Proud Eagle

The new Fieldbook looks nice. I haven't gotten one yet, but the council was selling them at the door during the council recognition dinner a couple weeks ago. I didn't buy one, because they only had the soft cover version, and they were charging a price higher than that in the catalog. Since there is a national shop in Louisville (nice to have one about 5 mins. away) I assume they will have it at the same price the catalog does.

McCain won't run with Kerry. The reason for that is Kerry won't ask him. The democratic base would have a heart attack (or if they are related to Cheney, 3 or 4). Besides, Kerry's liberalness would overshadow the moderate conservatism of McCain to the point that moderates would not be easily drawn to the ticket. Also, this would be the making of a great attack add for Bush/Cheney. John Kerry... Democrat one day... Republican the next... It would be the most transparent grab for the moderate voters in the history of presidential politics. Anyone with a brain would see through it. As to Cheney dropping off the ticket, I seriously doubt it. Cheney's health would have to decline, or there would have to be some sort of Haliburton scandal directly tied to him. Currently we have no reason to think either will be happening. Also, McCain lost the 2000 primary because he wasn't conservative enough. Primaries are always dominated by the more entrenched members of the parties. Therefore it required no action by back room big shots, but rather it just required Bush to appeal to the Republican base more effectively than McCain. Perhaps McCain would have won the general election by a landslide, but we will never know since his campaign strategy was insufficient to win the primary.

Huh. Last time I looked at this thread it wasn't eve half this lenght, if I remember correctly. I would be glad to get into a mature discussion about the proper role for men and women in the BSA. I would be glad to discuss ways that I think the abilities of various female leaders could be used in more productive ways than is currently the case. I would be glad to discuss the ways that women do sometimes cause problems under certain conditions. I would also be glad to discuss the fact that many men do not contribute as much as they should, forcing others to make up for this. However, it doesn't look like this is the place for that discussion. It appears to me that the conent of this thread could be reduced to: women are evil no they aren't yes they are men are just as evil no they aren't yes they are no they aren't who is it you are saying isn't evil? women men evil good yes no Does that about sum up the history of this thread? If I am incorrect, please correct the record.

I am not entirely certain how this responds to my points, but I do certainly thank you for the time and attention. You may be right that there may be unforeseeable consequences of allowing women to be leaders in the BSA. However, if that be so, then worrying about it doesn't do much good since we can't figure out what problems we need to prevent. I personally think that women do contribute something to the BSA. However, I have yet to find a case of a woman contributing to the BSA simply because they were a woman. On the other hand, I have known trained, competent leaders that happened to be women. They were far superior to untrained, incompetent men. Now if I was organizing a Scout unit and I was forced to choose between equally qualified men and women, I would choose men to work with boys and women to work with girls. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable position to hold. On the other hand, if I had to choose between qualified and unqualified leaders, I would choose the qualified ones. Now, someone else mentioned the training boys to be men issue again. I certainly don't think that the purpose of Boy Scouts can be neatly summed up in that statement. However, neither will I deny that is a part of what Boys Scouts is trying to do. We do want to help make boys into good men. Scouting can't do it alone. Nor is that the only intention of the Scouting movement. Just because there is nothing about it in the mission, vision, or aims, doesn't mean it isn't there. The idea of turning boys into men has gained some sort of negative connotation over the years. I think maybe it has something to do with various institutions (mostly military and boarding schools) that tried to create the "whole man". So the BSA no longer says that is any part of what it is doing, but yet you will see that the mission, vision, and aims are all perfectly compatible with that end. Wheeler, I would like to make a few suggestions. Decrease the volume of posting to a more easily digestible level. People will pay more attention to what you do say if you don't say quite as much quite so often. Make certainty that your philosophical arguments have some concrete relationship to a practical idea. If it no one can figure out what application the words of Socrates have, they will stop reading them in a hurry. On the other hand, Socrates sounds pretty interesting if you can find a real way to apply it. Try to avoid the sort of stream of consciousness that your entire posting history seems to be. Your individual posts taken by themselves aren't so bad, but the way you string different posts together can be a bit confusing. It sometimes seems that you are trying to prove or make some one, grand, unstated point. However, it would be more productive if you would focus on a single issue or point at one time. Concentrate on that issue until some satisfactory conclusion is reached, and then move on to the next front in your crusade to save the Boy Scouts from themselves and their enemies. As is, you are moving on to new battles while the old ones are not yet finished. Have you ever considered how your judgment about certain issues in general has been biased by your own personal experiences? Based on what you have said about your mother I wonder if perhaps her actions and your relationship with her have biased your thoughts and feeling about women in general. It could be that there are other biases you hold based on other experiences. These biases may or may not be beneficial to you. After all, we all have biases about certain things. These are just a few thought about these subjects. You can take them or leave them.

