NJCubScouter

That's right, Acco, and woe betide (heaven help?) anyone who draws a picture of God (or to Trinitarians, God the Father) or who owns any such depictions (such a print of the Creation of Adam by Michelangelo or paintings by any of 1,000 other Christian artists), since they are sinning against God! (According to both the Jewish and Islamic faiths anyway, not to mention the first 1,000 years or so of Christianity -- no pictures of God (the Father) allowed.) And as for food, not only pork, but how about lobster and shrimp. No good -- says so in the Bible, Exodus I believe, or maybe Leviticus. Never could keep those straight. Cheeseburger, forget it, though the Biblical prohibition on this is a little more obscure and "interpretivist." I believe the Book says thou shalt not cook a young lamb (or something like that) in its mother's milk, but how that got translated into my great-grandmothers thinking they needed to have separate sets of dishes to serve meat and dairy, and never in the same meal, I'm not sure. Well, I am sure, some medieval rabbi said so, but you know what I mean. The point here, and I have made it here a few times over the years, is that no matter how "moral" someone thinks they are, and no matter how observant of the Word of God someone thinks they are, there is always someone else for whom that person is a relativist, blasphemer, etc. There's always someone with a "higher" standard than yours. God says it's ok to have a beer? Only God in English (or is that German), because God in Arabic (Allah) says it isn't. (I always have to laugh a little when far-right fundamentalists of the majority religion in this country refer to "radical Islamists". Leaving aside the issue of violence, it seems to me it's the same league, different team.)

I will add, I have never heard of a charter being suspended, although I have no doubt that it could happen under the "right" circumstances. In more than nine years in this forum I don't recall anyone ever saying that their charter had been suspended. I have seen delays in rechartering because paperwork was submitted late and/or was incomplete or incorrect, and I have heard of charters lapsing because the unit ran out of Scouts, but that is not the same as being "suspended", which implies that some wrongdoing occurred.

Unless I am mistaken, having less than the minimum number of members would not cause a charter to be "suspended." It would cause the charter not to be renewed at recharter time. In other words, if the charter period is April 1 to March 30, and between June and December a troop dips down to three boys, but by March is back up to five and recharters with five, everything is ok. Right? I guess another way of looking at it is if you chartered with five, even though two boys "quit", all five are still registered until recharter time, so the BSA does not care. I'm not sure the same applies to adult leaders. If a Scoutmaster tells council that they have quit, council is probably going to want to see an application from a new Scoutmaster fairly quickly. But under most circumstances, council would never know if a unit is without a "required position" for a few months between recharters. But I have a feeling the situation the original poster has not yet told us about does not involve the number of members or leaders in the unit.

Actually, Calvin's Scouting experiences are covered, though somewhat confusingly, in the comic strip. See http://calvinandhobbes.wikia.com/wiki/Cub_Scouts

Well... if they CANNOT read, then how are they going to read and sign the adult leader application? And do you mean they cannot read at all, or cannot read English? I am sure there have been leaders over the years who had to have things translated for them. But I sense that that is not really the issue here. If the issue is that they CAN take the online course, but choose not to, I don't know what to say. It's really not too much to ask that they take the course in the way that it is offered, which is online. Some councils may still give the in-person course. I believe the DVD's are still available. Before last summer, in my council, you HAD to take the in-person course if you had never taken YP training before. After the policy change last summer, they have discontinued the in-person course. I suppose it could be done in-person by special arrangement if there is a good reason to do it, and someone who is certified as a YPT facilitator (in councils that require such a thing) is willing to do it.

It will be interesting to see how (and if) National publicizes this change to unit Scouters. Just sticking it in in the latest edition of G2SS is a good way to guarantee that the vast majority of unit Scouters do not find out about it -- or find out many months or years later. Most unit leaders do not read this forum (or any other Scouting forum) and most do not seek out every new edition of every national publication. Even in the new G2SS, there is nothing calling attention to the fact that there has been a change. So how do they expect people to know about it?

In many cases, including the context in which it was used in the thread from which this was spun off, "elites" means "them", as opposed to "not me" and "not us". The same is true for the term "special interests." "Special interests" are what other people are part of, not me and not us. We all have our own ideas about who it is that is ruining things -- and running things, and these days it's usually the same people. I have my own ideas, and anybody who has read Issues and Politics over the years probably knows what they are, but in this thread I choose to just make the larger point.

