NJCubScouter

And apparently, the Goal Zero Yeti 1250 Solar Generator Kit is so popular, it's on backorder! They're all sold out until Feb. 15. (Or maybe BSA Supply didn't want to actually shell out for any until someone actually ordered one, and/or the company that makes them is building only to fill orders, with no inventory.) I also was wondering about the statement that you can operate one of these things "inside the house, cabin or tent." Um, doesn't the thing need sunlight? But I guess the solar panels are separate units that sit on the roof (of the tent???) and feed into the generator with a wire? You can tell I don't actually know how solar power works. There are these panels that collect sunlight and somehow that is used to generate electricity, but how that works is not in my field. I guess this machine that looks like a photocopier is involved somehow. It does seem incongruous in a Scouting catalog. Especially for the crowd that inhabits this forum, where most people think a night spent in an unheated cabin when its minus-5 degrees outside does not count as "camping."

I had never heard of Carly Rae Jepsen until I read this thread. I have heard of Train, and I remember my oldest daughter (now 30) listening to them when she was a teenager. I looked them up on Wikipedia and they had their first big hit ("Meet Virginia") in 1998, which fits into my recollection correctly. They had another big hit in 2009 ("Hey Soul Sister") which I probably heard at a robotics event when my son was in high school. They probably had a few hits in between, but I don't know them. I guess my knowledge of music since the late 80s is limited mostly to what I have overheard my children and their friends listening to, so it is kind of sporadic and dependent on the tastes of those particular kids. Train's music is difficult to describe, especially since I can only identify two of their songs. I remember the first one was kind of folky, in a quirky kind of way. Their second song is kind of pop-like, but also quirky. They are not a "hard rock" group, but I do seem to remember seeing them on a tv show when they were first popular, doing "My Generation." (Did someone mention The Who?)

But WOSM has dropped the WCA and replaced it with a "world environmental award", which the BSA has not done. Do you know why the WOSM switched, emb? Is the new award still affiliated with the World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund)? I know that is where the panda symbol comes from. My son was proud that he got both the Cub and Boy Scout versions of those.

It is totally reasonable for the BSA to decide on which terms it will allow organizations to affiliate with it. Peregrinator, we all know that the reason the BSA still has this policy is that certain large CO's and their allies in positions of leadership, in sufficient numbers to control the votes, have decided that the BSA will have this policy. In effect, then, these CO's are imposing their religious beliefs on other CO's. The decisions of the BSA, like any corporation or other organization, are the results of decisions made by PEOPLE, within the structures and processes contained in the bylaws. In this case, many of the people are representing other organizations, including religions. So I look at this for what it is: One group of people and organizations imposing their will on another, on a subject that has nothing to do with the core values of Scouting.

I doubt this will change much. They are still saying that "acting on" a same-gender attraction is a "sin." But if we are talking about the possible impact of this on the BSA policy, I think that really misses the whole point. The real issue is local option. LDS'ers (I'm sure that's the wrong term) have every right to believe that same-gender sexual relationships are sinful -- as do the Catholics, Orthodox Jews (most do believe that, some don't), Methodists (seems to be about half and half now), Presbyterians (ditto), and whoever else. And if they really, truly believe it's a sin, it's difficult to argue that they should be forced to admit an openly gay leader into a unit for which they are the CO. But at the same time, it is NOT reasonable for them to tell people who DON'T believe its a sin that they must still exclude gay leaders. And that's what's still happening in the BSA. If this new stance by the LDS church means that they realize that the enforcement of their own religious principles should be a matter for their own church, and not something to be imposed on others, then a real change may be closer than I thought. But I see no indication that this is the case. Maybe they'll surprise me.

There is some overlap in membership between our troop and the affiliated crew, and 13-year-old-and-up Scouts who have made First Class (including crew-eligible Scouts who have not chosen to join) having a stnading invitation to go on crew outings, but the meetings, program, planning, fundraising, etc. and the adult leadership are totally separate. Sometimes the entire SPL/ASPL corps are members of the crew, sometimes not. Our current and immediate past SPL's have not been.

