Prairie_Scouter

eagle90, I remember exactly the same thing. It really wasn't a big deal back then (for me, high school in the late 60's).

Anyway,

We tell our Scouts that they have to clean up everyday. Showering and pool or lake time all count. If they get too "ripe", somebody let's them know.

Let's face it, this is summer camp. Some guys proudly come home with all their spare clothes still folded up in their bag the same way they went in.

Hi Elizabeth,

Congratulations on your new position!

And I mean that sincerely. I've moved on to Boy Scouts now, but I served as CC in my pack while my wife was CM, and it was really a great time.

Getting people to volunteer to help out is always difficult. From everyone I talk to, it is getting more and more difficult in each succeeding year.

And, well, the CM is a bit more than "reading announcments". The CC is responsible for the "business" of running the pack; the CC is more or less responsible for getting the various jobs filled, pack finances are tracked correctly, dens are organized, etc. Much of this, of course, is done with the support of and in partnership with the CM. The CM is responsible for the "boy side" of the pack. The main "regular" responsibility is having a successful pack night each month. The CM is the public face of the pack. The CM is responsible for making sure that the pack program is being followed, ie, are the dens moving forward as they should, are the boys having fun, etc?

You need to get yourself a CC. You need to get all of your leaders trained (that's the job of the Committee, really). Of course, you need a CM and CC to be able to recharter. Then, turn most of the mechanics of the pack over to that person. You need to concentrate, as quickly as possible, on the boy side of the pack. If that's not done right, you'll lose Scouts, and if you lose Scouts, you lose parents that could fill those jobs. It starts a spiral downhill you don't want to get caught in. On the other hand, a strong boy program brings in more Scouts, which brings in more parents, and you get a nice upward spiral of support.

I've been through a good deal of these kinds of things before. It's likely most everyone who's on the Forums has as well. Keep the questions coming and I'm sure you'll get some help here. Feel free to drop me a PM as well if you want. I'm certainly not an expert, but I'm happy to share what's worked for us, and what hasn't.

According to some commentators I've read, the port issue isn't getting all this "action" on its own merits, although there should rightly be concerns over it. It appears that this has become one of those "straw that broke the camels" back situations. This administration has defied the Congress enough now that even the Republicans are starting to revolt. You can only say "trust me" so often before somebody finally stands up and says "why?".

On the port issue specifically, everything I've read leads me to believe that management of ports is pretty closely scrutinized, at least to the level allowed by current funding. However, it's also true that the Administration hasn't really pushed it as a priority, although it should obviously be a high priority item (a natural gas tanker detonated in any harbor would have the same affect as a low yield nuclear device, for example). And now they come along with the Dubai deal, and seemingly were clueless as to why people would be concerned about it. And rather than say "ok, here's what we did and why so, that you understand", they once again stonewall and threaten vetos (which he probably couldn't sustain anyway at this point).

I suspect that even the Republicans are tiring of having to support a president who's administration seems to feel that they have to answer to no one.

Since jk has been pretty much right on the mark about the situation in Chicago, why would we think that he's totally off the mark on the situation in Atlanta? More detail, as suggested, is always helpful, but hasn't all of this been in the press at one time or another?

Does anyone from the Atlanta area, for example, have information that the Scouting professionals there are, instead, doing a stellar, or at least, nominally successful, job?

Eamonn,

A show about the royals followed by Monty Python? How could you tell the difference?

As with just about all business these days, the management of the ports are probably being sold off because there isn't enough profit in it for U.S. companies. The same reason we're sending our jobs overseas, sending our technology overseas, etc, etc. Profit is all. The almight buck rules. 25 million people in the U.S. are getting food stamps; thankfully, we can take comfort that many companies are declaring record profits and their CEOs have more income than some countries.

This whole episode should bring some focus to just how big a joke the so-called "war on terror" is. Al Queda is bigger than it was before the Gulf War, our mismanagement of the Iraq war is leading to ample recruiting opportunities for the insurgents (I hesitate to call them "terrorists" because that label really depends on what end of the bullet you're on). Civil liberties are being trampled, our international image is in shambles.

