NJCubScouter

I think the most important aspect of the elimination of the time-in-rank requirements is that the boys can now pass requirements for any of the "lower" ranks without having achieved the previous rank, which was the rule when I was a Boy Scout (7th and 8th editions of the handbook.) In a way it is a blending of the "skill awards" concept with the older rank requirement structure, and allows for more flexibility both in organizing a troop program and for the boy himself. For example, a Scout can do all of the first aid, cooking etc. requirements at the same time, or do them separately by rank. Although I was kind of surprised to see the elimination of the time-in-rank requirements when my son joined a troop, I don't think it is a bad change. The "discipline" of the time-in-rank requirements is probably more appropriate for the somewhat older boys who are going for Star and beyond. I am a little puzzled about the discussion in this thread regarding positions of responsibility. As far as I know, these have always been in the rank requirements for Star and up, and never for First Class and below. (When I say "always" I mean starting with the 7th edition, which is the beginning of my personal frame of reference.) So I don't see what change people are talking about. Apart from some some changes in terminology ("office" vs. "position of responsibility", etc.) and modifications to the list of positions (leadership corps in, then out, OA rep in, etc.) over the years, the basic concept of requiring a "job" (as our troop calls it), and for what ranks it is required, has not changed.

Without getting into any of the specifics discussed above, this has indeed been a distressing and depressing campaign. Too much "heat" and too little "light" on the issues, way too much focus on trivialities and personalities and on fake issues. Neither side is free from blame for this, although I do think more of the irrelevancies and unnecessary negativity has come from that side that I'm not supporting. Add on top of that, I live in what has apparently become one of the most competitive congressional districts in the country. It has been held by Republicans for years, but has been targeted by the Democrats this year and the polls are very close. We have probably received at least four mailings per week for the past two months and the tv commercials have been completely ridiculous both in number and in negativity. Many of the commercials, on both sides, have been far more negative than even the worst of the presidential campaign ads. So I, also a political junkie, have also pretty much had enough for this year. Fortunately it will soon be over.

I hate to be a wet blanket, or be accused of being "PC", but I looked at the blurb at that web page and found this: Aloha Sandbar Tired of hearing bad guys screaming "allah achchbar"? Head on down to Aloha Sandbar and take a load off! So basically this shirt is making fun of how people say "God is great" in a different language? Is that supposed to be funny?

scottteng, I suppose it "could" be defined that way, but it would not be defined that way by me. You seem to be proving the point I made earlier, that people define it the way they want to define it, usually in such a way that they are included in the "in group." Actually, I am hoping that you are just kidding but forgot the "smiley face." TheScout, I am pretty sure I know exactly what Governor Palin meant when she said it, rather than when she explained it later. I suspect it is the same meaning you are talking about. For me, it is one more reason not to vote for her. Your mileage may, and in this case most likely does, vary.

I think Eamonn's statement sums up my reaction as well. I have no problem with the message, but I don't think I want to be the messenger. I also am not sure how useful this would be in my area, because the information they are trying to get across seems fairly consistent with what is taught in school. New Jersey has a "family life" curriculum that includes what they used to call "sex ed" in the appropriate grade levels, and my impression is that this is very similar to what they teach. In other words, "wait, but if you don't wait, here is what you need to do." The approach is value-laden but pragmatic at the same time.

She did later say that she basically meant the entire country, but it's pretty clear that's NOT what meant when she first said it. I think most people would probably define the "real America" as the kind of place THEY live. There probably are millions of different definitions floating around, all self-serving to the person doing the defining. So when TheScout says that you know in your heart what it means, yes, I know in my heart that whatever it means, it must include me, since I know I am am a real American living in the real America. The fact that others may have a definition that excludes me, since I don't vote for them or their candidate, is mildly interesting but ultimately not important.

Beavah says: But there's also a chance the SM is tryin' to use the advancement method to teach character, eh? I don't see how an SM can "teach character" by adding to the requirements. There is nothing in the facts to suggest that this Scout did not "serve actively" in one or more POR's for a total of six months -- except for the fact that it hasn't been six months yet, I think he has three days left. However, if this cannot be resolved within the troop, I'm not sure an appeal to council would be a good idea, unless the Scout is 17 and Eagle is becoming a time issue. By the time it all gets resolved the Scout will probably be almost at the six-month mark at Den Chief anyway, and an appeal will probably leave a lot of bad blood behind. However, this should be resolved going forward so that future Scouts will not have to pass more stringent requirements than are in the book.