I join in all of the above. And, not to detract from the solemnity of the occasion, December 7 also happens to be the anniversary of another momentous event: The first date between NJCubScouter and she who later became Mrs. NJCubScouter. 34 years, yesterday. Which of course led to the inevitable "joke" that I long ago learned never, ever to repeat again, if I know what's good for me.

I never thought I'd see this happen, but we recently lost a Scout to sports -- not unusual so far -- but this was AFTER he had completed ALL of his MB's for Eagle. Every required MB, and enough non-required. He decided he couldn't be bothered coming to enough meetings to get credit for a POR, much less do the work required for a project. And I'm pretty certain that he won't be one of these last-minute-returning Eagles that I read about on this forum, because his minutes are pretty close to running out. He could still do it if he decided to right now, but apparently he has decided not to.

00Eagle, I have a feeling you and I would have been in the same building yesterday for University of Scouting, but I recently suffered a little injury and won't be walking on both legs for a couple more weeks. I decided it wouldn't be too much fun hobbling around a middle school (right?) for three hours. I did notice the STEM class on the schedule back when it looked like I would attend, and would have been right there with you. It's always a good event.

Again those that demand tolerance offer it the least. Not me, I tolerate almost everybody, whether I can stand them or not.

I have seen a little bit of this. I was a major Watergate fanatic while it was happening -- while I was in high school. I even voluntarily wrote research papers about it in school, and followed it every step of the way. I have to say that my interest in this material today is probably somewhat less than it would have been 38-39 years ago. It's kind of like the anticipated release of information about the JFK assassination, which I assume is supposed to take place next year -- 50-year anniversary, right? If they release a note from Nikita Kruschev or Lyndon Johnson or Sam Giancana saying, "I was behind the whole thing", then I might show some interest, otherwise, if it's just more pictures of mis-shapen bullets and shadowy figures on grassy knolls that might be a tree or a person with a gun or an umbrella, nobody can really tell, my attitude will probably be, great, what are we having for dinner? In this case, I did look at a few random documents and what I see is a letter with almost everything between "Dear Judge Sirica" and "Respectfully yours" cut out, with the message "Sealed by Court order." Great. I can see things like that on much newer Court documents when I like.

I never heard of a blog carnival before. Are there clowns? I can't stand clowns. I mostly agree with Sentinel here. Obviously I want the policies to change, but it's the "boycott" idea that I have trouble with. The question is for me is, how does my opposition to the policies fit in with the fact that I continue to be a troop committee member? Do I need to quit? Will National suddenly change its policy because one troop in central New Jersey had to find a new person to chair Boards of Review? The guy who wrote this blog made his choice, and I respect his choice, but I have to make mine. It may be that if I was in his position, at the age of 21, I would have quit too, but the plain fact is that I "quit" -- meaning I did not spend summers and breaks from college with the troop -- starting at about 19, simply because my interests had moved on to other things. I get the feeling that this blogger has not yet had the experience of having a six-year-old son who wants to join the Tigers with his friends. That's when I came back to Scouting, after a 20-year break, and I haven't left yet, even though my son is 21 and long gone from the troop. I will say that one reason I have never gotten involved at the district level is that while I can justify to myself being involved at the level where the boys are, if I were to get involved at a higher level I might feel like I was giving the BSA more of a "blanket endorsement", and they don't need that from me, and they aren't getting it. We're all just fine with me helping my son's successors with the advancement process and with me throwing in my two cents on other subjects at committee meetings. Nor do I think there is anything to be gained by not buying a holiday wreath or a light bulb or a ticket to a spaghetti dinner from a 12-year-old because of some policy made far away that he doesn't know about and wouldn't fully understand if he did. On the other hand, if Intel and UPS want to withhold their funds (underline, THEIR funds) from the BSA, that's ok with me. If other companies join in, maybe it will do some good in the long run. It's too bad that some kids are going to have to miss out on something in the meantime, but that is the result of the BSA's decisions, at least as much as Intel or UPS. By the way, quazse, if we're talking "Semitic" here, the word is actually "Mashiach" (Hebrew) or "Masih" (Arabic.) (Had to look up that last one, this of course is assuming that Wikipedia hadn't just been vandalized by someone who wanted to mislead the world on the Arabic word for "Messiah.")

