NJCubScouter

If your den is a bear den, next year in Webelos you can do actual model rocketry. I think that is one of the things in the Scientist activity badge (unless that has changed in the new Webelos book.) I think each boy participating has to be at least 10 years old... or maybe that was just a reference to the age requirements in most states... you can check when the time comes.

You know, somewhere in Afghanistan tonight some poor teenaged webmaster will go to bed without enough server space, because you guys are wasting it here...

I went to scoutstuff.org and could not find this... at least not on the same page with the other handbooks. Unless that is what is listed as the "Boy Scout Handbook Hardbound" for $20.95. It doesn't say anything about a spiral binding though.

I will probably end up regretting asking this, but: FatOldGuy, what is wrong with the current handbook? Keep in mind, this is the first one I have worked with since the two that were in use when I was a Scout (the second of which was the 1972 handbook that we have been discussing on another topic... the one that supposedly took the outing out of Scouting, though I never quite noticed, since about half my troop went to Philmont in 1974 and after that my father had us on the Appalachian Trail at every opportunity.)

Oh, and the thing with calling the older handbooks "evil" is getting really, really old. Bob says he never said that anyway, and as much as I disagree with him sometimes, it doesn't sound like something he'd say. In any event, it's time for a new "act."

Sctmom says:

I agree with minimal announcements because you know what? People aren't listening anyway.

Couldn't have said it better myself. When I was Assistant Cubmaster and our CM was at the podium making announcements, I would stand in the back or middle and watch the people not listening. Even the parents who were trying to listen had a hard time because, even if the boys started out being quiet, there was always this gradually increasing "buzz" from the boys that was impossible to control. You can't expect a bunch of 6- to 10- year old boys to sit still and quiet for 15 minutes while someone is saying something that is not of direct interest to them. Even when the boys are doing a skit or something, attention is difficult to come by. (Exceptions would be things like when we brought in the 4-H snake-handlers club or something like that, then we would have the boys at complete, rapt attention -- not to mention they learned a thing or two as well.)

Anyway, a couple times I told the CM, look, forget the announcements and have the information in writing and hand it out or make sure it gets out through the den leaders. He would agree with me, but usually wouldn't get around to preparing anything. Sometimes he'd have the stuff in writing and do the announcements anyway. Oh well, I did what I could...

BobWhite says:

No, the CO has the responsibility to be a thoughtfull caretaker of the finances. To make sure that the unit is functioning properly and that it's assets are used responsibly for the scouts in the unit.

OK, that seems reasonable. I guess it is the word "own" and its variants that get things confused. What you describe, particularly in the second half of your second sentence describes a "trust" relationship, not outright ownership. I think that to most people, "own" without some other qualifying words, means that the property is yours to do what you want with, with no restrictions. (Except for special cases such as a home with a mortgage or a vehicle with a lien.) What you seem to be describing is a situation in which the CO is holding the money and is responsible for how it is spent, but that it has to be spent for the purpose for which it was raised, that is, Scouting. (Or in legal terms, the CO has legal title to the funds but not full equitable title, but I digress.)

Right?

I was just out driving for about 15 minutes in the middle of the day and took the occasion to turn on Rush Limbaugh. Sure enough, he was talking about General Clark the whole time. I suspect I could have picked any 15 minutes today, or this week, and Rush would have been talking about the same thing. Part of what he did was to make fun of the general for being named "Wesley." Very insightful political commentary.

OGE, I agree with your assessment of Eisenhower. I think the fact that he was able to parlay his military experience into the presidency had little to do with how much actual experience or "brilliance" or anything else, that he had or didn't have in any particular aspect of military command. He was a viable candidate because he was perceived as having been primarily responsible for defeating Nazi Germany in World War II. How much of that was real and how much of that was personal "style," ability to get rival commanders to work together or at least not derail the overall effort through their bickering, and all the rest, is beside the point.

