NJCubScouter

Wipit? Did they adopt the Devo song as their theme song in the early 80s?

Allemakewink Lodge, #54 Ordeal member, dues last paid 1978-79 or so. The lodge itself no longer exists under that name having been merged around 2000 following a council merger. New lodge is named Woapalanne, I don't know the number. (Though if I had been a Scout where I live now, I would have been in the other "old" lodge, which I think was named Miquin or something like that. In other words the council where I lived as a boy and the council where I live now were merged into one council. When you're old you'll have boring stories like that, too.) Anyway, I have been told I can become a member of the new lodge by proving I was a member of the old lodge and starting to pay dues again, but I haven't gotten around to doing it yet.

Ed says:

It's not a value. It's a fact! Homosexuality is immoral.

OK, I didn't want to turn this thread into that. But now that you have...

The terminology of "values" is that used by the BSA itself (and by BobWhite, as if there were a difference.) I didn't make it up. But more to the point (and as my son might say, red alert, shields up, polarize the hull plating), here's what I'd like to know:

Where did you get this "fact"? Why, and/or how, is homosexuality immoral? And just to make it clear, I understand that your religion teaches you that it is immoral. That is not what I am asking. I mean, how is it immoral from the standpoint of the BSA?

Tamegonit says:

And another thing, if you are a "control freak", and don't think that you could control that tendancy whilst having that position, don't take it.

Those of you with intuitive natures will understand.

And those of us who have been there ourselves will also understand. You obviously are a perceptive young man. And as you go along in life you will see more examples of what you are saying. I am a member of a school board, and just think about attending meetings where there are NINE "control freaks" (to different degrees, I hope I am of the lesser variety) sitting around the table. It isn't pretty sometimes.

One thing I would add though, is that a "control freak" who becomes SPL may soon learn that trying to lead by actually LEADING -- which includes listening, and sometimes compromising -- works a lot better than "leading" by dictating. That would be a valuable lesson to learn, especially at that age.

As for Ryon: I agree with what dsteele said. I would put it that you should step back from yourself a bit and look at what is in the best interests of the troop. Did you have something special you wanted to accomplish that is only partially accomplished? That might be a factor for staying. But otherwise, if someone else is "ready" you may benefit the troop more by letting them take their turn. Your experience can be put to work in other ways.

Question 5 is:

5. Do you think organizations should screen out gay and lesbian adults from serving in jobs that allow them to be alone with children, such as scout troop leader or teacher?

All respondents: Yes 34 pct., No 54 pct., Not Sure 12 pct.

Just to be fair to the "other side" in this debate (a courtesy that is rarely accorded in the other direction, but anyway), this question is flawed. Acco points out that the BSA does not permit adults to be alone with Scouts. Even more than that, the subject of "alone with children" -- in other words prevention of abuse -- is not the BSA's stated reason for its anti-gay policy. The stated reason involves "values" though as I have stated many times I do not believe that is really the issue, but that is for another thread.

On the other subjects in this poll:

26 percent favor and 62 percent oppose "gay marriage," but there is no question about what I think should really be the question, which is whether some sort of "marriage-like" status should be established, regardless of the name. Vermont's "civil union" law is a good one and I think it balances the interests of persons in a committed, monogamous relationship seeking the legal and financial benefits and protections of a state-recognized contractual domestic union (which for straight people we call a "marriage") with those who believe the word "marriage" has a special significance that should not be changed. That is what I think society should be discussing, instead everybody (on both sides) is hung up on the word "marriage." For that reason, if I had been called in this poll there would have been one more vote for "not sure" (12 percent.)

What is really the most surprising result to me is that 64 percent favor, and 25 percent oppose, allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. I suspect this is going to happen anyway over the next few years as a result of the recent Supreme Court decision. But, 64 percent think gays should be able to serve in the military? It seems to me that that reflects a change in the "consensus values" of our society. It is actually the only question in the poll that comes close to asking the core question that we kick around in this forum, which is whether homosexuality is immoral and therefore should subject gays to exclusion. And remember that this is a Fox News poll, and one could argue about whether that network has a "conservative" tilt, but nobody would argue that it is slanted the other way.

But how about that? A majority of our society things gays should be able to serve openly in the military. Where, then, does this so-called "value" that homosexuality is immoral come from?

That's correct about YP facilitator training, it was mainly a "practical" session geared toward the specific things someone doing the YP training in our council needs to know, like where and when to pick up the materials packet and video, what is in the packet, what needs to be filled out, where and when the materials need to be returned, who to speak to for questions, all that sort of thing. We were also given some materials. The only "substantive" aspect was that a few people asked questions about questions that have been asked by trainees in sessions they have attended, and suggested responses were discussed. This session was part of my council's "University of Scouting/Cub Leader Pow-Wow."

I went along with my CM mainly because we were discussing doing the training ourselves for some den leaders who were lagging behind in going to the inconveniently-located council sessions. After the course we discussed inviting parents to the session as well, both so they will understand what is being done to protect their children and for their own information. It is one of the things we didn't get around to while I was still in the pack.