What else would rankle an Englishman better than a Scotsman in charge...and an Independant Scotland! Actually, at the moment the British Prime Minister is a Scotsman. (Or is it a Scot?) Not a "Scottish nationalist", though. I would prefer Sean Connery though, he has a much better accent, and he has done much more for the image of his country worldwide. For example, before I saw "The Hunt for Red October", I never knew that Soviet submarine captains spoke with a Scottish accent.

What mike said. Scouting is not a religion. It encourages the practice of religion, it requires a belief in a higher power (a requirement that would be met by the practice of a religion), it sometimes serves as a framework for the practice of religion or at least a belief in a higher power (i.e. Scout Sunday/Sabbath, wearing religious emblems, prayers at ceremonies, grace before meals, etc.), and by some definitions it may be a "religious organization" (but please everybody, don't start on that again), but it is not a religion. It requires no particular belief about the nature, name, and other attributes of the higher power (I'm not saying "God" here because then people might infer a Judeo-Christian meaning which is not intended). It does imply certain beliefs about the nature of man (i.e., we can do good if we really try) and the role of man (serving BOTH self and others, and country), but these are not tied to any particular religion's beliefs about these subjects. I also have to say to GaHillBilly, and I always pick my words very carefully when I (perhaps foolishly) say things like this, your views on selfishness vs. selflessness do not match what I have understood to be Christian teaching. I do not pretend to be an expert on Christian teaching, as I am not a Christian, orthodox or otherwise, but that is my understanding, and maybe some of the other Christians in this forum might want to weigh in that. I also think that most religions, and the BSA as well, strike a balance between duty to self and duty to others. You do for others what you can, but not at total sacrifice of yourself. After all, if you're dead, or living in a gutter somewhere, you can't do much for others.

rmonigle, The National PTA has been recommending for years (probably at least 10) that its local chapters not be the CO for any BSA units. Ostensibly this is due to the liability issues (and by the way, just because something is covered by insurance doesn't mean you don't have to worry about it.) If there are also unspoken considerations about BSA membership policies, well, that is their right as well. In any event, this is nothing new, and I'd have to think that it comes as no surprise to your "council" people especially if they are involved in CO relationships. The actual surprise is that you remained chartered to a PTA for this long. (The above really only applies to affiliates of the actual National PTA, and not to similar organizations such as PTO's (for which there is no national organization as far as I know.)) The real point is, your CO says they are no longer going to be your CO. What their reasons are, and whether you think they are good reasons, is really besides the point. You need a new CO and perhaps a new place to meet. You should be speaking ASAP with your District Executive to get help finding a new CO. I would think that with five units (if I read your post correctly) in jeopardy, the DE would be all over this. Maybe the DE can even figure out a way for you to continue using the school.

So Brent, what's the point of that first video? That some Democrats can be as rude and obnoxious as some Republicans? I knew that already. And besides, I am not sure that video shows what the "producer" says it shows. I hear a lot of yelling, but can barely make out what anyone is saying. I gave up about two-thirds of the way in, but up to that point I heard the name "Obama" maybe once. The yellers could be voting Green or Socialist or even Libertarian for all I know. Half the people "giving the finger" seemed to be waving it at the cameraman, not the McCainites. I'm not sure that a video that would barely get a D for a high school project is really one that you want to use to make a political point.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

When I was last there, our pack's policy was to pay for two belt loops/pins per boy per year, after that the parents were supposed to pay. I don't think the subject of "repeat" loops/pins ever came up, but it would not have mattered in light of the overall policy. However, I agree with BobWhite and others about the best way to handle the situation, and that is basically what my old pack did. We had sold popcorn for years, but not well enough, and not enough kids sold it. We seemed to end every school year "in the red" (there was some money in the bank, but leaders who had purchased things for the pack would hold on to the receipts until dues were collected in the fall and they could be reimbursed.) The year I became Assistant Cubmaster, we decided to make a more concerted effort on the popcorn sales, do a show-and-sell for the first time, jump through all the various other little hoops that the council imposed in order to get the highest possible percentage of the proceeds, etc. (Our first show-and-sell was a surreal experience, as it happened to take place four days after 9/11, but that is a story for another time.) The bottom line is that after two years of this, the pack was basically swimming in cash, was able to do some of the things Bob mentioned, and started to put away money for a new Pinewood Derby track. By that time my son and I were more-or-less out the door, but I suspect that the pack did start to pay for the belt loops and pins without the two-item limit.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Yes, it is "found money" for the pack, use it in good health and Good Scouting. I suspect that the amount of the donations is modest enough that if you start whacking it into pieces it is not going to do much good for anybody, but if kept together the pack can buy a thing or two with it.

