NJCubScouter

Bob, I know you asked the question of John and not me, but what I see the SE being able to do in this situation is to give the Scoutmaster advice on what to do, when a Scout gives an adult a document containing a literal, specific, direct (though doubtless "joking") death threat. We haven't exactly been able to do that in this forum -- there have been about 15 different, conflicting answers. If this happened to me, I wouldn't be completely sure as to how to handle it either. I actually liked the answer you gave in the original thread, but I'm not sure it's enough. I would want to get advice from an authoritative person. This is a bizarre situation and I don't think you can find the answer in a book.

Eagledad, I did not say I felt shame at seeing uniformed Boy Scouts at a political rally, cheering on the candidates. Nor did I say I felt pride. What I felt was that there was a possible violation of the rules about wearing the uniform. If there were Boy Scouts on stage at a previous Democratic Convention, they should not have been there either. Nor should anyone have been booing them. But they shouldn't have been there. (This is assuming I am correct on the regulations, which I have not looked up.)

Wow, the reporter on CNN just said of Sarah Palin, "she's a woman, but she's a gun-toting woman." And viewers just learned (as I already read on Wikipedia) that her nickname as the point guard of her high school basketball team was "Sarah Barracuda". It's going to be an interesting few months. And I still want to know why those guys were on stage at a political rally wearing their Boy Scout uniforms! Isn't there a specific rule against that? And holy cow, a reporter on CNN just asked McCain's press secretary, Doesn't McCain's pick of Palin take the issue of Obama's experience off the table? And the press secretary's first words were basically, Oh come on, McCain's first choice was Joe Lieberman anyway. Um... doesn't that sort of take the glow off the announcement that McCain just made 15 minutes ago? And out of the mouth of his own press secretary? It's going to be a really interesting few months. Oh well, I'd better stop watching tv and get back to work.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Well, I guess I was wrong in predicting in the other thread that McCain would pick another "white guy". I had never heard of her, but just looked up her article on Wikipedia, which admittedly is not always a source of accurate information, but what I am about to mention seems to be properly referenced and written in a reasonably neutral manner. Her "sterling ethics record" may not be so sterling. As governor she fired her police commissioner and he has alleged that she did so because he would not fire her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper who was in a nasty divorce/custody fight with her sister. There is also an allegation that she improperly released the trooper's personnel file. There is an active legislative investigation going on now. It looks like there are definitely two sides to the story, but it puzzles me that McCain would pick someone where there are any sides to a current ethics investigation. I know there are going to be jokes about her having been the runner-up in the Miss Alaska contest when she was younger. (I am watching her first speech as the candidate on tv right now.) I think it is interesting that right after Obama picked someone whose son is being deployed to Iraq in October, McCain picked someone whose son is being deployed to Iraq in September. (Hey, there are a bunch of Boy Scouts and Scouters standing behind her, at this political rally, IN UNIFORM! Is that allowed??)

Lisabob, as for what comes out of Biden's mouth, I feel fairly certain that before Obama "sealed the deal" with him, a very clear understanding was reached about Biden's role in the campaign, including an agreement that he is not going to speak "off the cuff" and that all of his speeches are going to be carefully screened by Obama's staff. Of course, there is going to be a vice presidential debate and what he says there can't be completely controlled, since he won't know the questions in advance. On the other hand, we don't know who he is going to be competing against. I can think of several Republicans over the years who also seemed to have a defective internal screening mechanism between their brain and their mouth. As a matter of fact, one of them is named John McCain. I have seen and read about several instances in which he lost his temper, or stumbled badly, when being questioned by the media. I doubt that even his strongest supporters are happy with the way he handled the "How many houses do you own" question. So who knows what will happen in the presidential debates? If I had to guess which of the presidential candidates will prove to be better at "staying cool" under the stress of tough questioning, it would not be McCain.

As usual, there are a number of issues floating around here. The issue of what is wrong with our nation's health care system, how it can be fixed, and to what degree the government should be involved, are interesting questions, but not ones that I choose to discuss in this forum. I believe the original issue was whether someone who advocates government involvement in the health care system is appropriately described as an "unabashed Socialist." The fact is, whether people in this forum like it or not, the United States has a "mixed economy." Economic activity in this country is mostly in the private sector, but with government involvement in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons. Personally I do not believe that advocacy or acceptance of government involvement in the economy necessarily makes one a "Socialist", otherwise that label could be applied to most people reading this. It also seems to me that the UK has had "socialized medicine" for many years, including the period in which Margaret Thatcher was prime minister. She did not eliminate "socialized medicine", so was she a "Socialist" too? I guess the real question is, can we discuss programs and candidates without throwing labels around? The fact is that in this election, there are two major candidates, both with pluses and minuses. We each draw our own conclusions regarding their experience, their positions on the issues, their perceived abilities to do what needs to be done, and anything else that we find relevant to our decision. It is reasonable to discuss those questions in this forum, though so far I have seen little need to do so. But name-calling -- Socialist, fascist, whatever -- seems somewhat beside the point -- as does the implication in the title of this thread.