I was thinking of "uniform" related terms, but I guess those would not really be "glossary" items. When I wrote a "parent guide" for our pack I just wrote it as "text" with sections and defined terms as I went along, rather than breaking out the definitions in glossary format. Your way sounds better as far as defining terms. But in terms of uniforming, I wrote out a description of what each boy at each level should have, mentioning those items that are provided by the pack and those that must be purchased. In the past, parents had been given this information somewhat haphazardly, sometimes in a flyer from the previous den leader for that level, sometimes by word of mouth, and sometimes not at all. It seemed like a good idea to give even Tiger parents the "big picture" of what they were looking at. There was also a booklet from council that explained a lot of things but it seemed like a good idea to explain it in more "local" terms -- including such things as what our expectations are from people as far as the popcorn sale, things like that.

A great thing about doing what you are doing is that with a relatively reasonable amount of work, you will help the new parents a tremendous amount, and avoid a lot of confusion.

$200 does seem like a lot of money to spend on something like this.

But, obviously, you must be worth it.

Smile and say thanks.

OK, I know I will be accused of going off-topic, but I really can't help asking:

Is there any particular reason why you have taken YP training 3 times in 6 months? Are you one of the actors in the video and just want to admire your work?

Once every three years is the rule in my council. I have also received a notice that my Youth Protection Facilitator Certification lapses after a year unless I either take THAT training again, or facilitate a YP course at least once in that period. But that still would not account for 3 times in 6 months.

It's a big reddish thing, somewhere between here and Jupiter. Actually, it's more of a burnt orange, not the bright red of the background of the First Aid Merit Badge... or the red Scout symbol on the Troop Guide position patch, for that matter...

... although, it is difficult to avoid noticing the "whole car" and offering suggestions for having a better one. Maybe we just need to be less dogmatic in some cases.

Eagledad says:

I understand, but come on. Someone in need has asked for help to fix a car and all the adults can say is your driving the wrong model.

I was just following the tradition in this forum.

In other words, I think you're probably right. It is something that maybe we need to be more sensitive to when it is a Scout asking a question rather than an adult.

Eagledad, I think what has caused the "concern" here is not the troop guide position for the NEW scout patrol, which is what I think you are talking about. That position clearly exists and is important and your training suggestions are good ones. The concern is with the "troop guide" for the REGULAR patrols. The position does not exist and could be counterproductive, unless it is really just a misnomer for "Instructor" which would involve a different kind of training.

As many people know by now, we have the opportunity this week to witness a once-in-a-lifetime astronomical event. Mars and the Earth are closer together right now than they will be for another 60,000 years. Anyone with a telescope, and I do not believe it even has to be a very good one, can see Mars as a disk rather than as the "bright reddish point of light" that can usually be seen. I plan to go one step further and will be taking my son tonight to our local community college, where they have a planetarium and will be setting up some really GOOD telescopes for free public viewing of this spectacle. Several other colleges around here are doing the same thing. I assume that Mars will be visible all over the country, though I guess it's possible it might "rise" in the middle of the night in some places. I don't know, I never earned the Astronomy merit badge, I just like looking at neat stuff.

I think this would be a good thing to do for Scouting families (and of course, any other families), as well as Cub Scouts and older boys -- at least those who have not become jaded about things like this yet. As cynical as I can seem about many things, I don't think I will ever lose my sense of wonder and curiosity about things like this.

::Sarcasm back on::

I guess I also ought to apologize to the thousands of boys who will not get the benefit of this program because a couple of people made some lighthearted remarks about the color of a merit badge.

::Sarcasm back off::

Good grief, Bob. Like I said before, I guess my "error" was in posting something in "your" thread without permission.

One more thing -- and if I am coming off as the Grinch who stole Christmas here, that is not my intent. But I can't help thinking how far we have come in dealing with issues like this in the last 20 or 30 years. When I was a boy, nobody would have felt a need a need to make accommodations for the ADHD-or-similarly-afflicted boy, because nobody had ever heard of those conditions. A disruptive boy was considered a "bad kid" and was usually removed in some way. In the Scouting context, I am sure that in "my day," many such boys were invited to leave and did so, whereas today the same boy would be diagnosed with a condition and their parents would insist on their rights. Back then the parents did not make much of a fuss because THEY didn't know that the boy had a medical condition. To them, and everybody else, the boy was just "acting up" or "going through a phase" and if the behavior was not self-corrected or "corrected within the home" (often by means that are frowned on today), he was a "bad kid."

I guess my point is that we adults now understand things a lot better than our parents did, but an 11- or 12-year-old boy cannot really be expected to have that understanding. You can tell the boys about the medical conditions of others, but to some degree they are still going to see things from their own, understandably somewhat selfish perspective.