General Clark could have single-handedly defeated the Serbian military in Kosovo and it would not invite any comparisons to Eisenhower, because Kosovo was a "small war" that never really caught the attention of most Americans. It does not qualify or disqualify himself to be president one way or the other. Not to be too cynical, but if you've got some "hook" that will get you the most votes, you're qualified (and, not to be too-too cynical, sometimes you don't even need the most votes, not to mention any names.)

I agree with you that people should not be attacking Clark's record (unless there is something to really attack, which does not seem to be the case.) I think one of the posts that did so, was basically parrotting the talk-show punditry that I was discussing earlier. The fact that a talk-show-colonel such as David Hackworth doesn't like Clark, cuts no ice with me. My point about Clark was that we don't really know what his capabilities are at this point, and I haven't seen them yet. Maybe that seemed like criticism, but I usually leave no doubt about whether I am criticizing someone.

I also think that by the time he announced, he should have been a bit more conversant with some of the major issues than he apparently was. He spent the first few days stumbling around on what his position on the war in Iraq was, which should be his biggest and clearest issue. But I am willing to give him a chance. Right now he stands an equal chance of getting my vote with four or five other people, though since the New Jersey primary is still in June and the schedule has been front-loaded this time to produce a winner by mid-March, I don't think there's going to be a race still going on by the time I get to actually vote.

I have never heard or read of using the Scout Sign when putting hand over heart in "salute" to the flag. Either you are in uniform, in which case it is the Scout salute, or you aren't, in which case it is the regular hand-over-heart (not three-fingered.)

Now, I guess I should admit that for this purpose my son's troop (and to my recollection, mine when I was a Scout) interprets one to be "in uniform" even when hats have been removed (such as when in the church itself for a Court of Honor.) At troop meetings (in the school building adjoining the church) hats are worn indoors. Either of these may be incorrect, though in my opinion they make sense, and that seems to be the style.

(This reminds me, sometimes I see it said that one salutes to the brim of the cap, but then I recall that my first Scout hat had no brim. It was what I believe is properly called the "overseas cap," I just call it the "flat hat" because that is what it was when not on my head. I suspect that several of us here have one of these tucked away. I have shown that hat to my son and he gets a great deal of amusement out of the fact that I actually wore it. I am able to create a bit more "shock and awe" when I show him a photo of an entire troop, including his then-somewhat-long-haired father, wearing the campaign hat a/k/a Baden-Powell hat.)

Kwc, that's an interesting theory. Although I disagree with William Safire on many issues, I do have respect for him as an honest commentator, and I'm willing to assume that if he says something like that, at least he believes it, whereas if it were someone like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tony Snow or most of the other Fox News Channel folks, I would think it was just part of their "spin campaign" to help President Bush. However, I don't think think his theory is correct. Leaving aside the issue of whether the Clintons would be able to pull it off, I thinking it is doubtful that this is what they are trying to do -- not because I don't think Senator Clinton wants to be president, but because the strategy itself does not seem to make much sense. What Safire seems to be saying (and I have not seen or heard this myself) is that the Clintons are hoping that Bush wins re-election, branding all of the existing field of Democrats as "losers," and then the senator can ride in on a white horse in 2008. Where I this fails is that the existing Democratic field seemed quite capable of producing a candidate who would most likely lose to President Bush, all on its own. Why would they bring in a candidate (Clark) who would be stronger against President Bush than any of the existing candidates? It doesn't seem to make much sense.

The conservative talk-radio apoplexy over General Clark continues. They are really petrified at the prospect of President Bush having to face this guy in an election. As I said last week, they are continuing to do their best to try to tie him to former President Clinton. They say Clinton is behind him, but then almost in the next breath, they say Clinton is trying to get his wife to run. Come on guys, pick a story.

FatOldGuy asks:

Is that from the time that old timers call "when they tried to take the 'Boy' out of BoyScouts"?

