NJCubScouter

In the interests of fairness, the other side of the story from what I referred to above is here: http://tinyurl.com/6h2vsa and here: http://tinyurl.com/5zk62b. (I used tinyurl to conceal the subject matter for those who prefer not to read about it. As I said before, everybody has their clothes on, but it is a rather "personal" rumor that is most likely not true, so I'm letting you all decide whether to read it or not.) The first link is somewhat non-committal on the subject, although at the bottom it has a link to a complete photo that is cropped in the "Daily Kos" version. When viewed in total, I think the photo supports the view that the rumor is NOT true, though I can't say why without repeating the rumor. The second link directly tries to debunk the rumor. I found a few other things on the Internet about this (mostly anti-rumor), but you all have Google, so my research here is done. It's all kind of trivial anyway, in my opinion, but as I said in the first post, it is at least mildly intriguing for at least a few minutes. Ironically, one of the photos in the "follow up" page on the Daily Kos site (not the one I linked to above, but it is linked from there) has a photo of some of the characters in this drama at the McCain-Palin announcement on Friday... with one of the Scouts and the Scouter (apparently) right behind them. But I'm not going there again, either. (Edited to fix typos and clarify.)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

It is fairly clear that every move the federal, state and local governments (and the Republican party) are making at the moment is designed to avoid any comparisons (other than favorable ones) with the Katrina debacle. But I don't see anything wrong with that. The point is to avoid the same mistakes, and if part of the considerations are political... well, of course they are. What do you expect?

Back to Sarah Palin. I do love the Internet. I was just reading another web site (sorry about that) and learned of a rumor that apparently is flying all over the web about Sarah Palin and, um, certain other members of her family. I don't want to be accused of "starting something" so I won't say exactly what it is. Anyone interested in reading about it can see a long article about it here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223. (Edited in: From there, there are links to at least one follow-up article.) Added in by edit: It occurs to me that if this is true, it might (possibly) negate the criticisms that have been made of Sarah Palin by a couple of posters in this thread. On the other hand, it would not enhance her reputation for telling the truth. Disclaimers: I do not pretend to know, one way or the other, whether the conclusion reached in this article is true. I do know that this web site (DailyKos) is well-known as a liberal web site that usually promotes the Democratic Party, and has been accused in the past of having certain information that is, at best, speculative. On the other hand, the evidence produced here (especially some of the photos -- don't worry, everybody has their clothes on) is kind of intriguing. I figure that anyone here who spends any time browsing around the Internet will learn about this anyway over the next few weeks, so you might as well know about it now. I see on Wikipedia that it has already bounced in and out of Sarah Palin's article a few times.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Brent, as a lifelong Northerner, I personally think secession by the Southern states sounds like a pretty good idea. Have a nice country.

Are you guys having fun re-fighting the Civil War?

It seems to me that all of these suggestions about moving the ceremony, discussing this at a committee meeting, involving the CR or the UC, etc., are jumping the gun. The first step here should be for ''someone'', ideally the CC or SM, to have a conversation with the Scout's parents and ask them not to serve alcohol. If that doesn't work, then you can start considering other steps. ScoutDad, you have not said what your position is with the troop (if any), and you did not mention the CC. I am hoping that is you. Just talk to the people, and calmly explain why this event cannot be treated as a regular party at their house. Perhaps cool heads will prevail. One can only hope.

Fear not, Eagledad, I am sure there is a Sarcasm Management class available in your area.

jblake, it is part of the requirement. The requirement specifically says you have to use the workbook, and the workbook has all the levels of approvals and signatures. Uz2bnowl, Lisabob and others have the right answer. If done as a positive, helping experience, and not as a stumbling block, the troop committee review is fine. There is nothing wrong with giving the Scout advice. That is how it is done in our troop.