Mark, I agree with what you say, but just want to add something. This is an important lesson to teach the other boys, but as you say, it isn't easy. I think it needs to be taught in a way that does not make the other boys "feel bad" about their reaction to a disruptive patrol-mate. I think that having a disruptive patrol-mate is a more difficult situation for an 11 or 12 year old boy than that boy will encounter in dealing with ADHD or similar persons in other contexts. Having one or two such children in your class at school is not quite like having one in your patrol, where everybody is supposed to be working together as a team, in "close quarters" both literally and figuratively. It tough when one member of the team is off on his own agenda that includes interfering with what the team is trying to accomplish. Do not misunderstand what I am saying. Scouting is for the disruptive boy along with everybody else, but there is some limit to what can be expected from the "other boys" in dealing with him. I don't know exactly where that limit is and it does not sound like it has been reached in this case. It sounds like this is a situation capable of being worked out.

Bob, I read your first post in this thread (no pun intended). I read the link. I remember this from when it happened, and you have now provided an update as to how the BSA and Red Cross are implementing the agreement through the councils and district training committees. Thanks for the update. It all sounds like a great thing.

But what more is there to say about it? And if your post reminded me that the Red Cross once threatened to sue the BSA, can't I say so? (And I didn't even say so at first.) It doesn't take anything away from what you posted. It doesn't prevent others from saying something directly related to the new agreement. It was a tangential comment of the kind that seems to end up in almost every thread in this forum. It's just the way it goes.

Or was my mistake in not getting your permission before saying something in this forum?

Just for the record, the comment about "almost half" a troop being Troop Guides (or being "considered" Troop Guides) came from Hops, not Spork.

As for what Spork did say, I agree with others that the troop leadership needs to look at the what these "troop guides" are doing. Having a troop guide assigned to a "regular patrol" has the potential of diminishing the roles of both the PL -- who having served briefly as PL of the New Scout Patrol and having been elected a "regular" PL should now be ready to "fly on his own," reporting directly to the SPL -- and also the SPL, part of whose job it is to "guide" the PL's and help them deal with problems. If you have "troop guides" doing parts of each of these jobs, it is almost like you have a "second" troop leadership structure, with the "senior troop guide" as sort of a "shadow" SPL and the troop guides for the "regular patrols" being sort of a hybrid of ASPL and co-PL.

There is a second, and perhaps more "positive" way to read what you are saying. You say the troop guides in the regular patrols "help with advancement." If they are teaching skills, their title could simply be changed to Instructor, and it wouldn't hurt to have an Instructor "assigned" to a patrol for purposes of dividing up the work. If they are passing boys on requirements... well, at that point I will leave the issue for others, because I have become a bit confused myself on who is supposed to be signing off on requirements these days. If the SPL assigns an older boy to work with Scouts on requirements, I am not sure whether that boy needs to have a specific title.

Well Mark, if you were in New Jersey I might suggest that that rumbling was the earthquake we had last night. (3.8 on Richter scale, and really noticeable only in a fairly small radius around the small town of Milford, on the Delaware River, so I had no idea until I read the newspaper this morning.) But since you aren't, we'll have to go with your theory.

Well, we learn from our failures as well as our successes. It appears that the first comma "fools" the software that runs this forum into thinking that the URL is finished.

Thanks for this, Its Trail Day, it is indeed interesting and I will have more to say about it later, but for now, as a public service, I'm putting the URL below because it looks like it did not come out "whole" in your post. It may have something to do with the commas, in which case it may not work this time either. I am sure there are some people who know how to put a URL in here by coding it rather than just cutting-and-pasting and hoping it works, but I am not one of them.

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Bob, if your last post was supposed to be a response to mine, it has nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about appointing people, not removing people.

But while we're on the subject of national removing council committee members so that the nominating committee can nominate new ones...

You seem to be assuming that if a council committee opposes the BSA's anti-gay policy, they must be some rogue people who are off on their own agenda, and do not represent the opinion of the council (in other words, the CO's within the council.) But what if that is not true? What if in fact the majority of the CO's oppose the policy? They could keep electing committee members who feel that way, and I suppose national could keep disapproving them. It's certainly a good way to stifle dissent... and indirectly, to pretty much guarantee that the opponents of the policy will never be able to gain a majority within the organization. Yet another manifestation of might makes right. If what you're trying to teach the boys power politics, you're doing a great job.

Acco makes a good suggestion. It is an issue the boys can resolve among themselves, and so they should. And in all likelihood they will end up taking turns as you would have them do. You might even tell the patrol leader that one way would be to take turns. What you want to avoid is you deciding or even suggesting who gets the first turn.

On another level, my guess is that this is not the only "issue" that you have in dealing with this Scout. Have you asked your SM or if he/she cannot help, your DE for resources for dealing Scouts with ADHD? I know that resources do exist for this and similar conditions. This is a very prevalent issue in Scouting today. There were several boys with this or similar conditions in the pack my son was in, and at times they could be very disruptive. One boy in particular would just ask inappropriate questions (not like "that" but every other kind of inappropriate) of guests visiting den or pack meetings, or when the Webelos dens were out visiting the first aid squad or wherever, and sometimes start wandering around where someone was supposed to be giving a demonstration. Sometimes we leaders would take turns being on "Jimmy watch" (I changed the name) to sit behind him and just sort of whisper things in his ear, and given the positive, individualized attention, he behaved to a degree. In the spring he probably will be joining my troop, which should be interesting, at which time I will remember the advice I am giving you.