WOW. Never thought that would infuriate anyone. Being lumped together with Bob White is also something new. On the charge of being out of touch with the Cub Scout program, I pleed guilty. I haven't had regular involvement with Cubs for quite some time. The last Cub event I attended was my nephew's pack's pinewood derby. I did not intend to suggest that Cubs shouldn't be doing outdoor activities. In fact, I think it would be great if Cubs did lots of stuff outdoors. However, there is a difference between outdoor activities and overnight camping. Most packs probably need more of both. That being said, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Let me try to present my arguments in somewhat different terms. BSA wants there to be a consistently good program for all Cub Scouts. This doesn't mean that just because one den gets to go to the flight simulator that all of them should, rather it means they should all be doing some sort of outings on a regular basis. If you then extend this concept to the somewhat more difficult to organize camping events, it seems clear that pack level organization is the way to go. It was mentioned that you think it unfair that you can't just take your den camping and focus on them. I think it would be great if you could, in and of itself. However, camping experience and skills are not universal traits of den leaders. Your den members may benefit greatly from you planning camping for just them, but what about the other dens? It is quite likely that some of the other den leaders would need some help to plan a good camping trip. Perhaps it would be the greater good for you to help plan a pack camping trip (and in the process help teach the other leaders some of the basics so they can contribute more next time) so that all the Cubs can do some camping. The second reason for pack instead of den camping is quality control. The tour permit may only require one committee member to sign, but that is more oversight than there would be if den leaders were free to take their dens camping whenever they want. The committee member should only be signing that permit if they think that the event has been properly planned and will be properly lead. Think about it this way: picture the least skilled den leader in your pack trying to plan a camping trip. Would you really feel comfortable about that happening without someone else in the pack backing them up? It may be that the prohibition on den camping doesn't really serve any useful purpose. It could be that it will be done away with. I am not suggesting I know for certain the inner thoughts of the BSA. I am also not suggesting current policy is the best possible policy. I am trying to suggest one possible set of reasons that BSA may think pack camping is a better idea than den camping for wolf and bear dens.