At the same time. But he must complete the ranks in order. And recently National has stated that there should be separate Boards of Review for each rank, even if the Scout has otherwise completed two (or even three) ranks at the same time.

Seattle Pioneer, I think you are getting hung up on semantics here, but as far as I can tell it is a semantic issue that has been created by you, not by the courts. As I explained above, what you are calling "enforcement" is just the courts applying the law to the facts in order to decide cases. Not only is that well within their constitutional authority, it is their basic function. And by the way, section 5 of the 14th Amendment merely means that the Congress is given the authority to pass legislation that will carry out the rights granted by the amendment. As just one example, it is doubtful that Congress would have had the authority to pass the Voting Rights Act were it not for the authority granted by the 14th Amendment. But it does not deprive the other branches of their obligation and authority with respect to the provisions of that amendment. In the case of judicial branch, that means applying the 14th Amendment as part of the law necessary to decide cases brought before the courts.

I don't really understand this debate about courts "enforcing" the 14th Amendment, on either side. I do like to think I know something about the law and how it works, so I'll just say something and see if it helps. The basic function of courts is to decide cases that are properly brought before them. (For the sake of simplicity lets keep this to the trial-level courts such as the U.S. District Courts; I don't think it's necessary to get into appellate and Supreme Court jurisdiction right now.) And the basic way that the courts decide cases is by applying the relevant law to the facts of the case. If the case is one where a party is challenging a state statute (or the enforcement of a state statute in a particular case) on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution, the relevant law will include the provision(s) of the constitution which the party claims are inconsistent with the relevant state law. Quite often, these provisions will include the 14th Amendment. So the 14th Amendment is just part of "the law" that is being applied to "the facts" to produce a result in the case. (And keep in mind Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.") If you want to say that the court is "enforcing" the 14th Amendment, I suppose you can, but there is nothing wrong with the court doing so. "Enforcing" may be a correct common-language description of what the court is doing, but it is not really a correct legal description. The court is merely applying the law to the facts, which is what it is supposed to do.

The election was not a "mandate" for the BSA to adopt local option, but no mandate is necessary to compel the BSA to do what is right. Right is mandate enough, and it existed before the election. Will a continuing series of decisions by various segments of the public to accept gay people as full-fledged fellow human beings make it increasingly easier for the current BSA leadership to change it's policy -- or if you prefer, more difficult for them NOT to change? Perhaps. But I continue to believe, with sorrow, that the change will be made only by a future leadership -- and perhaps a future generation of leaders.

Today, some portions of my town where power had been restored lost it again. I spoke with one of my friends who lives in one of those areas, and I can't even describe the level of frustration I was hearing. I can't blame her. And some people are starting to grumble that the power companies' self-described Herculean efforts aren't enough. Most of New Jersey, including where I live, is on odd-even gas rationing, and the lines at gas stations have exceeded three miles (probably more.) It's like the energy crises from the 70's all over again, except that now the cars are competing with lines of people on foot trying to get gasoline for their emergency generators. With about 80 percent of power now restored, I am not sure why the lines of people on foot lining up with their gas cans seem to be getting LONGER, but they are. Maybe the nor'easter predicted for Wednesday has something to do with it. More trees are going to be knocked into power lines, including some weakened from Sandy, so this could get pretty bad, again.

No llamas were harmed in the making of this advertisement.