GKlose, I think this is great also, but as you already appear to realize, you have to be watchful for "burnout" on the part of this young Scout. There is a reason why the rank requirements (including the community service requirements) are "graduated" (or if you prefer, "progressive", but don't anybody get upset.) A self-created "project" is required only for Eagle. For the lower ranks it is fine to just participate in someone else's (or organization's) community service project as a "worker bee." It's great for the boy to show initiative, as long as he (and his parents) know what the requirements are, make a conscious decision to go beyond them, and are willing to invest the time and energy to do it, and not get "burned out." I was a little concerned about this in my own troop when one boy going for Cit. in the Community decided to turn his 8 hours of work for a community charitable organization into a mini- (or midi-) Eagle project. On the question of service projects for Cub packs, it may be true that community service is not required for rank advancement (I have not read the Cub Scout rank requirements lately and I suspect they have changed since the last time I did; despite my account name, I have not been a "Cub Scouter" for five years.) However, participating in a cleanup project does "count" toward the "panda patch" (World Conservation Award) if that is of any interest. It's in the book somewhere. My son's pack (and now troop) like to promote that as a nice little thing to do along the way while earning rank advancements.

Look, its all a matter of perspective. I have known Libertarians (capital L) who think that the Democrats and Republicans (who they call the Republicrats and other cute names) are really just two wings of one big Socialist party. I am sure there are Socialists (self-proclaimed, I mean) who think (although I have never heard one say this, since I haven't known too many) that both major parties are really just two wings of one big Capitalist (a bad word, to them) party. I do know some Green Party members who, while not quite so far on the extreme, see no real difference between the parties and regard both Democrats and Republicans as war-mongering, environment-destroying, poor-neglecting... ok, I got to the end of my adjectives and don't have a noun. But you know what I mean. (The Greens actually are divided between Green-Democrats who spend half their time trying to pull the Democratic Party to the left, and other Greens who have rejected the Democratic Party and really think they accomplished something by voting for Nader and throwing the 2000 election to President Bush... that is, if he won... but anyway... The point is that when you are an extremist, almost everybody else looks like an extremist as well. The one thing that the Libertarians, Socialists, Greens and other far-right and far-left parties have in common is that when the ballots are counted, between all of them they generally get less than 2 percent of the presidential vote (except when a "name" like Nader is running on the force of his own reputation and basically taking a minor party along with him, no seats in Congress, and virtually no offices at the state level either. I think the last few elections have shown that many people in this country want things pretty much in the middle and are not swayed by ideological labels and name-calling -- at least, not for more than two elections in a row, in the same direction.

John, if Obama is a socialist because he supports Medicare and Medicaid, then President Bush and John McCain -- not to mention most other current major Republican leaders -- must be socialists also. I have not heard of any of them proposing to eliminate, or even significantly curtail, these programs. In fact, the differences in economic policies between the two major parties are nowhere near big enough that one can say that they believe in two different economic systems. Both the Democrats and Republicans (at the national level at least) believe in capitalism but also in government programs to mitigate some of the more unpleasant effects of pure capitalism. They differ in the details, but that's about it. Our two major parties are much closer in economic policies than the competing parties in most other countries. In many European countries (like France), there are parties that call themselves "Socialist" and actually win elections. That doesn't happen here. So I think we should think twice before throwing around these kinds of labels.

Glass ceiling in the Democratic party, John? I seem to recall that the Democrats nominated a woman for vice president 24 years ago. The Republicans never have. That is not to say that any given party should, or shouldn't, nominate a woman in any given year, including this one. I am just saying that your "glass ceiling" comment seems to be pointed in the wrong direction. I sincerely doubt that you will be seeing Condoleeza Rice on the Republican ticket this year, for a variety of reasons. Personally I don't think McCain's running mate will be female, but we will find out soon enough. As for Joseph Lieberman, in no way, shape or form is he a "liberal." Democrats consider him a conservative, which is why (well, specifically because of his position on Iraq) he did not receive the Democratic nomination the last time he ran for re-election. Which is why he is now an Independent. I recall that his ideological leanings caused some tense moments at the 2000 Democratic convention, because a number of liberal Democrats were not too thrilled at this conservative who had been nominated for VP. As for Obama being a "Socialist", unabashed or otherwise, I don't quite know what to say. I would ask which of his positions you think is "Socialist", but I am concerned that you might actually answer.