Eagledad, I think you can relax. Nobody is calling the cops. I don't even think an apology is necessary, as someone else said. What appeared on tv is not a "major issue". But it isn't every day that you see a blatant violation of BSA regs on live national tv. It is worthy of mention on a Scouting forum. As for your Cubmaster example, the last time I ran for the school board I put in my bio that I was a Troop Committee member, former Assistant Cubmaster and YP trainer, along with all of my other community activities. So you can get the rope for me too, except that there's no rule against mentioning your Scouting experience. The point is, I wasn't wearing my Scout uniform to candidates' debates or PTO meetings.

The Scout, it sounds like you don't like Abraham Lincoln very much. From other posts, it sounds like you are a Republican. If you watch next week's convention of your party, it is safe bet (based on past conventions) that you will hear the name of Lincoln invoked at least 10 times each day, and that is being conservative. (So to speak.) And I sincerely doubt that in any of those references, you will hear anything about him laying much of the country to waste or suspending habeas corpus.

I don't think there is any problem with them serving as the color guard. I think the error was in not having them walk all the way off to the side after they presented the colors. The nationwide tv cameras did not cover the flag ceremony; they covered from the beginning of John McCain's speech. The Scouts and their leader were standing slightly off-center, directly behind Governor Palin's children. As a result, the first time the cameras cut to the show the children applauding their mother (that is, the ones who were not holding their baby brother), suddenly you saw these uniformed Scouts and Scouter, applauding the Republican candidate for Vice President. (And of course, every other time the cameras showed the family, the Scouts were there as well.) I am willing to believe it was just a mistake, but it was a mistake.

I don't know, jblake, it seems to me that if the BSA makes the Scout go through multiple levels of reviews, approvals, changes, and having to conform to the different opinions of different people, the boy is being treated in basically the same way he will be treated when he is an adult in a few years. Seriously though, I think that what the workbook says to do can be done without overly burdening the Scout, if it is handled properly. As I said before, I have never known of a Scout who got hung up on the "troop committee approval" stage or who complained about it. I don't think our troop committee has ever "rejected" a plan; at most there have been a few suggestions for improvement of the plan. Someone else mentioned that a committee member in their unit suggested additions to the project, but I have never seen that in my troop. In fact, there was one project where I suggested that the Scout might want to think about cutting a couple of details out of the project itself, because what he was planning was really about two-and-a-half projects (though I didn't say it that way.) To his credit, he kept the project as it was and completed it -- though it really did take a lot more work than many other projects. The point is, this doesn't have to be a problem.

For anyone wondering, here is an article about Godwin's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law. I am not sure what it has to do with this discussion (Trevorum's joking aside.)

All I saw on tv were Scouts and at least one Scouter applauding political candidates as they spoke. What they did before or after, I don't know. Whether they had a letter of approval from national in their pockets, I don't know either. All I know is what I saw.

Bob asks: What makes you believe that the SE has anymore experience with this than the scoutmaster has? Maybe the fact that the SM made pretty clear that he had no experience with this, and did not know how to handle it, when he started the thread. You could only go up from there, right? If he knew how to handle it, he wouldn't have started the thread. And when he tried the option that seemed the most logical to me, which was very similar to what you (Bob) suggested -- try to have a nice, calm conversation about it with the family -- the SM got yelled and screamed at for his trouble. So now he probably knows less what to do than he did when he first asked us! The SM has only a few decisions to make He either calls the police or he doesn't. He gives this to the committee to deal with or he doesn't He talks to the Scout or he doesn't. Yes, and look at the answers that this forum has given him, in two different threads: Every one of those options, on both sides, in various combinations, amounting to a confusing array of different possibilities. I don't think we've helped him very much. Why would he need an SE? It doesn't have to be the SE necessarily. Twocubdad, in the post above, makes some good suggestions for other options. But it should be somebody. Someone else suggested the SE, and I agreed with it. My reasoning is that the SE is the person you call when there is suspected child abuse within the Scouting program, so how far a leap from that is a situation where you have a teenager sending a death threat to an adult leader, within the Scouting program? I realize that there are specific reasons for the SE's involvement in the YP context that don't directly apply here, but it just doesn't seem like that big a jump. As for the "overreaction" issue, I don't think people have really overreacted to this problem, at least not much. We now know that this kid's father has basically taught him that death threats are a big funny joke and that anybody who doesn't "get it" deserves to be yelled and screamed at. I don't think I'm the only one here who is concerned that this Scout may have a real problem, which goes beyond how quickly his Eagle project gets approved.