From what I've heard, the due diligence on managing of the ports is really quite extensive. Even with that, tho, you'd think that a transaction such as this would raise some red flags in the Administration and cause them to be more forthcoming about what was going on. The question is whether that was inadvertant, or another example of the secretive nature of this Administration.

We're really at the point where we need to find some people of true integrity and vision to run our country, regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Sadly, almost none of the present members of the elected government would seem to qualify.

I agree with what you're saying, t158, but for some, what you'd describe as "spreading discontent" is more a matter of raising issues that need resolution in order for Scouting to be the shining light we'd all like it to be. (of course, not everyone sees some of these issues as problems, and are perfectly happy with the status quo.

I spend the vast majority of my time working within my local unit. That more than uses up my "1 hour per week" . But, when I can, I try to work towards resolution of larger issues that I see as being damaging to the organization overall. In my case, that issue is primarily the question of gays in Scouting. It's difficult to work on those kinds of problems, tho, when the organization is under the spotlight for fraudulent activities by its local leaders. Personally I see a lack of leadership from the national office unless the topic is one of their political hot points. And that, if true, is really unfortunate, because if the CAC leadership problems are any kind of realistic example at all, it may be nearly impossible to bring about a change in leadership at the national office.

When fighting an uphill battle, it's always easier to walk away than continue the fight. That's exactly what some would like to have happen. Working from within is difficult, and can be very frustrating. There's no reason that Scouters such as jhk can't come here for some venting and support. A few of us, at least, are probably happy to read what he has to say. If others aren't, just click on to the next topic.

BSA does many things very well; they also do a smaller number of things very badly. Internal control appears to be one of those less fortunate items in at least some parts of the country. CAC is kind of a mess right now. I'm not in it directly, but I'm only one council away. The issue of Owasippe is screwed up on both sides. CAC wants to sell it, apparently for the windfall profit they will make while at the same eliminating an asset that has become a liability to them from a financial standpoint. Lost is the importance of its history in U.S. Scouting, something you'd think BSA National would be interested in, but it appears not. There is a group trying to block the sale on what appears to be mostly emotional grounds, but they don't seem to have a plan for the money to keep it open for the long term. Camps at Owasippe have fallen into disrepair and have just been closed as participation continues to drop off. The issue of leadership challenges continue at CAC. There seems to be no end to the lengths the current leaders will take to remain in power. Once again, BSA National seems to be keeping hands off as this once life-filled council falls apart.

I find it pretty interesting that the National Office will rise up if a council violates one of the "hot button" issues of the national office, say, gays in scouting, or atheists, but seems content to sit by and watch other councils continue to deteriorate with more mundane problems like fraud. Maybe the National office is taking a strong part in these problems behind the scenes, but why not be more public, then? Why not make a statement that the National Office will not tolerate actions at the Councils such as those frauds perpetrated by some? There may be some lip service going on here, but as far as I can tell, that's about it.

It's a shame that Scouts were used as display pieces for this effort. It may be well-meaning, I suppose, but it looks more like a bit of political gamesmanship to me. BSA itself has been played as a pawn of the conservatives (my opinion) for some time, but this is usually the adults, and the Scouts are left out of the mix.

No-bid contracts shouldn't be awarded to anyone, regardless of the administration. Could be Halliburton didn't come up as a problem during Clinton's adminstration because the conservatives were too busy going after him because he couldn't keep his zipper up.

Doesn't it seem just a bit convenient that a contract for military support seems to be structured in such a way that only one company can fulfill the requirements? Hmmmm.

And what was the meaning of that quote, anyway? When you've got a war going on, you don't have time to think and do things properly? Things like actually including the cost or the war in the budget for everyone to see? Maybe that's the reason our boys in Iraq don't have adequate equipment and have to raid the supplies of the reserve units when they are sent over, with the result that those units are returning home without the equipment needed to respond to emergencies at home?

Or perhaps just a tangle of fingers from too much typing?

>P.S. I am very pro-gun, pro second ammendment. The only civil right >that guarantees all the rest.

Uh, oh, are we going to start up THAT discussion again?