I have always interpreted that requirement to mean that no more than one week ("a week") of summer camp may be counted as part of the 20, meaning the other 13 or 14 nights must be on "weekend" camping trips. (I say "13 or 14" because at the summer camps we go to, a "week" runs from Sunday morning when the Scouts arrive, to around noon on Saturday, when they leave. That's six nights. I suppose that theoretically, if a Scout had gone to summer camp twice and had exactly 13 "other" nights of camping in a tent he had pitched, or under the stars, one night from the second summer camp could be counted to fill out the "week" and the 20 nights total, but I doubt the issue has ever come up because I doubt any boy has had only 13 nights of "weekend" camping when going for the Camping MB.) Clemlaw, I guess every troop is different, both "then" and now. When I was a Boy Scout (both before and during the "Improved Scout Program") my troop (actually both troops, I was in two different ones in two different councils) went camping every month. (Well, probably 11 times a year, the only trip in the summer was summer camp, but that was two weeks, unlike the typical one week these days.) Two camporees and a Klondike Derby (which was always an overnight, now almost always not, in my current district) made for three district camping trips a year, and then the troop filled in the rest. The troop I currently serve (I can't call it my son's troop anymore, since he's no longer in it) goes on 10 trips a year including summer summer camp. So it's all in where you are/were and who the leaders are/were, I guess. I would agree with you about attendance, though. The percentage attending trips was a lot higher back then. These days there are a lot more conflicts with other activities and a certain percentage of "I don't feel like going this month" which was a rarity in the "old days".

Calico is correct that we are doing an awful lot of speculating on the possible meaning of two words in a letter written by someone who we don't know. We are assuming that "current events" has its usual meaning -- which I think is probably the case, but we don't know for sure. It's typical of this forum that where the original poster does not provide (and often does not know) all of the pertinent facts, other posters tend to fill in the blanks themselves. I'm not necessarily criticizing that tendency, it's just the way things are.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

I have never heard of that but I don't necessarily have a problem with it, as long as it doesn't become the focus of the BOR and it does not become a "quiz" that the boy has to pass. As others have said, some level of knowledge of the world around us is a component of good citizenship. One way of doing it might be to ask the Eagle candidate to identify ONE important event or situation going on in the world today, why it's important and what he thinks about it. That way he doesn't get penalized for not knowing who the Prime Minister of Egypt is today (as opposed to yesterday, or tomorrow, and I don't know his name either, I just know he's new.) I think this would be the kind of "generic" question that skeptic is talking about, which would allow the board to observe the young man's thinking process. Another point is, since the vast majority of the questions in a BOR are about the candidate himself, i.e. what he has done, what he has learned, what his plans are, etc., it isn't a bad idea to spend a few minutes on the "larger world." In other words, it isn't "all about him." (A lesson too few adults today seem to take to heart, unfortunately.)

In our troop we handle it the same way as the rank badges (Tenderfoot through Life.) At the end of the meeting where they earn Scout, during the closing ceremony, the SPL calls up the boy who has earned the badge (individually, if there is more than one), the boy walks over to the SPL, gets a round of applause, the badge and a handshake. At the next Court of Honor the boy gets called up with his parents, gets the card and a parent pin which he then pins on one of his parents (hopefully without bloodshed.) The boys and parents for each badge or rank (Scout through Life) get called up as a group. If a boy has earned two (or more) badges by the time of the next Court of Honor, they go up more than once, for example if they have earned both Scout and Tenderfoot between two Courts of Honor. I am sure some troops have a special "joining ceremony", and it is not a bad idea, but we do not do one.

The first car I drove regularly was my father's old 61 Chevy Bel Air. (Seems to be a popular model for first cars for persons of a certain age.) This was in the mid-70's. All I really remember about the car was that it was black, had fins and (by the time I was driving it) a broken floorboard by the gas pedal that my father had repaired in order to counter the Fred Flintstone effect.) After that I drove a 66 (I think) Plymouth Fury III. It was blue. Parts of this discussion remind me of the movie "A Christmas Story" where the narrator is talking about his father's car. "My old man's spare tires were actually only tires in the academic sense. They were round, they had once been made of rubber...." Thanks to the Internet for the exact quote.

Thomas, as far as advancement is concerned, once a parent truly understands the Boy Scout advancement program, they should actually see it as an improvement over Cub Scouts. (In my opinion, anyway.) In Cub Scouts you get one "major advancement" per year. (I understand about arrow points, belt loops and instant recognition beads, but actual rank advancement is once a year.) In Boy Scouts, the boy can advance as fast as his interest, energy, and the troop program will take him. In our troop, some boys make First Class within a year after joining and some don't, but the important thing is it can be done. That's FOUR "major awards" (counting Scout) in one year. Isn't that enough?

