NJCubScouter

3 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

He's 26. If that's a kid, than I'm an adolescent still. I guess I want them Eagle Palms I never finished if I'm still a child. 

All joking aside, I get that "kid" is a way to refer to younger adults. But at 24, I'm out of my parents house, undergrad is done, working, paying all my own bills. Definitely not a "kid" anymore and I doubt Zach Wahls is either. 

No offense meant, I can assure you.  I sometimes do refer to people in their 20's as "kids," but I probably should not do so outside of my own family, in which it is intended as a term of endearment.  My children range in age from 26 to 35, none living at home, all working, all have been married (one now divorced), one with a child and one with a step-child... and I still call them "kids" every now and then.  It's all a matter of perspective I guess, a perspective you may share when you are 59-going-on-60 years old.  Last night I attended a school board meeting in which the board was honoring the "teacher of the year" nominees from each school, and I realized that about half of the nominees looked younger than my youngest child, and about 75% looked younger than my oldest child.  The milestones keep piling up.

But you make a good point and from now I will (try to) refrain from using that or similar terms for adults who I don't know personally.

Gwaihir, thank you.

3 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

We try to keep the human sacrifice on the DL

I understand that, it was just that that was the only line you left out. 

Also notable is the next line after all of that:  "All right, all right! I get the point!"

13 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

It's gonna be a free for all.   Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave!.... dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

 

I think you left out "human sacrifice!"  I have seen that movie more times than I care to admit.

More directly to the point, I think that does pretty much sum up the attitude that some people have been taking towards all of this.  Which, of course, people are free to do.  People are also free to take more of a wait-and-see attitude, which is what I choose to do.

1 minute ago, Gwaihir said:

I think he meant Single gender patrols in coed Troops, which is what I was hearing rumblings of prior to the Buzz-Feed article... 

That's what I think he meant too, but I just wanted to make sure.  @Eagle94-A1?

After all, if we are going to get upset over rumors, we should at least make sure we understand the rumors correctly. 

7 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

...and now the word is single gender dens within coed troops. 

Do you mean single gender dens within coed packs, or single gender patrols within coed troops?  Or both?

That article does not mention that at one point in the meeting, one of the Senators "forcefully delivered" (I believe that means "threw") the stick to (or "at"?) another Senator and the stick hit a shelf in Senator Collins' office and broke one of the knick knacks on the shelf.  Sen. Collins then put the stick away and they switched to using a small rubber ball.  This is mentioned here:

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/22/politics/susan-collins-bipartisan-talks-congress-shutdown-talking-stick/index.html

Other than that it apparently worked reasonably well.

1 hour ago, Gwaihir said:

politics aside,  I would love to see the age of Congress start shifting back to younger ages.  When the founders wrote COTUS, they put 25 and 30 (house/senate) in there for a reason.  Might be time to start exercising those ages and move the 60 and 70 year olds out. 

As an aside, here's a list of the youngest people in congress:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_members_of_the_United_States_Congress

I think that's a good point, and that's an interesting article, but I am disturbed by your implication about people who are 60, which I will be in several days. 

8 hours ago, Col. Flagg said:

But as some have suggested, if a unit calls an event "family camping" allegedly the BSA rules don't apply...and I can't find any place where that's confirmed either way.

I would be surprised if you did find confirmation for that statement, because it isn’t true.  If the “unit” is involved in any way, BSA rules apply. The way some people (including some people in this forum) try to get around this is by saying that the activity was organized by a group of parents, acting as parents, and the unit has nothing to do with it, and it’s just a coincidence that some of the parents are also Scouters, and all or almost all of the participants are members of the unit or their relatives.  That way they think they can take Cub Scouts whitewater rafting or go shoot paintball guns or laser guns at each other, or whatever, and not worry about the Guide to Safe Scouting.

As you can probably already tell, I am not a fan of this kind of thing.  I once had the opportunity to participate in such an activity when my son was a Cub Scout, and I said No Thanks, on his behalf and mine.

1 hour ago, walk in the woods said:

The district contains Iowa City and the U of I.  It's a blue district.  It will be interesting to see if Mr. Wahl's can consolidate the young vote.  One of the linked articles mentioned the only other declared candidate is a career diplomat (http://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/local/2017/12/21/zach-wahls-announces-bid-dvorskys-iowa-senate-seat/973866001/).  