How does that argument go again? Something like "we can only be safe knowing that we all have the ability to blow each other's brains out"?

Sometime inadvertantly, and sometimes not so inadvertantly

Well, I have to admit that most of those kinds of things have happened at my house. We occasionally have rooms that we feel fortunate to have a path to walk through. Several instances of a food might be open at the same time, etc etc etc. BUT.............

My kids are good kids. They get good grades, they get into just the right amount of mischief, they love us, and we love them. All that other stuff is just details that I can ignore. Well, most of the time.

My wife will get really, really ticked off sometimes when they do something like not put their clothes away. My usual response is something like, "You know, you're right, but is this really the thing that you want to go to the wall on? There are lots worse things that could be happening around here."

Of course, my standards are a lot different than before we had kids

Eamonn,

Both the military and BSA are supposed to operating under a policy of "don't ask, don't tell". As far as BSA goes, at least that's what I've been told.

I don't know who's currently fighting the military case in court, if anyone, but I suspect that they'd probably have an easier time winning the case for gays in the military. As I understand it, the original argument was that gays for some reason weren't considered to be competent fighters, or that straight soldiers would somehow be distracted by the thought of a gay being nearby. I think that's been pretty much disproven over the years. Of course, winning in court is different than overcoming bigotry, and that might take more time.

The BSA case against gays is built upon religious belief. The Supreme Court says that as long as BSA defines itself as a private club, they can determine their membership requirements. So, if they want to keep out gays, they can. If they want to keep out Protestants, or Jews, or Hindus, or whatever, that's ok, too. The court didn't say that BSA was correct in its exclusionary policies, only that it could legally do so.

Especially in this forum, we should remember that most posts here should be assumed to have a "header" of "this is my opinion". Opinions are fine, and we should welcome them. And to not agree, and say so, is part and parcel of what we do here. But, having a friendly disagreement becomes difficult when preconceived attitudes come into play. Among those are things like "I'm on the religious right, and therefore more moral than you" and "I'm a liberal and therefore more openminded than you", etc. You've got some people out on the extremes of both sides, and those people tend to get a lot of ink. But most people tend to straddle the middle, and have a mixture of views.

For example, the fight over abortion rights in the press is dominated by the extreme ends of the spectrum. In reality, tho, do you know anybody who actually likes the idea of abortion? I don't know anyone with that view.

Same thing with the fight over gay rights. Extreme views get the press.

Here, yes, it's sometimes amusing to see someone go "over the top" in a tirade, but by and large, those posts tend to not move the discussion forward. It's not as if our discussions here are going to lead BSA to change or adhere policy. The best that can come of these discussions, and I think it's a good goal, is to better understand why people feel the way they do. In some cases, that might lead to a meeting of the minds as to what might be a good compromise. Sadly, tho, our country is currently is a "phase" where very few people are willing to compromise on anything. Maybe we can be different.

Fgoodwin,

I think the simple answer would be "common courtesy" and privacy.

When we have co-ed leaders on an outing, the women are given separate quarters. Why? Are we afraid that if we put a male leader with a female, they're automatically doing to have sex? No, but because common courtesy says that you give them separate quarters.

I think Kahuna got it right. We don't need to overthink this. Venturing seems to have gotten it figured out, and some variation on their rules would probably work just fine, while remembering, always, that sexual behavior has no place in Scouting. Period.

I think that OGE covered the essentials of the environment very well.

I'd just like to add one thought. The mere fact that you put a boy and girl together in a possibly secluded area doesn't automatically mean that a sexual encounter is going to happen. The same is true of gays, I am sure. Even in the teen years with the alleged raging hormones, the mechanics of relationships are still in play, unless the assumption is that rape is the inevitable result of such a situation, if consentual sex isn't there. I think that that's just WAY out there in the realm of possibilities, and in my mind, implies a really low opinion of youth.

Albert Einstein is quoted as once having said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge".