Let's look at this from the perspective of an Eagle candidate. If the Eagle Scout materials from national and council are in conflict, that is their problem to work out, not a 15 or 16-year-old boy's, and not his parents or mentors. As a practical matter, it is the District Advancement Chair that has the ultimate signoff in this process. All that national sees is the fully signed application; they don't even know what the project was, much less how it was done. Therefore, it makes sense for the Scout to follow the same guidelines that the District Advancement Chair is following, and that would be the council guidelines.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

And yet my council's Trail to Eagle packet states, "If you are raising money for the project, you must fill out and submit a Unit Money Earning Application." A copy of the Application and the BSA guidelines for "unit money-earning projects" are even included in the packet. (Elsewhere in the packet, there is a statement that says you should first try to get funding from the benefiting organization, and there is a strong implication that the money-earning guidelines don't apply in that case, which makes sense.) Interestingly, I also looked at the national Eagle Scout Leadership Service Project Workbook, and there is no mention of the money-earning guidelines or application. Nevertheless, it would seem like a good idea for an Eagle candidate to do what the council says, since presumably the District Advancement Committee is using that document to determine whether to approve the plan. However, the really big problem from my perspective is that I know more about what is in these documents than my son does, and last time I checked, he's the one who is going for Eagle, not me. I became a "Life for Life" a long time ago.

Pack15Nissan, maybe I am misunderstanding what you said in that last post: It is true that in "life in general", "doing your best" is not always good enough to achieve what you desire. Sometimes you have to improve "your best" to meet an objective standard. Even apart from "adult life", this is certainly the case in school and it is the case when passing requirements in the Boy Scouts. However, it is not the case in the Cub Scout advancement program -- the rule is "do your best." Your best. It is a subjective standard, but that's ok for an 8-year-old.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

We have an Assistant Scoutmaster who starts singing "Announcements, announcements" whenever anyone says the word "announcements", but up until 5 seconds ago I never knew it was a "real" song or that it had any other lyrics. On the comment above about some of the mothers being upset: I hate to be a wet blanket here, but some of these little ditties about eating roadkill and sharks eating peoples' heads are probably best left to Boy Scouts sitting around a campfire, and not for 7-year-old Johnny Cub Scout with Mom sitting there. Some people might have issues with them in Boy Scouts too, but I wouldn't be one of them. Now, some of the songs sung by Boy Scouts when I was a boy, especially when no adults were around, those would be a problem regardless of age. Even so, we do have to "veto" some of the older boys' more gruesome lyrics from time to time.

I don't usually point out typos because I think it is impolite and I have been known to make them myself, but that was quite an interesting one in that last post, Bob!

Bob, nobody is "fantasizing" here. Please stop your personal attacks.

Bob, what you "understand" or don't "understand" about me is none of my business, nor do I suspect anybody else really cares about it either. Your comments, especially the one about my supposed "fear" (which I don't recall saying anything about) border on personal attacks and I think you ought to stop it. If you want to talk about the subject, talk about the subject. I didn't talk about you, please don't talk about me.

Bob: Yes, we are. From reading the posts in this topic, it appears that that is also true for the vast majority of people who have posted in this forum. In fact, I have read every post in this topic and I didn't know the councils had distributed printed materials yet, until you just said it. Everything quoted here appeared to be from the web site. (In fact, I still don't know it, I just know what you said.) By the way, "yes or no" is usually what someone says when someone is cross-examining someone and trying to get them to admit they did it. I thought we were having a discussion here. Why are you cross-examining me?

Bob, if it works, great. But if it does work, I'd think they would put on that web site a description of how it works, and what it actually is, rather than just platitudes. I agree with what TwoCubDad said earlier about the information that has been shared so far. When I read it, all I really learn is why they are doing this, and generalities about what they hope to accomplish by doing it -- but I don't really learn what "it" actually is.