There go I, but for the Grace of God. Wheeler, I have a book for you to add to your reading list. It is one I am reading with a group of fellow students. It doesn't really have anything to do with the current subject, but it is a good book that can be thought provoking. "The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness" by Simon Wiesenthal. It probably isn't worth going on a search for it, but if there happens to be a copy in the local library, it is worth a read. In fact, I would recommend it to anyone that runs across a copy. OK. Now back to what I had intended to say. I personally have quite a bit of sympathy for Wheeler. He certainly seems to have only the best intentions. I would certainly hope that were the positions reversed (I holding his convictions and seeing others walking around in apparent blindness to what is going on) I would try to get everyone to see the light. On the other hand, if you are the only one seeing the light, then maybe you should take a moment to consider if it is really there or not. However, Wheeler is not alone in his beliefs. (Though I doubt any other person holds the exact same combination of beliefs about all subjects that Wheeler does.) There are many that believe that to a greater or lesser extent, western civilization has lost its way. There are many that believe that a variety of insidious evils have crept into the very fabric of our lives. Now many may write those people off as fringe reactionaries, but the problem is they do, at least to some extent, have a point. Socialism and socialist ideas have caused major change in western society and in the United States. In the US modern liberalism is not so stridently socialist as its European counterparts, which in turn seem tame compared to the Communist states of the cold war. However, there is a slow creep toward certain aspects of the socialist ideal. As to weather or not this is a good thing, that must be left to individual judgment. But to deny that there has been a massive, nearly revolutionary rather than evolutionary, change in western civilization and the United States over the past century or so is pure naivet. Now, not all of the change has been toward true socialism. There have been other ideals and philosophies contributing to the change. Where I depart from Wheeler is the level of concern, nay, near panic, that these facts stir up in me. I see the changes as being neither so complete nor so evil as Wheeler does. I certainly do not think there is a conspiracy under way to silence people and hide the truth. Let me demonstrate a practical example in the differences of our opinions. In an earlier post Wheeler mentioned the changes in the newer translations. Specifically newer translations omitted certain words relating to being effeminate. Now Wheeler seems to see this as part of some great Socialist/Fascist/Liberal plot to hide and destroy the truth. On the other hand I believe the change came about in something more like this way: various individuals in public life began to change their opinions about certain issues this lead to preachers and theologians re-examining those same issues soon certain teaching began to be de-emphasized in favor of other teachings scholars were brought up in this now changed culture those scholars were asked to do new translations because of the pre-existing biases caused by the society and culture, these scholars chose to translate certain passages differently than other scholars had in the past Essentially the old scholars were biased by the times in which they lived. The new scholars were also biased by the times in which they lived. The translations reflect the differences in attitudes, opinions, and understanding caused by those different times. Now it is certainly possible that one group of scholars or the other may actually produce a better translation. However, not being a scholar of Greek or Hebrew, I am in no position to translate from original texts. I could, with great effort and some mental pain, produce a clumsy translation from the intermediate Latin, but that would be of little use in evaluating the accuracy of scripture. Therefore, I instead believe it when those I trust who have greater expertise in these matters tell me that some translation or another is good, or better, or down right terrible. For me, the primary source of such information in the Church, which has been in that business for about nineteen centuries now. So, now the question is, what, if anything does any of this have to do with Scouting. In the immediate practical sense, absolutely nothing. In a more general and indirect way, it has as much to do with Scouting as it does with just about anything else. These great questions of philosophy, theology, politics, and culture do have some effect on Scouting. We all agree that the Scouting movement has changed since its founding. Simply going back and reading the old manuals with the new gift of enlightenment that Wheeler is trying to force upon us would do no one any practical good at all. However, if Wheeler is correct that our understanding of things, down to the meaning of words, is so different than from the time of the founding, it brings into question weather or not any of us can really know what even such constants as the Scout Oath and Law were intended to mean. I personally reject that assertion. I believe, through careful evaluation, each of us can come to just as complete and correct an understanding of the Oath and Law and other key thing as any person had a century ago. Perhaps if we merely read those words casually without true thought, we would fail to discern their true meaning as Wheeler seems to fear. Unfortunately for Wheeler, I know of no Scouter that looks upon the Oath and Law so lightly. (If there be such Scouters in the movement let them resign quickly before their liaise fair attitudes effect the Scouts.) All Scouter I know take the Oath and Law quite seriously. It is an instrument that is used to evaluate many parts of life. Like any critical instrument, we are constantly seeking to tune it and calibrate it properly. I think I will stop there. I seem to have forgotten what the subject of this thread was in the first place. Perhaps it is time for some breakfast.

