into the job. I do not have that confidence in Sarah Palin. This is setting aside ideological concerns for the moment.

Whether they change their name from R.E. Lee to something else is none of my concern, since I don't live in that council. What I would say, Apache Bob, is that it also probably has very little impact in either direction on their membership numbers. Correlation is not causation.

Has anybody else ever seen the movie "Dave?" It is one of my favorites, sort of sweet and innocent. I've watched it plenty of times and half-jokingly, thought wistfully that "wouldn't it be better if things could really work this way?" But of course, even Dave ends up running for a lesser office than president when he launches his true political career. Well here we are, watching the Republican party prepare to nominate a VP whose story could have come from a movie like "Dave." Wistful, half-joking comments aside, realistically, I'm pretty shocked that so many people seem to be ok with her lack of serious national experience, or even lengthy state-level experience. She's been governor for a very short time so a lot of her claim to preparedness rests on her 10 years of local government experience. Is being a city council member and mayor of a town of 5-8 thousand people really the right kind of experience for someone who might be president? You all know from my posts that I don't think Palin's a very good VP choice, given her limited experience and most of that coming from very small local government which is another kettle of fish from running the country. But honestly now, I'm very curious. For those who disagree, why do you think her prior experience makes her qualified? (Not the same as "why don't you like Obama/Biden?") I'm not looking for arguments, just help me understand where you are coming from.

Hops I think that's a pretty fair question actually, and here's my answer (for what it is worth). Palin has something like 12 years of experience in politics. 6 of those come from being a city council member of a town of between 5-8000 people. 4 come from being Mayor of the same town. Not quite 2 come from serving as governor of Alaska. She has also worked as a sports journalist, has a communications/journalism degree with a political science minor. She has been a union member and a PTA member. Obama has an undergraduate degree in political science and a law degree. He worked as a "community organizer" in Chicago for 3 years, which means he became well acquainted with the problems and issues facing blue-collar, middle class and lower middle class workers. He was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. He taught Constitutional law and worked as a civil rights attorney after finishing law school. He has 8 years of legislative experience in the Illinois senate and not quite 2 years in the US Senate. Obama's US Senate experience and Palin's gubernatorial experience are the same length. I think it is reasonable to point out that Palin, unlike Obama, actually has executive experience. However, I also think that Obama is far more likely to have been exposed to more and bigger national and international issues in his time as a US Senator, than Palin would have been as Governor of Alaska. Further, Obama has been campaigning for about 18 months now and has been under intense national (and international) scrutiny that whole time, forcing him to clarify and further develop his understanding and views on issues. In that sense, the grueling Democratic primary battle was probably good for Obama. In contrast, Palin has not had that experience to force her to come to grips with the myriad problems the next President and VP will have to tackle. In comparison, I'm comfortable giving more weight to Obama's experience and I suspect he probably understands political issues on a deeper level that Palin does. Local government experience in small town Alaska is good and I'm not knocking her for serving her community in that way. But the order of magnitude is rather different than being a state senator for 8 years, or even being involved in city politics in one of the nation's biggest cities (Chicago). I'm uncomfortable with the notion that someone could go from being mayor of a tiny outpost town to potentially president, in just 2 years. Palin might, in fact, be one of the "up and coming" stars of the Republican party and maybe if she doesn't win this time, by 2012 she might have a lot more credentials. But for now I think she's far less prepared than Obama. As recently as about 15 months ago she said she wasn't prepared to comment on the surge or the Iraq war, and 6 months ago on a national news show she asked the reporter what exactly the VP does. Even supposing McCain is blessed with good health for the next 4 or 8 years - given her lack of depth right now, I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which McCain and his advisers would seriously consult with or seek advice from, Sarah Palin. Even more to the point, she is not ready to do anything serious on the international stage. Can you imagine her up against Vladimir Putin, or the leadership of China? If elected right now, I fear she'll be considered a lightweight in Washington and internationally, no matter her intentions.

Wow. If it were me, I think I'd be looking for a different pack, one where my child would be able to actually participate in their events without serious scheduling conflicts. I can't imagine pulling my kid out of school for a few days at a time, 6 times a year! Supposing that by "a few" you mean 3, that's 18 days of school missed, for scouting! In trying to imagine how/why a pack would do this, a couple of other possibilities come to mind. Are the kids in this pack mostly homeschooled? Do they attend a private school that operates on a different schedule maybe? If it is just a matter of the adults in the pack feeling that this is ok and school comes second to scouting, well then I'm back to "wow" and probably looking for another pack.

I've never heard of such a thing before in any of the packs I've gotten to know. Are you sure that you have not misunderstood something, maybe? If it were my child, no he would not miss school to go on a cub scout trip.

Brian I understand your desire to help the boys gain a sense of what's possible for them. On the other hand though, I found that with cub scouts, a lot of the time the kids were very happy with what was available locally through the pack. That isn't to say bigger adventures can't happen, but rather that we need to be careful that we aren't putting our desire as adults for something "more" or "different" doesn't take over. What might seem a little dull to us (pack or den meeting close to home, for example), might still be a grand new adventure or experience for the young scouts. I hope you won't take offense at that, as it is really difficult to tell via the web what the prevailing dynamic might be. I just know from experience that it is easy for leaders to get caught up in "big adventure" daydreams that the kids really have no particular interest in, or need/desire to do.