And it's against the rules. I posted about this in the other thread, actually I was typing about it as I was watching it. In response, several people tried to immediately change the subject to something that happened at a Democratic convention eight years ago.

I just looked at the Eagle Scout Leadership Service Project Workbook (this is the official National document mentioned in the requirements) and it says: "The project plan must be reviewed and approved by the beneficiary of the project, your unit leader, the unit committee, and the council or district advancement committee before the project is started". That's pretty clear: The unit committee's approval is required. The guidelines from our council verify and expand on this, but they actually introduce an ambiguity: "Troop committee approval for the proposal is next. The Troop Advancement Committee will expect that certain requirements be met, in writing, before Troop approval will be issued." So, do you need approval from the full committee or just from the "troop advancement committee", which is part of the committee? I think the answer is, it's up to the troop. In our troop, the "committee" that must approve an Eagle project plan consists, in effect, of "the Troop Committee members who are present at committee meeting, or at a troop meeting when the CC or advancement chair decide to call an advancement committee meeting on the spot." Of course, that isn't written down anywhere. I haven't seen or heard of anyone complaining about this system in the five years I have been involved with the troop.

Of course, it is going to get so you'll need a binder to keep the different uniform inspection sheets in. I doubt that we will be a seeing a new uniform shirt in my (son's) troop until the next Webelos crossover, except I guess for the boys who grow into the next size between now and then and find only new-style shirts to buy. Uniform inspections should be a blast now -- any item that appears on any inspection sheet is ok.

BulldogBlitz says: i haven't heard an obama supporter mention anything about... This may because some people choose to discuss their partisan political beliefs on forums other than one that is dedicated to the discussion of a particular activity that is supposed to be non-partisan, in this case, Scouting. It may also because some people know that trying to convince others to vote for a particular candidate is usually a pointless exercise in an Internet forum, especially one that is not primarily devoted to politics.

Bob, did the Scouts and Scouters who stood behind Sarah Palin's family today at a Republican political rally and cheered as she and John McCain spoke, also have BSA permission to wear their uniforms? (I know you don't know; it is a rhetorical question.)

In our troop, "committee approval" is required. Some Scouts do come to a committee meeting to present their plan. However, in most cases a Scout attending a troop meeting will ask the CC or Advancement Chair (who are usually present) for an appointment and will be told they can meet on the spot with whichever committee members happen to be present (usually three or four; we hang out in a separate room from the Scouts.) The main function of the meeting is to give constructive suggestions to the Scout on how to improve his plan and/or presentation before meeting with the District Advancement Chair, and to give the Scout "practice" in discussing his project with other adults. It is not done in a way that slows down the Scout's progress, and if the Scout is running short of time, it will be done at lightning speed. The purpose is to help the Scout, not create another roadblock.

TheScout, I am not really concerned about the age issue, on either end. In my opinion none of the candidates are too young or too old. My comment (which probably should have had a attached to it) was more a sign of my concern that I am getting old myself. But, as they say, growing older is preferable to the alternative.

Here is a page confirming that I am correct on the uniform issue: http://bsa632pensacola.org/policies/Uniforming.htm Admittedly it is a troop web site but the document itself is a letter from an identified DE in an identified council, and it looks pretty official (not to mention correct.) So, Eagledad, unless you have anything more official that is to the contrary, I will accept your apology in advance. This has nothing to do with pride or shame. I proudly wear my uniform whenever it is appropriate, and I actively encourage everyone else in my (son's) troop to do the same, adults and boys. But wearing the uniform isn't always appropriate, and when I am watching a nationwide tv network and observing an inappropriate use of the uniform while I am typing a post in this forum, it seems reasonable to mention it.

My concern with the age issue is more on the other end. I would be upset that McCain picked someone younger than I am, but Obama has already broken that particular barrier. (Among others.)

Eagledad, why do you have to be so nasty about it?