Just based on the articles, it looks to me like the kid has a shot at this.  His primary opponent's only electoral experience is losing a race for school board.  One might also question whether, being a diplomat stationed all over the world, she had much of an opportunity to become well-known in her own district.  In my experience (in NJ) there is a fairly well-worn path to becoming a state senator:  Local council member, mayor, usually a seat on the county board of freeholders (county legislature), usually a state Assembly seat, and then you run for state Senator.  Neither of these people have done any of this.  (I do realize things might be different in Iowa.)  It also appears that Wahls got an endorsement (and was recruited by) a prominent local politician who decided not to run for the seat himself.

1 minute ago, an_old_DC said:

Speaking of wise-guys, I hate it when some adults are wearing the "Old Goat" or "Rocking chair" patrol patch. Adult patrols? Please, that's called being an ASM or Committee Member.

Most adult leaders in my troop wear the "Old Goat Patrol" patch, and have been since long before I got there.  I was given one but have never worn it.  Patrols are for boys.  However, I have never said anything about it.  I try to pick my battles, and that one has never seemed worth the effort.

The fact is that some people are just wise-guys, although that's not normally the term I would use.  I have seen this extend to uniforming.  There was a Scoutmaster of a nearby troop who I always saw wearing his cloth Eagle patch on his uniform.  (Not the knot, the oval patch.) This guy was in his 40's or 50's.  I am sure he knew he was not supposed to be wearing that patch.  He looked and sounded to me like the kind of guy who was wearing the patch just so, if someone questioned him about it, he could argue with them and/or tell them to mind their own business.  Hopefully that is not what you have here.

I recall a couple of cabin-camping trips in temperatures around minus-5 degrees, in a barely-heated cabin with no indoor plumbing, that probably should be count-able for advancement, but they aren't.

Aviationdude, welcome to the forum!

I will try to give you brief answers to each question:

#1:  The person who signs off that the Scout has completed a merit badge, or particular requirements within that badge, is the Merit Badge Counselor.  Anyone, including someone who is not otherwise involved in Scouting, can be approved as a merit badge counselor for a particular merit badge if they have the necessary skills, knowledge, experience, etc. for that subject area.   I am not quite sure what qualifications would be required to counsel the Aviation MB.  I would think you would have to be a pilot at the very least.  Merit badge counselors are registered through the local council and there is some paperwork, a criminal background check and Youth Protection Training (prevention, recognition and reporting of child abuse within the Scouting program) involved.  There is some basic information here and here if you are interested.

#2: The Scout must do exactly what the requirement says.  The requirement you are referring to says:  "Under supervision, perform a preflight inspection of a light airplane."  That is what the Scout must do to pass the requirement.  Watching and learning is not sufficient. Of course, the Scouts do need to learn what they are doing before they actually do it, but then they have to do it.

#3:  Well, you know what, that question has been the subject of so much discussion and debate, both here and on an official BSA blog (and elsewhere I assume) that I am going to let someone try to summarize it, and maybe comment on it later. 

Unless any of us actually lives in the 37th Senate district in Iowa, or has other reason to know the dynamics of that district, what people are discussing here are all abstractions.  If you had two candidates who were exactly the same except for one being much more experienced than the other, then experience is probably the overriding issue.  But no two candidates are ever that much alike.  What will presumably happen here is that the voters of that district will consider everything about Mr. Wahls and his opponent(s) - their age, background, experience (both in politics and in the rest of their lives), positions on issues, general ideology, how they present themselves, intangibles like whether people think they can "get things done," and any other factor that seems relevant, balance it all together, and decide who they want to elect.  In a general election, party obviously also plays some rule, and in a primary, there may be factions or "machines" within the party that back one candidate or another.  All of this, together, is what determines who wins elections.  

I did some digging around on the Internet to see what might be expected from that district.  I saw no mention of the partisan composition of the district, but I did find that the retiring incumbent, who is a Democrat (like Wahls) has won his last three elections without a Republican even being nominated.  In the second of those three elections there was an opponent, a Libertarian, but the Democrat got about 75% of the vote.  So what that tells me, without any other information, is that either this is a heavily Democratic district or the retiring incumbent has the charisma, connections etc. needed to win elections overwhelmingly regardless of party, that the Republicans don't even try.  Or maybe a combination of both.  If it is the former, it is probably also true that Wahls' position on the issue of LGBT equality is about the same as most of the voters in the district.  And it is probably also a good bet that the only opponent of Wahls who is mentioned in the article, who is a fellow Democrat running against him in the primary, has similar views on that issue.