The current trend towards using standardized tests as the main arbitor for advancement as well as federal funding is forcing schools to teach their students in a certain way, the way that allows them to get the highest scores on the tests. This is hardly conducive to teaching our children to actually "think". I've always thought that schools mainly exist to teach you how to learn. What they actually present in the way of knowledge is useful, or not, depending on your circumstances, but the training in knowing how to learn remains for a lifetime. Or, you learn how to take a particular kind of test and end up with a number of facts, but no real way of using them or extending beyond them.

Once you know how to learn, your imagination can open up and explore endless possibilities. We used to know how to send men to the moon. Anybody think we could do that today if we wanted to? Our space program isn't run by men of vision anymore; it's run by accountants. Somebody apparently thought that that was a good idea, but the end result is that we have a hard time getting anything off the ground. I do see some hope, tho. There are small pockets of imaginative people here and there in the country. Private groups building their own manned space program. College students building cars that can navigate long distances over rugged terrain, all on their own. Who knows, there might even be a couple of government programs encouraging innovation that haven't been killed off yet.

Well, this is certainly the part of Scouting that we can all agree on.

No need to forgive, fun. Glad to have you here at the circus.

I've had my moments; I kinda remember early on in my time here that OGE said I'd made the 2nd most outrageous comment he'd ever heard here; I don't remember what it was anymore, but I still remember wondering what #1 was

I have a good friend who's about as conservative as they come, and a friend who avoids politics at all costs. I, eeek, have gay friends as well, and golly, they're just normal folks. I myself was raised in a Chicago neighborhood deep in Democratic territory with an uncle who was a Democratic precinct captain. You might say I'm a product of my environment

>>but punishing children and grandchildren to the third and fourth generation for their fathers'

>>wickedness!"

Well, I'll say one thing for the God portrayed in Exodus; the guy sure holds a grudge

So, here's the problem, I guess. Some religious folk hold their beliefs very strongly, and good for them. But, fact is, the Bible, as a book, has any number of contradictions and statements that are open to wide variety of interpretations. People who believe the writings in the Bible have created a certain interpretation for themselves, and they have built a very clever wall around those beliefs that's immune to any rational argument. However, it's a belief system, and as such, it doesn't really need to fulfill any rules of rational discussion. It is what they want it to be.

Point is, people see what they want to see when they read the Bible. I like to think that if there is Higher Being out there someplace, he's a lot more like George Burns than the one who's portrayed in some areas of the Bible.

I wonder what the ACLU sees when they look at the Bible?(This message has been edited by Prairie_Scouter to be less annoying than usual )(This message has been edited by Prairie_Scouter)

Yeah, funscout, but a statement like yours makes it sound like supporters of a "blue state" run around in some sort of moral black hole, which is basically, well, a crock.

The DaVince code isn't fact? uh oh.

Hi Eamonn,

We have a Golden as well, Buddy, who's 6 years old now. Still a pup, all 85 pounds of him. He's kinda big for a golden; not a pudge ball, tho, just a big moose of a golden. We do our best to "keep him a dog", but to be honest, he's a member of the family. I don't think non-pet owners understand the bond between a family and their dog. Golden's, by their nature, are gentle, intelligent beasts. We had a big Scout whoopdeedoo at my house this past weekend, and one of the younger siblings (old enough to know better, tho), decided to whack Buddy in the face a couple of times, pretty hard. A lot of dogs would have defended themselves, but Buddy just turned around and walked away. That's just who he is. It's probably better that I didn't hear about it until later; I probably wouldn't have been as kind as my Buddy.

Can't imagine life without a dog around. I'd like to get another Golden, but The Boss says that for now, we've got enough members in the family, with 3 kids, Buddy, 2 Spiney-tailed lizards, a leopard gecko, and 2 red-eared sliders. Can't imagine why she'd think that

Ah, I knew it was only a matter of time until somebody brought up the Canadian elections.

From what I've read, the Liberal loss at the polls was not about their social agenda, it was more about a series of financial scandals that have rocked that administration, and came to a head only a couple of months ago; not unlike the unfolding financial scandals we're seeing in our own government. According to a news story today, Canadians remains solidly pro-choice, and in favor of equal treatment and rights for gays.

I seriously doubt the election results will have any impact on Scouting Canada. Seems like there was more going on there than the political issues.