Some might. That is the time period I am referring to, anyway. I mentioned that in my first post on this subject (the really long one), about how the word "Boy" was missing. I have heard various people speculate as to why that was, but it is probably just a "trivia question" at this point. I think that more "old timers" refer to that time (starting 1972 I believe) as when the BSA tried to "take the 'outing' out of Scouting," pointing to such evidence as Camping and Cooking being de-listed as Eagle-required merit badges, and massive changes in the lower-rank requirements as well as the material in the handbook. (I know that a lot of this was reversed starting at the end of the 70s, including putting Camping back on the required list, but not Cooking.) There were many other changes as well, including almost all aspects of the uniform and insignia.

Oh, and...

Although David Eisenhower did marry Julie Nixon, presidents Eisenhower and Nixon were not "related." There might be some cultures in which you somehow get to be considered a "relative" of your grandson's wife's father, but I don't think this is one of them. You might consider them "family," but "related" should be a little more specific than that. They aren't even "related by marriage."

On the "which presidents are related" issue: "Related" is a bit too ambiguous a word, unless it is defined. Many of us would probably be surprised at who some of our tenth or fifteenth cousins are; in most cases that would take in quite a number of people. When the "related presidents" question is asked in a trivia contest (which as you may have guessed from my earlier post, I have been in one or two or...), it is usually asked as which presidents are direct ancestors/descendants of each other. (Those would be the Adamses, Harrisons and Bushes.) The Johnsons share a name but were unrelated. The problem is with situations like the Roosevelts, fifth cousins once removed. (Outdoor says fourth, I always thought it was fifth, I could be wrong.) I am sure there are other pairings of presidents who are closer than fifth cousins (ignoring the degree of removal for now), Outdoor mentions Madison and Taylor (which I admit to now knowing) but I would be surprised if there weren't others.

What I always thought was really neat about the Roosevelts was Eleanor Roosevelt being Teddy's niece and also sharing his last name -- in other words Roosevelt was both her maiden and married name, though in no state would they be considered "related" enough to prohibit them from getting married. (Not even close; I think that generally second cousins can get married, and if it is not second, it's third; personally I have never had occasion to check.) I don't think there is any legal context in which fifth cousins would be considered to be "related."

As I look at the title of this thread... and then read packsaddle's last post, all I can say is, this has been a rather well-traveled thread, hasn't it? From a real estate lease to Aristotle in 3 pages...

So DS (and Bob), are you saying that while a unit is operating (in other words the charter is in force), a CO can simply arbitrarily say to the unit, hand over all the money in the unit's checking account?

If that is the case, I am just glad nobody ever told the CO of my son's former pack about that. We did not need the parent-teacher organization exercising that level of "ownership." Fortunately with my son's troop there does not seem to be any danger of that, the CO is fully supportive of the troop and the troop remembers that when it comes time for service projects.

Things like this make the "Friends of Pack xx" option sound better all the time... as long as someone is willing to make a meeting place available for free without being CO.

I have not used Packmaster either. I understand all packs in our council are now getting up and running with it if they were not already, but I am not in the pack anymore. (And troops are getting going with Troopmaster as well, of course.)

In my son's pack (like others who have posted), a den was assigned a number when the boys joined as Tigers and kept the same number until those boys crossed over or graduated in fifth grade. I do not know if it says to do this anywhere in the "literature," but the fact that there are den numeral patches implies (to me) that the numbers travel with the boys. The boys are supposed to know their den number and answer to it (so it wouldn't do much good to change it at the beginning of second grade.) Even if a Webelos den had a name, the number was retained for record-keeping purposes. At the beginning of the Tiger year, the new Tiger leaders (with assistance from whatever "older" leader was helping them get started (me for 2 years)) chose the den number. There were almost always gaps in the numbering system, though by chance, in the two years I was helping the new Tiger leaders, we were able to eliminate the gaps. They actually could have chosen whatever available number the store sells a patch for -- I think I once noticed up to "Den 15" in the store.

Well, I looked at my old uniform, and of course the arrow of light is on the pocket immediately below my Life badge (oval patch.) When it moved, I don't know.

And by the way, on my old uniform the strip above the right pocket (that would now say "Boy Scouts of America" has a red fleur-de-lis and the words "Scout B.S.A." It is a green collarless shirt probably purchased around 1973-74.