I agree with portions of what several different people have said. "Parent involvement" is great when it is channeled into the specific positions in the unit, including the specific committee functions. The idea of parents encouraging their son's participation and advancement is great too, but this already happens in many families -- not all. I'm not sure how a ScoutParent program and coordinator is going to make this happen any more than it happens already. As for encouraging people to volunteer for positions in the unit, again, this already happens and I am not sure how a designated Parent Coordinator position is necessarily going to enhance that. In my son's troop, the CC and SM, and others, spend some of their (our) time trying to sign up other parents. I am happy for those of you here whose units are fully staffed with adult leaders and committee members, but my son's troop is not, nor is his former Cub pack at the present time. (In fact the pack came very close to collapsing two years ago, due mainly to a lack of people being willing to leaders/committee members.) While numerically our troop has more than enough registered adult bodies, there are certain specific jobs, such as activities coordinator, treasurer, and fundraising coordinator, that have proven very difficult to fill on a stable basis by someone who is actually going to do the job. These are jobs that cannot be done by the boys -- they are specifically designated by the BSA as functions for adult committee members to perform. These functions are currently done by a combination of the CC (who by my count currently fulfills at least two and a half committee functions including CC), and various ASM's. It would be great if someone could successfully recruit good people to do these jobs so that everybody else could get back to doing their real jobs in the troop. But here's the irony in this new program/position: What makes anyone think that we are going to be able to recruit a Parent Coordinator to recruit other volunteers, when recruiting people is the problem in the first place? If we were able to recruit someone to that position, I'd much rather have that person learn the joys of tour permits, reserving campsites, managing signup sheets, etc., and become the activities coordinator. This new position may throw the problem into sharper relief, rather than resolving it. OGE, I think your idea of a Parent Coordinator as sort of a "guide" for parents to take the burden off the SM is a great idea, but that does not really seem to be what the BSA is doing here. Our troop essentially has that function shared by several people (including me) on an informal basis and I think it works well enough.

I'm puzzled by the idea that the boys are really going to care what a course is called. Maybe that is true where some of you are, but not where I am. Since I have been re-involved in Scouting, both my council and district names have been changed by mergers, and I don't think the kids cared at all. Why should they, really? Some of the adults cared a little, but they got over it.

It seems to me that most of this "debate" is really about semantics. Everybody seems to agree that an ASM who has a problem with the SM (that has not been resolved through direct discussion) can go to the CR/CC to discuss the matter, and make whatever suggestions he/she wants. Of course, the ASM should realize that the CR may decide that the SM should remain, and possibly that the ASM should not. The one area of real disagreement seems to be whether it is appropriate for the ASM to speak with someone on the district level about the problem. It seems logical to me that the decision to seek advice from the district level is one that should be made by the CR/IH -- and possibly also by the CC -- but not by the ASM.

Creation of trails (clearing, marking etc.) is definitely considered an acceptable project in my district. A few boys in my son's troop have done that. I suppose that there is probably an unwritten (and perhaps unspoken) "guideline" for how long the trail has to be. In other words, 50 feet isn't going to do it. I'm not sure what would. I have seen a guideline against "routine labor" as an Eagle project, and I think a trash cleanup would probably fail on that basis. Although, as someone said earlier, if you add other elements to it, that might make it acceptable.

What ScoutNut says is what my impression was as well: You need five youth members to get a charter. (And as far as adults are concerned, at a bare minimum, I believe it is an SM, CC, 2 other committee members, and a CR who also can be one of the committee members.) But that brings up a question. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the boys have to actually be eligible to be Boy Scouts (either age 11, received Arrow of Light or completed fifth grade) before you can submit the charter with their names on it. (Which I'm guessing also needs to be accompanied by their membership applications.) But what if the boys are still 10 years old, still in fifth grade, and receiving their Arrow of Light simultaneous with crossing over? (This is frequently the case, at least where I come from.) That means you can't submit the paperwork until they cross over, and presumably the paperwork takes some time to be processed. Doesn't that leave a gap? Are you allowed to start meeting before the paperwork comes back? (Which may raise insurance issues.) Or do you have to wait? Or am I being too much of a lawyer about this?

BDPT00 says: Kids would have a much greater loyalty to White Stag or Brownsea or Pine Tree or whatever. I don't see that with the kids in "my" troop, including my son. The old names, and in most cases the old traditions, really don't have much meaning for them, and I am not sure that is such a terrible thing. The important thing is the content of the course, the practices and values it teaches, how it is delivered, etc. To me, the name is really just window dressing. "National Youth Leadership Training" is simple, it says what it is, and I think it sounds impressive, and my impression is that the kids agree. (By the way, the patch on my old uniform -- the shirt that has not fit me for many, many, many years -- says "Troop Leader Development". Now there is a boring name!)