So in other words, the issue that attracts the most attention in this forum where Wahls is concerned, is probably not going to be a huge issue in the election.  Experience may be an issue, but it is just one issue.

1 hour ago, Jameson76 said:

That being said, the whole Scouts for Equality group could be a thread or forum unto itself.  As with many things, the name sounds OK, but then you drill down to the politics and it gets more polarizing.  Hey, let's get this group top change to what we want them to be....

Well, that whole issue, including the various groups and individuals whose names were in the media, was the subject of many threads in this forum over the years until (and shortly after) the BSA finally decided the issue.  It  basically dominated the Issues and Politics section for all those years.  It still crops up occasionally (as I guess it just did, in this thread.)

If it were me, I would suggest to my son that he find a buddy his own age and/or in his patrol to play cards with.  Presumably your son was not the only boy who was not playing cards.

Now that I'm finished rolling my eyes...

26 minutes ago, hikeoholic said:

The fee will be $120 with applications to defray the costs to the council to file.

"To fiule"  To file what? "File" has several meanings.  If they mean to send the application to National, it does not cost $120 (but see below) to scan two pages and email them.  Or do they literally mean "file" them as in a file cabinet?  That is some pretty expensive file-drawer space right there.

26 minutes ago, hikeoholic said:

You will be receiving the Eagle Scout gift set with this fee.

That actually makes this a little less outrageous.  I forget what we pay for the kit.  So this fee is really $120 minus the regular cost of the kit.

::Rolling eyes::

43 minutes ago, mashmaster said:

Not I, my wife would kill me.  

Sounds like a violation of the Guide to Safe Scouting. 

Welcome to the forum Pack1_Axel!  Just so you're aware, this thread was previously active for one day in June 2017, and the original poster appears to have last visited the forum the day after that - June 9.  That being the case, you might be waiting a long time for a response. 

5 minutes ago, numbersnerd said:

I forgot to mention that the caretakers are not paid. Basically volunteers that trade labor for camping slots. They set their RV up at reserved areas close to the office and handle admission, stocking paper products in the restrooms, etc. I think they do it on 6 or 12 month stints. Not that it makes any difference to park visitors. Closed is closed, no matter the reason.

Ok, but it still seems curious that when the shutdown ended they did not call the volunteers back in and reopen the park.

It also seems odd to me that the availability to the public of a federal park would depend on volunteers rather than federal employees.  If you had asked me who lets visitors into federal parks, restocks paper products, etc., my assumption would have been that it is done by Department of Interior employees, not volunteers.  But I guess I just learned something.

As for the shutdown of the moment, it appears that a deal has been reached in the Senate but will still have to be voted on in the House, to keep the government open for another 3 weeks or so.

Some of you are talking about boys joining Cubs for the first time at the beginning of fifth grade.  How often does that actually happen?  In my five-year involvement with Cub Scouts as an adult, I don't think I ever saw that happen.  In fact I doubt any kids joined the pack after the third grade. Of course that was awhile ago - my son crossed over in 2003.  And maybe the recruiting in our area focused mainly on kids going into Tigers and not on older boys.

Good luck to him.

26 is a little young to be elected to a state legislature, but not unheard of.  I know we have had people younger than that be elected to county-wide office.  And my town just elected an 18-year-old to the school board, which obviously is not on the same level as the state legislature, but it's still quite an accomplishment.

4 minutes ago, numbersnerd said:

Or any park run by the Army Corps of Engineers. You just don't realize how far those Federal tentacles reach...

We've been hit with it before. Sad part is that the shutdown had been over for months. But the caretakers weren't there to run park operations because they were told to leave when the shutdown started. They didn't have anyone else come in after things were supposed to be open again, so the park remained closed. 

It seems strange that the people did not go back to work when the shutdown was over.  Isn't that the whole point of trying to end the shutdown asap, so the people can go back to work?