Coincidentally, when I made my last post in this thread (Weds. around 11 a.m. Eastern), power was just going on at my house (give or take 15 minutes.) I did not know that until several hours later, though. So we were without power for about 40 hours, which made us better off than a lot of others. My mother just got her power back yesterday (Saturday.) That meant the difference between losing almost no food from our refrigator/freezer, as in our case, and losing all of it, as in my mother's case. (Actually, if we had been without power for about five more hours we would have chucked everything as well.) As of the last email update from the power company, about 75 percent had their power restored, but I think that excludes the coastal areas that were completely devastated. One of my brothers lives in one of those areas, and has not been able to get back to his primary residence, which fortunately he only rents, and he has other places to stay. My home Internet, cable and phone service did not come back until yesterday, so it was out five full days. My office building, for whatever reason, got power back Tuesday afternoon but lost it again Thursday morning, and as far I know doesn't have it back. I do have a story similar to OGE's Facebook story. Now that we can watch tv again, we have noticed that the cable company is incessantly running ads on almost all channels saying how hard they are working to restore "your" cable service, Internet etc. Well, if we were still waiting for it, we couldn't see the ad! Now, they may be running it so that if someone is staying with someone who has cable/Internet/phone, they can hear what is being done to restore their service back at home - but it isn't worded that way. And all the people I know of who are staying with other people, or in hotels, are doing so because they have no electricity at home, and cable/Internet are pretty far down the list of priorities. Though I do think my son would suffer actual physical injury if he was without the Internet for more than a day, so fortunately he has been in his dorm at college through this whole thing - also in New Jersey, but he was only without power for about 24 hours, and his Internet came back at the same time. His classes were cancelled all week, but the dining hall at his school remained open the whole time, so after he got his power back there was little thought of his coming home - he was better off than we were! He did come home yesterday to help me clean up around our property. And after all that, there were aspects of this that were really nowhere nearly as bad as expected. The amount of rain was not as much as expected, with the result that the rivers in my area did not flood. While there obviously was a lot of flooding at the Shore, there was very little inland. We have had much smaller storms with a lot more flooding from the rivers. When those things happen, our troop gets mobilized to help set up emergency shelters and serve food, and while some of those were opened here and there, none were opened where our troop would have been called upon to help out.

Hey the SpiralScouts support paganism. I believe they call it "Wicca." And I believe that they allow in members of any religion, including atheists. But I believe the organizers of the group are Wiccans and much of the symbolism, terminology, etc. is derived from Wicca.

Leaving aside the perennial issue of whether "Scout accounts" (by whatever name) are a good idea or not, and just sticking to SM Travis's questions: Is this deficit ($2,300 in the red) normal? I only have one troop's worth of experience in this, so I do not know what is "normal", but I will tell you that it sounds like a very bad situation. It would not be permitted to happen in our troop (and for how we avoid that, see my answer to your second question.) In my 10 years in my troop, there was one year when we ended the school year about $400 or $500 "in the red" after "Scout accounts" (that's not what we call it) were taken into consideration. We did not panic because we knew that (since summer camp had already been paid for) there were going to be no significant expenses until after the fall dues had been collected, and that would bring in about three times the "deficit." If that were the situation you were facing -- in other words, if the "deficit" only occurred in the past few months and money was coming in that would erase the "deficit" within a short time -- I would not be so concerned. However, based on the amount, I am guessing that this "deficit" has existed for some time and there is probably no immediate prospect for correcting it. If that is the case, you need to do something (keep reading.) Before I get to that though, I keep putting "deficit" in quotes, because what you really have here is a debt, owed by the troop to the boys. It may not be a legally enforceable debt, which gets back into the question of whether these "accounts" are a good idea or not, which I don't wish to get into. Let's call it a "moral debt", because the boys have been told that that $3,000 is "their money", and the money isn't there. So if you look at it that way, the troop (which is not a legally recognized entity) has a debt that far exceeds the funds available to repay it. What do you think your CO (which IS presumably a legally recognized entity, which owns all the funds in your account) would say if they learned that what they actually owned was a debt? How much does our troop "keep" from fundraising? A lot more than yours, and I think that is the root of your problem. We have one major "sale" fundraiser a year. I'll keep this simple and just talk about gross profit (what the troop gets from the customers minus what we pay to the supplier of the items), and all of these numbers are estimates based on my understanding of the cost of the items. The profit on the first x number of items sold by each Scout goes to the troop, 100%. This works out to the first $80 or so, per Scout (and that amount is considered the "quota" that each Scout is expected to sell, at a minimum, though there is no penalty for failing to do so.) After that, the Scout gets credited for what amounts to about 25 percent of the profit. (It is actually based on a fixed amount per item, but I don't wish to be that specific here.) So if I am doing my math correctly, if the Scout sells an amount that would produce $240 in profit, he is credited nothing for the first $80 and $40 for the next $160, so in that example his "share" actually amounts to about 16.6 percent of the total. I guess that is why we don't run a "debt" very often. We do have other fundraisers, such as chili dinners, pancake breakfasts, etc., usually two per year. For these, we have decided that the easiest way to do the "accounts" is to credit each Scout who actively participates in cooking, serving, waiting tables, cleaning up, etc. etc. an equal amount. I would just be guessing as to what share of the profits this amounts to, but once again I am going to guess that the total "Scout share" amounts to 15 to 25 percent of the total profits. (The profit varies widely from event to event because sometimes we can get the food suppliers to donate all or part of what we need, and sometimes we can't.) Another way to look at this is, the "philosophy" of our fundraisers is that they are TROOP fundraisers, and the "accounts" are mostly an incentive to sell as much as possible, or in the case of the meal fundraisers, a token of appreciation for helping out. In your case, the tail seems to be wagging the dog, since the troop seems to be getting only a small fraction of the profits. And that is why your troop owes a "debt" to its own youth members, which it cannot pay.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Rdclements: Good point, but the assistant may also be employed by the Secret Service. No? Who produced the $ when President Clinton would jog by McD's and decide to stop in for a Big Mac? Pint, "Scout popcorn" is just popcorn that is sold by Scouting units as a fund raiser. While it is one of many fund raising programs, it is well known because many councils use it and promote it to their units (and the councils get a percentage of the money.) By the way, Kate is the Queen's granddaughter in law, not her daughter in law.