I don't know, kwc, I think the conservative establishment (Republican party plus radio pundits plus Fox News Channel) would love to see Senator Clinton run for president. The opportunities for Clinton-bashing, not to mention fund-raising, would be beyond comprehension. I don't think she is going to run this time because she does not want to run against an incumbent. I personally don't ever want to see her run, because I think her personality and history would put the focus on her rather than on the issues. I am sick of the politics of celebrity (actually I am sick of the whole culture of celebrity, but that would be another thread and probably in a non-Scouting forum.)

You learn something new every day, I guess.

Merlyn, re: the wide-URL thing, did you use some secret, magical code to prevent the line from wrapping? Because usually it just wraps onto a second line and doesn't cause the "message box" to expand. There have been URLs a lot longer than that posted on here.

Or perhaps it was just an "act of God."

Hee, hee... I'm just such a funny guy sometimes.

Oh by the way, the God thing was a joke.

It's kind of jarring to see a thread for the first time after it has already split into three or four sub-threads. So here is what I have to say about all of it, or at least some of it.

I know my son's Arrow of Light (sorry, to me AOL still means an online service) is below his pocket. If nobody had said otherwise I would have thought that was where it always was. When I get home tonight I am going to check my old uniform hanging in my closet (circa 1973, I think it is one of the ones that has "Scouts BSA" on the strip above the pocket because they didn't want to say "Boy Scouts," which didn't last long.) I am pretty sure that my youth rank patches are on there, which should include the Arrow of Light.

(The last time I looked at that shirt I realized that I continued to wear the same shirt after I turned 18 and was an Assistant Scoutmaster, and yet the shirt still has my Life badge and the position patch is JASM, not ASM. Apparently, I was not properly uniformed for awhile there, but since this was 27 years ago, I'm hoping that the statute of limitations has expired.)

As I believe Bob said, the tan (a/k/a khaki-tan) shirt with blue loops is an option for Webelos, emphasis on both "option" and "Webelos." It is supposed to be an individual option, though on one or two Scouting discussion groups (maybe not here) I have seen references to requiring an entire pack or den to make the choice. That should not happen. It is supposed to be up to the parents and the boy. That is one of the things my son's old pack did (and does) correctly.

As for a boy having the attitude "ho hum, Mom bought me a new shirt," I would ask, did anybody tell him otherwise? Did his parents bother to explain the meaning of the shirt? Nothing formal, just, this is the shirt you will wear when you are a Boy Scout, and because Webelos gets you ready for Boy Scouts, you start wearing the shirt now, but with blue shoulder loops? (Or words to that effect.) That's what I did when I got my son the tan shirt. I actually went further and gave it to him at a time that had a particular meaning. He wore the blue shirt into the fourth grade, and sometime around December ('01) or January ('02) my wife informed me that it was time for a new shirt anyway. (Evidently she felt that his wrists beginning to protrude further and further out the sleeve did not make the proper fashion statement.) So when he received his Webelos badge around February, I got the Cubmaster to get him the new optional oval patch (as well as the old diamond patch which I reimbursed the pack the buck-whatever for, just to have the complete "diamond"), and the weekend after that we went out and got the tan shirt, and I explained the whole thing about Boy Scouts and oval patches and shoulder loops and everything so he would understand what it was all about. I think he actually was proud of the new shirt, because someone bothered to explain it to him.

Now, I guess a parent who is neither a leader nor a former Boy Scout might not be able to bombard their son with all this information. So I think it is something the Webelos leader needs to explain to the parents, who can explain it to the boys. (I would say the leader should explain it to the boys, but I hesitate to say that because it is an optional item that costs around $30 and I don't necessarily think we want to be giving the boys a "commercial" that then translates into yet another "I want" from the boy to the parents. Of course, if the tan shirt ever becomes standard and not optional for Webelos, then that will be different: You're going into fourth grade, you get this shirt. I think that within 3 to 5 years, this will probably be the case. At some point they are going to run out of the orange shirts for Tigers and then make the decision either to order more, or start making the blue shirts in sizes to fit 6-year-olds, making the blue shirt standard for Tigers. At that point I would not be surprised if they stop making whatever the largest size is for the blue shirt and decree that all Webelos will wear the tan shirt. It would make sense because if you do what a lot of people do, you buy the blue shirt a little large at the beginning of second grade and it lasts somewhere into the fourth grade, so in my theory you would buy the shirt a little large® at the beginning of first grade, and hopefully it fits through the end of third grade. Yeah, I know, if need be you can always buy another shirt, but I think most people would rather not.)