funscout, just wait till after this Wall Street bailout and you find out how many billions of those 700 billion were wasted, stolen or otherwise misspent. It will make you forget all about your neighbors' welfare-subsidized cable bill. Was the bailout necessary? Unfortunately, it probably was, even though it should not cost as much as it will. But please, spare me the old line about the "welfare cheats", which by the way many were already weeded out under Bill Clinton's welfare reform program, probably the biggest cost-savings measure in U.S. government history. I am a little more concerned about the corporate and bank executives being paid $10, 20, 50 or whatever million a year to run all these enterprises into the ground. Next to that, your neighbors' HBO seems kind of trivial.

Ad hominem attack, vol_scouter? You were the one who called someone a "socialist." CalicoPenn didn't call anybody anything. (He did refer in negative terms to the conduct of a group of people, but did not call anyone anything.)

If I were you, I would insist on dividing this group into two or possibly three dens, each with a leader and at least one assistant. (If it is 10 boys to a den, at least two active assistants.) I do not see how one leader (and we don't know how many assistants you have, if any) could possibly handle 20 first-graders, not to mention their parents! (Well, teachers do it, but that's a full-time job with a salary.) I am not sure what the BSA guidelines are on den size these days, it is probably either 5-7 or 6-8, personally I think 10 is do-able (with two assistants), but 20 is really out of the question. That's a small pack, not a den. As for "conduct", I don't think a set of rules is what is going to save you here. You already have the rule that (as my father used to say when he was CM/SM when I was a kid, but I guess you can't say this to kids anymore) "when the sign goes up, the mouth goes shut." You've tried that, and they're still not listening. The key (especially at den meetings which is what I think you are talking about) is to have them involved in hands-on activities as much as possible rather than "listening." They are 6 years old and they have probably already been in school all day, their attention span is about 10 seconds. Plus, the last time I was a Cub Scouter (about 5 years ago, despite my account name), in Tigers the parents were supposed to be with the boys at all meetings and activities, at all times. If that is still the case, the parents should be helping to keep order. Even if not, I think a well-planned program to keep the kids busy, is the plan. I hope you have the "program helps" or whatever they are calling it now. Some of the things in there may seem hokey, but 6-year olds don't necessarily know what's hokey if it's something they have never seen or done before. And it requires preparation, you should probably plan to spend a couple of hours in the space between each den meeting making or preparing things for the kids to work on. There is also "fast start" training (maybe online on your council's web site) for you and your assistant(s) and you should take New Leader Essentials and Den Leader Specific training within the next couple of months. There may be a Tiger Den Leader Specific course (it would be a couple hours), I'm not on that end of things, but the point is that there is help and training and advice for you out there, please use it. But first please consider getting that den split up, and good luck!

Wait. Let me see if I can get this. $700 billion for banks and other corporations that helped tank themselves by paying top executives many millions of dollars, and by gambling wrong, and by doing other things, is ok, but $150 billion for the actual human beings who are the real victims of the resulting catastrophe is not ok? If you redistribute money to people who had money and blew it, that's capitalism, but if you redistribute it to people who never had it, and need it, that's socialism? Is all this written down somewhere so I can follow it?

Indeed gwd, it seems to me that God would just be happy that we get to choose our leaders, when in so many places people do not get a real choice, and throughout history so many people have not gotten to choose. (I'm thinking God might actually lean more toward a parliamentary system than the kind we have, but that's a different theological subject.)

Wait, are you saying that Obama has not taken a position on the crucial issues of quartering troops in private homes during peacetime (3rd Amendment) or state sovereign immunity (11th Amendment)? I find this deeply disturbing. I am going to have to reconsider my vote. (My son, by the way, thinks he is the World Champion of Sarcasm, but little does young grasshopper realize that he has merely learned at the feet of the master.)

First of all, it is obvious from that web site that the union in question is supporting the Democrats, so it isn't a question of "bias". If the AFL-CIO claimed to be "neutral" in the presidential race but was really supporting one party over the other (like, for example, the "fair and balanced" Fox News Channel which is basically the television arm of the Republican Party), then you might say they were "biased." But in the case of the AFL-CIO it is really just an organization supporting one party over the other. This is nothing new. Labor unions have always been active politically. Most unions in this country have generally supported Democrats, but not always -- the Teamsters Union were major supporters of Ronald Reagan. The unions see this as part of their mission to promote the interests of their members, by supporting candidates whose policies they think will best benefit their group. How is that different from any other interest group? And please remember that union leaders in this country are elected by their members. If the workers in these unions do not like the candidates their leaders are supporting, the members can elect new leaders. One might even say that since the unions are private organizations, they can pretty much do what they want, and if you don't like it, don't join. Of course, I personally would never say anything like that, but you know what, that idea sounds kind of familiar. It's almost like defenders of a certain other organization say that once in a while, or maybe all the time. What organization could that be? Wait... it'll come to me... right on the tip of my tongue...