As should be clear from my user name, I do not buy into any "bashing" of Cub Scouting (although I have not actually been a "CubScouter" for about 8 years.) To the contrary, I would like to see National actually accomplish something it has been trying to do for years, and that is to achieve a more seamless transition between Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting. I think one barrier to that is what is discussed in this thread: Parents become accustomed to the "Cub Scout" model over a period of almost five years, and then when it is time to select a troop (or decide whether to cross over at all) they are suddenly confronted with a totally different kind of program -- especially if it is a troop that is run right, with the boys leading the way. Another factor is that their sons have spent five years getting to the "top" as the lordly fifth graders in a program that starts in first grade, and now suddenly they are a bunch of 10- and 11-year-olds in with a group of older and larger kids -- and those older boys are running the show. It's a lot to take in at once. I saw this myself just last night at our troop meeting, with a group of parents accompanying their sons to their first troop meeting. A few of us leaders chatted with them as they filled out their sons' applications, wrote checks, were handed the troop schedule and summer camp information, etc. They had a LOT of questions -- and these were people whose sons had already decided to join the troop, so presumably this was at least their second opportunity to ask questions. A few of them did not seem to think their sons were "ready" for a week at summer camp away from Mom and Dad. A few of them seemed concerned about the age range within the troop, and with the idea that the primary leaders are the older boys, with the adults in more of a supervisory role. This is not the first group of parents I have seen who had these fears and concerns, although it seems to me that they are more common now than just a few years ago. So what's the answer? I think part of it is, as Lisabob and others suggest, building relationships with the Cub Scout leaders and parents, and not waiting until they are Webelos. But, based on reading this forum and what I see in our troop, I think it might be helpful for National to address this issue as well. Maybe there is something that can be added to or changed in the Cub Scouting program to better prepare parents for what they are going to see when their son crosses over, and why the troop that seems to be the "most organized" is not necessarily the "best." The time to start this is not when they are "troop shopping", but much sooner than that. In other words, parents need to be "trained", but don't call it that or most of them will run for the hills. Somehow the message needs to be imparted to them, in an effective way, of where Cub Scouting fits into the overall sequence of programs offered by the BSA, and how the Boy Scout leadership model works. Of course, we can all try to do this in our own packs if we are Cub Scouters, or in nearby packs if we are troop Scouters. But some more help from National would be, well, helpful.

I'm kind of curious as to what first aid treatment was recommended for unconsciousness.

I'd watch it, but I'd have to tell them who I am. Or would they care if I log in as "John Smith"? (Apologies to anyone in the forum who is actually named John Smith.) Can't "they" just put it on YouTube where I can just be the inaccurately-named but anonymous NJCubScouter?

BadenP, my use of the word "semantics" was not meant as a criticism of Mr. Mazzuca. What I meant was that it probably does not matter whether he used the word "customer" or some other word, in terms of his actual meaning. As for who he views himself as and what he wants to do and whether he is sincere, I leave that to you to comment on. Based on what you have said, you know the guy and obviously have a problem with him personally. I don't know him, have never met him (and don't personally know anyone who has), and have not even had the time to watch his speech. Based on what I have read of what he has said in the past, and from my admittedly limited perspective as "just" a troop committee member, I frankly don't see him as any better or worse than any other CSE who has served during "my time." (Well, other than the fact that as far as I know he has never been stopped at an airport with a gun in his luggage, unlike that other CSE from about 10 years ago.)

I agree that "produce" (in terms of numbers of Eagles) was not the best choice of words. However, I doubt that the CSE meant to suggest that Eagles should be "produced" without them actually earning the rank. It just wasn't the best phrase to use. The key here, as skeptic suggests, is what happens on the local level. It is the local Scouters (unit and district/council) who make sure that any given Scout actually earned the Eagle rank. As for "customer", I don't know, that could actually be a good thing if it means the CSE sees National's role as being to serve the Scouts and Scouters, rather than the other way around. On the other hand, it does imply that National has the "central" role in Scouting, whereas I believe the local level is where Scouting actually "happens." But I think the use of "customer" truly is a matter of semantics.

I have never known of a Unit Commissioner being assigned to our troop, and I have been involved with the troop for about eight years. There is a Unit Commissioner who has a son in our troop, but for that reason he is not assigned to our troop. What he does with "his" units, I am not sure. I do know that he helped our CC with some paperwork once. We did have a visit from our DE to a committee meeting about a year ago, I think she was just making a "tour" of the units as she basically just observed and did not say much. I think she had been in the job for only a few months at that point. Other than that, aside from FOS presentations, I am not aware of any "visits" from district-level persons to our unit. There may be communications going on through other means, but I am not aware of them and doubt that they occur on any kind of a regular basis.