Where was I? Oh, I agree with TwoCubDad (as usual) as to the tan shirt being an ingredient in a smoother transition to Boy Scouts. That of course assumes that you have explained it to the boy. I think it is part of the methodology of the Webelos-to-Scout transition plan discussed in the Cub Scout Leader Book though at this point it is an optional part. A rather minor part, but still a part. When the new Webelos hat was coming out (Jan. '02 I think, though my son wanted to keep his blue-on-blue hat and saved me $11, for once), a Scout Shop guy explained to me that it also was part of a symbolic effort to transition boys into Boy Scouts. That is why the "body" of the hat was changed from the dark blue of Cub Scout hats to the olive green of the Boy Scout hat.

As for old uniforms, I have read that old uniforms are ok as long as it is a uniform, in other words, no mixing and matching. If you wear a 70's-era shirt you need the matching pants, not the current pants. I don't know how far people would take that, though. Does it also mean that if you have the old "green" uniform you cannot wear the current-day position patch, but instead you need the old one with the bright green background? I don't know the answer to that. I do know that some boys (and adults) in my troop wear the current uniform but with position patches that go back to the 70's (bright green background.) One ASM wears a position patch that goes back to the 60's, a very different design. I once asked one of the ASM's whether those boys were wearing their father's position patches, which I thought was pretty cool. He said no, they found them on e-bay. I found that pretty disappointing.

Again I am reading here what I have read several times before, which is that money raised by unit fundraising becomes the property of the CO. Unless I am hallucinating, our friendly local Scouting professional, Mr. Steele, recently stated that this is not the case. I forget exactly what he said was the case, but it seemed a lot more logical than the idea that the CO could, if it wished, simply appropriate funds given by donors for Scouting programs -- even if the donation is merely a dollar paid by someone knocking over bottles with a baseball at a fair -- or the 2-dollar profit from the sale of a box of popcorn.

DS? Help?

My troop has a trailer, I don't know what kind it is, I can try to find out. I know it was bought used which probably is what most troops would have to do (assuming it was not just donated.) I know that they got various companies to donate the paint, lettering etc. etc. and all of their names and company logos are on the back of the trailer. (I think that's ok, I could be wrong.) One funny thing is that it was previously owned by a gutter repair business, and the lettering was almost completely removed, but if you stand right next to it, you can still read what was there. On a recent trip I parked right behind the trailer and for the first time saw that RIGHT BELOW the words "Sponsored by Presbyterian Church of (name of town) you can very faintly read the old owner's slogan, "Our mind is in your gutter." I almost had a laughing fit when I saw that.

Anyway, one issue is where you actually keep the trailer. The church doesn't really want the trailer hanging out in its small parking lot all the time, but we get to park it in the church's cemetary across the street. Somewhat ghoulish I guess, but the price can't be beat.

Laurie, based on your first post I was confused also, as to whether this was a registration issue or a youth protection issue, or both. Now that I have returned to respond, your second post clears up part of it. You (or whoever handles registration for your pack) were given a completed and signed application and the required fee, and I assume it was relayed to council in order to register the boy. The identity of the person who actually paid the fee is irrelevant. The parents signed the form. (You say he has been to a den meeting "though the parents have not been met by anyone." Does that mean he walked to and from the meeting? If you literally mean that nobody in the pack or den has ever even seen or spoken to either of the boy's parents, I personally think I would ask the den leader to call the parents "just to say hello," make sure they understand the schedule, would it be possible they could bring the cookies and juice to the meeting on (insert date here), that sort of thing. After all the den leader is going to have to deal with the parents all the time, he or she might as well make sure they exist.)