If DC CD's post is meant to suggest that any of the major-party candidates in this year's presidential election is a "Socialist", then the title of the thread is very appropriate: It's a fairy tale, and has nothing to do with this election.

BuffaloSkipper, we have about 35 kids in 5 or 6 patrols including the "senior patrol." (They just reorganized the patrols so I am not sure.) As for age breakdown, I think we have somewhat less than half high-school-age and the rest younger than that. (I don't know if you were looking for more of a breakdown than that, it would just be a guess anyway.) We seem to have about 7 Life Scouts and 1 active Eagle so they are out of the "normal" BOR process. I believe about 8 of the kids just joined in the spring. Actually, I have been somewhat concerned that if we had a couple of really good recruiting years (say 15 new kids a year) in a row, the numbers of kids would begin to overwhelm the sort of informal systems we have in place and that we might start losing track of people. There are troops near us with 80 to 100 kids and I can't even imagine that with our current leadership and the way we do things. As for Scouts taking responsibility, there needs to be some balance. I think that kids (particularly but not exclusively those under 14 or so) need to be given the opportunity to show responsibility, but not left out in the wilderness if they fail to do so. If a boy takes a few weeks to ask for a BOR, fine, it's his advancement. Beyond that, he needs a reminder, and if that doesn't work there may need to be another SM conference and maybe at that point you just schedule the BOR for him. Some kids are shy, some are hesitant to talk to adults, maybe there is some problem you don't know about, or whatever. Ultimately it is a shared responsibility. We just had a boy switch from another troop, who crossed over in the spring, went on a couple of camping trips and summer camp with the other troop, apparently earned 3 or 4 merit badges -- and HAS NEVER EARNED THE SCOUT BADGE. I don't even see how that's possible. Obviously there was a failure somewhere, and it was not just the boy's. We are going to fix it and get the boy on the advancement track (unless it turns out that that's not where he wants to be.) We also have 15- and 16-year-olds who need a real push -- and I'm not even talking about Eagle which is a whole different story -- and we've had 12-year-olds who need no push at all. You have to account for the fact that every kid is different. As for Troopmaster, our advancement records person attends almost every meeting with his (or the troop's, I'm not sure) laptop and there is a printer in the troop room that he hooks up. Everybody who passes a requirement at a meeting (or passed one on the last camping trip) is supposed to go right to him with his handbook, so the information can be transferred into the computer. The record-keeper does not have Internet access at the meeting; I assume he does that part from home. It is also his function to print out individual advancement reports when requested, and that is a standard part of the prep for any BOR, so the board can look at one sheet of paper and see what the Scout has done, how fast he is advancing, POR's, merit badges earned, status toward next rank, age, etc., for discussion at the BOR.

I've never even heard of him before, but based on his web site (http://www.robertbirkby.com/index.html) he would probably have something interesting to say. If the photos on his site (on the sub-pages) are any indication, even if he just showed some of his photos it would be interesting.

How could he work for someone when he had appointed that person and could fire him. I've seen that happen, but in a different way. The IH is not barred from holding any other position. I have seen IH's (specifically PTO presidents) whose sons joined the Cub pack and the IH became a Den Leader. This could conceivably create a problem as the IH appoints the CR who appoints the CC, who together with the CR approves all leaders, including in this case, the IH as DL. (I love acronyms.) I never saw it become a problem though.

BobWhite and DeanRx are right. And thanks Dean for the verbatim quote, it does clarify the situation. What California-commissioner-guy did definitely seems like a misuse of his title and the name of Scouting. On the other hand, Dean, there is no problem with mentioning your Scouting affiliation in your candidate bio if you run. You may want to re-read the previous posts in this thread, this specific subject has already been discussed and resolved. Someone (*looking around*) even gave a real-world example of when he did it when running for school board. Come to think of it, one of his opponents in one election identified himself as an Eagle Scout with a local troop. Eagle Scout beat Troop Committee Member in that case, but neither violated any rules.