Jblake, Do you know how many boys complained? (Out of how many involved in the planning, leadership, etc. (presumably the PLC)) I am just wondering whether this was just a small minority or a consensus of the PLC. The most disturbing part of this to me (and please correct me if I am misinterpreting the facts you have presented) is that boys who complained did it behind your back. From what you have written, it sounded like they were acting like they were happy to be running things, planning things, etc., and even took on more work voluntarily, and then (at least for some percentage) complaining about it to their parents. Maybe the appropriate thing for the parents to do at that point would have been to ask their sons, "Have you told the Scoutmaster you feel this way?" So, if my interpretation is correct, it may be as much the parents' fault as the boys, but the conduct of these boys is still troubling.

Beavah asks: Can someone explain to me why da Republicans don't huts adopt da Obama Deficit Commission Plan outright? It may have something to do with the fact that the commission report included such popular proposals as: eliminating mortgage interest deduction and replacing it with much more restricted tax credit; capping exclusion from personal income of value of employer-provided health benefits; eliminating tax exemption for state and municipal bonds (for new bonds); taxing capital gains as ordinary income; increased gasoline tax; additional health care reform including either a public option or single payer system; increasing Social Security payroll tax and increasing the retirement agent; and closing one third of overseas military bases. It may be that some people would favor one or more of these proposals, but together it's tough to envision the public clamoring for this package of proposals. It's even tougher to envision the Republicans voting for even more far-reaching health care proposals than the rather watered-down one that passed last year and which they are currently trying to repeal. I don't think President Obama has endorsed the commission report, at least not all of it, and even the commission itself could not muster enough votes to approve it. (I think it needed something like 14 votes out of 18 members to pass, and it got something like 11.) The whole idea of the commission was to take the heat off of both political parties and both the president and Congress by having the unpopular proposals come from a bipartisan commission. It doesn't look like it's worked. The proposals are there, but it doesn't appear that they are going anywhere.

I think the first "e" was just "filler" and the second "e" is just a coincidence. From WBLS they had to come up with a pronounceable word, and maybe they intentionally used the e from Bear, so now they had WBeLS, then they took the THIRD letter from Lion and had WBeLos (or we could have ended up with Webelis!), and just filled in the "e" after the "W". If you are looking for any more logic than that, I don't think you are going to find it. The conventional wisdom is that "WE'll BE LOyal Scouts" was invented to replace Wolf-Bear-Lion-Scout after Lion was eliminated, but I'm not sure about that. I think "We'll be loyal Scouts" was around before that. I have only a hazy personal recollection of this whole thing, as I was a Wolf in the year Lion was eliminated. In my inherited old Scouting book collection I do have a Lion-Webelos book which I assume goes back to the early 60's or late 50's and was used until the first Webelos-only book came out in 1967. I believe the den was a Lion den and boys age 10 to 10.5 worked on the Lion achievements and the boys 10.5 to 11 worked on the Webelos requirements, which (I assume) were very close to the Tenderfoot (now Scout badge) requirements. I may have some of that wrong, and I don't have the book with me at the moment.

I agree that the reaction of the administration to this crisis has been flawed. It is one thing not to know how to react to a crisis that is not really under our control. I am not convinced that any other recent president would have come up with a better answer. What is really disappointing, however, has been the multitude of conflicting opinions expressed by the various key players in the administration. You cannot have the president saying one thing, the vice president another, the secretary of state a third thing and an ambassador something else. All of those voices need to be heard inside the cabinet room and then the president decides on one single message and everybody else sticks to it. And if it takes a few days to figure out what to say, you just be honest and say we're still figuring things out, we hope for the best for the Egyptian people, etc. By the way, Beavah, I notice you're quite capable of writing without an accent... or is that only inside someone else's quotation marks?

Since it appears that Mubarak has handed over authority to the military leadership, it may be that the Egyptian people are about to re-learn the lesson, "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it." It's as old as the pyramids.

I just read a couple of articles saying Trump said he is still thinking about it. The fact that anyone would seriously consider voting for this guy boggles my mind. When you vote for president you're not just voting for a set of ideas (hopefully you're voting for that too), you're also voting for an actual person. Without going into his whole history, I'd suggest anyone considering supporting him read the article about him on Wikipedia, and then let us know if this is really the guy you want to be President.