From a youth protection standpoint, I applaud your desire to "err" on the side of following the rules, but I have to tell you that I think this situation illustrates the difference between the "two-deep leadership" rule and the "no one on one" rule. I think you are allowed to answer the door of your home and speak to someone who is there, whether it be an adult or child, regardless of the subject of their visit. You are not exercising "leadership" and there is no Scouting activity taking place. You are exercising control over your home.

Now before anyone gets all alarmed, I do NOT mean that you should invite a boy who is all by himself into your home and close the door, and by the way I think that these days, as a homeowner, I would extend that to any adult-child interaction whether Scouting is involved or not. I don't invite the paperboy in the house when he comes to collect, either. So in other words I am applying no-one-on-one here, but I do not think two-deep "leadership" applies.

I do think you could have spoken with this boy in the doorway or outside without having him actually come into your home. (I understand this would be a problem in the middle of the winter or during a rainstorm.) Or, since he actually did have another boy with him, even standing right inside the door with the door open might be ok. If it sounds like I am being too legalistic, I am actually just trying to apply common sense, while allowing you to ask the boys what they want and try to give them an answer. I'm guessing it would be a short conversation, in which your answer would be to tell the boys to have their parents call the appropriate leader.

I don't know enough about Wesley Clark yet to have any idea whether he is qualified to be president, or whether he has any realistic chance of winning. Nor have I really seen much about his positions about any issues other than the war in Iraq. I saw where his position on the economy is basically that he needs to study it, which does not seem like a very auspicious beginning. But I personally am giving him a chance.

I do notice that the conservative/Republican pundits on radio and on the Internet are going into fits of apoplexy over this guy, dredging up quotes from old military rivals (like the one repeated by TrailPounder.) That probably means that they think he has a good chance of winning the Democratic nomination and that he would pose a real threat to beat G.W. Bush. I thought they had been going kind of easy on Howard Dean, treating him more as a joke than anything else, because they probably would be more than happy to see him as the Democratic candidate. Now, suddenly, they are scared to death. If I had to make a prediction right now, it would be that Clark will not be the Democratic nominee, and I still think what I thought a couple of days ago, which is that Bush will probably win the election.

We shall see whether there is any real substance to General Clark and whether he can escape the label of being "Clinton's general" that the Republicans are trying to stick on him. Of course, the last time, Al Gore got the most popular votes (and we could discuss whether he actually got the most electoral votes, too, but I won't) and his connection with Clinton was much more immediate. So, trying to attach whoever the Democratic candidate is to Clinton, which seems to be the main Republican strategy at the moment, may not work. For those who are on neither side, or who can take themselves out of being on one side or the other long enough to see what is really happening, it is pretty interesting, at least I think so.

It is interesting to compare Gen. Clark to the former generals who have been elected president in the past. I think the generals who have been elected president based solely or primarily on their military records, with little or no substantial government service in between, have been of a much higher stature and had much greater name recognition than Gen. Clark. The two examples would be Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower. (The latter is the best example because he is much more recent. George Washington is another example but the differences between the political and electoral situation then and now are so great that the comparison would be silly. There were other wartime generals who became president but they all had substantial government service after their military career and were probably better known for their non-military service by the time they ran for president.)

Anyway, Grant and Eisenhower were overwhelmingly strong candidates because they had recently been the top commanding officers in wars that were so "big" that they were the primary focus of life in this country while they were going on. The same cannot be said of the war in Kosovo, in which Clark was the U.S. commander. Eisenhower in particular became a household name during WW2, which Clark never even approached. I think that if a retired military officer has to explain to the American people who he is first, he's already in trouble, as opposed to someone who is a governor or senator. In the latter case, I think most people figure, ok, he (or she, at least in theory) has the basic qualifications to be president, let's see how he looks and sounds and what he has to say. I don't think that's necessarily true for a former military officer who most people don't know.