The problem is, how would any of us (or any of the people signing the petition) know whether all of this is true, or whether the things that are alleged to have been said were really said? This is one of the reasons I generally don't sign petitions, especially ones that depend on facts that I can't verify. Obviously nobody condones racial discrimination in giving out awards, but I am not going to decide that that is what happened based on the statement of one person.

I bet that the Queen never bought anything from a Boy Scout. The question is, when the Queen is out mingling with the public, does she have someone she can turn to and say "Money", and the person produces a 20-dollar-bill? (Excuse me, a 20-pound note.) Or shouldn't I assume the Queen mingles with the public? We do know that one of her grandsons (and presumptive successor, eventually) sometimes mingles with Boy Scout leaders, at least, and even wears a neckerchief while doing so, as seen in this photo from the 2007 World Jamboree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2007_WSJ_Prince_William.jpg And the more I think about it, the more I like the fact that a President of the United States, when seeing an opportunity to provide a great and memorable experience to a six-year-old, has the ability (and presence of mind) to say "Money", and there's the money, and the happy six-year-old.

The fact that one program is nonsecterian in it's approach and the other isn't, doesn't mean that they don't have some common goals and aims that can make working together advantageous to both groups.....except to people who object to religion in general and Christianity in particular. I disagree with your "exception", because I think there are religious people, including Christians, who prefer that their youth organization be nonsectarian. Personally, I have no problem with local units of different organizations working together if they perceive a mutual benefit from doing so. I just don't see why the BSA is "pushing" the relationship on a national level -- and I would define the Scouting magazine article as part of "pushing" it. I don't see anyone here going out and creating a nonsectarian female "companion" program to the BSA to counter AHG. Obviously the GSUSA isn't it. I think that depends on what you mean by "companion" program. I think it also depends what part of the country you are in. Around here, if you ask people to name a large youth organization for boys and girls, respectively, most people will say, the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts, respectively. Of the families in our troop that have daughters as well as sons, it seems like the majority of the girls are (or were) in the Girl Scouts. On the other hand, I have never seen an American Heritage Girl. (Nor have I ever seen a Varsity Scout -- not counting Venture Patrol or Venturing Crew members wearing the wrong-colored shoulder loop.) Besides, what with the changes coming down the pike with doing away with the Venturing and Cub oaths and laws and adopting the Boy Scouts, I think it is only a matter of a few years before we see a coed program top to bottom and that will leave AHG out of the picture. I don't get the connection between having Cub Scouts and Venturers say the Scout Oath, and allowing females to be Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts. But maybe that is the subject for another thread.