I would like to suggest that G2SS and most other Scouting rules and regulations are intended to compensate for the lowest common denominator. So while there are some dens that could camp safely, there are many that could not. One could suggest that something like Introduction to Outdoor Leader Skills be required to take your den camping. However, I would suggest there are better uses of a den leaders time. They should be focusing on the cub program. I would rather a bear cub den leader go take Wood badge before they take Outdoor Leader Skills. Keep the focus on the program as is. If you want to change the program, great, start writing letters. If you look at the chart in the appendix of the G2SS, you will see there are several activities not considered age appropriate for cubs. Here is a list of activities that tigers, bears, and wolves cannot do, that relates to camping and outdoor activities: camporees cooking outdoors fire building fueled devices orienteering pioneering axes bow saws hand ax winter camping survival training After having reviewed that list, it seems there is a fairly limited need to undertake cub camping activities for the purpose of providing training to the cubs. Certainly it would seem that a few pack camp-outs and maybe summer resident camp should cover it each year. As to the purely fun aspect of camping, I think the idea is that can best be done during pack and family camping. Packs are better equipped to provide the level of program considered by BSA to be desirable for cub camping. While there may be some den leaders capable of providing the sort of program desired, some would not be able to do so. The center of gravity, so to speak, is nearer to the pack than the dens. On the other hand the entire Boy Scout system is dependent on the patrol method. Also, some of you have made false accusations and assertions about what pack camping is. Some of you have asked if only member of one den show up, can it still be done? The answer is clear from the G2SS. "These are pack-organized overnight events involving more than one family from a single pack, focused on age-appropriate Cub Scout activities and conducted at council-approved locations" So there is clearly no requirement that member of multiple dens attend. Instead, it seems clear it must be a pack planned event, attended by multiple families, who may or may not be from the same den. Similarly there was a statement made about not being able to attend summer camp if only one den went. "Wolf and Bear Cub Scouts and Webelos Scouts may participate in a resident overnight camping program operating under BSA National Camp Schooltrained leadership and managed by the council." The statement clearly applies to the Scouts. It does not say anything about dens or packs in this rule. Perhaps the regulations for a resident camp do, but very few of us are familiar with those. Another possible reason for wanting cub camping to be a pack level event is to provide an extra layer of oversight. The pack has a committee to review the program. The pack has a relationship with a unit commissioner to help provide information, and to act as an extra link to the council. The pack has a COR who also communicates with council and is responsible for looking after the charter organizations interests. The pack has multiple leaders of various types to assist in planning and carrying out outdoor activities. Your typical Bear den does not have these things. In fact, I don't think any den of any type has all of these things. Further, it is possible that the sheer number of adults at a pack activity (both parents, and leaders) provide something of a critical mass that makes providing the program in a safe and effective manner far more likely than at the den level. I would suggest that it is possible that these seeming over achieving cub dens may be a result of over eager den leaders and parents. While I am certain that everyone has the best intentions, is it possible someone started thinking from the point of view of what they wanted and could do, rather than from the point of what the cubs wanted and are ready for? I certainly can't say for certain, since I am not on the ground to observe the facts, but it certainly seems a possibility. Even those of us in the Boy Scout program, with its looser restrictions and more capable youth, sometimes find ourselves trying to push the program the way we want it, rather than in the direction that is best for the Scouts.

I personally was hoping this case would go before the Court. It would have been far more intresting either way they could have ruled. Unfortunately, what we have now is sort of like a 4th of July celebration where they forgot to order the fireworks. I am really not concerned about this one particular case of a partially publicly sponsored fundraiser. I am concerned about the greater dangers that such viewpoint based punitive actions could have. It could soon be possible for very widespread state sponsored viewpoint discrimination to take place against the BSA and many other organizations. Any group that holds any public views or that has any set of values is a potential target. Government could set up programs for free use of public facilities tailored to keep out the youth groups of certain churches, the BSA, the Freemasons, or whoever they want. At this point, there is nothing to keep the state from carefully tailoring its standards to exclude almost any group. A more conservative state could decide that promoting the sanctity of human life is a state issue. Then any group that favors the "right to choose" could easily be banned for going against the new state values. I certainly hope that SCOTUS would step in if this sort of thing becomes widespread. However, the danger is that such standards will be set up so slowly that the Court never even notices that anything changed. By the time it receives notice, there could be an entirely new generation of judges on the court that are educated thinking such things are the norm. There is grave danger anytime the state starts endorsing or withholdings its endorsement from groups based on their values or views. This could be used as a form of both political and religious discrimination by the government. However, we shouldn't be surprised the court didn't act, it has grown more tolerant of government impositions on free speech in the last few years. (Anyone remember certain sections of a certain federal law being upheld that limited the content of political messages within a 60 days of general and 30 days of a primary election?) Next thing we know they are going to be banning the Catholic youth for having allegiance to a foreign power. Then some other state will ban the lesbian/gay club for making religious people feel unwelcome. Yes, both the proverbial box and can of worms have been opened up by allowing this to stand. WEE! Sliding down the slippery slope is so much fun!

I just happened to be skimming over the Guide to Safe Scouting available on-line. I noticed three potential violations of the guide to safe Scouting. Two of these violations are related to things at either do happen at Philmont, or are at least advertised as happening. The other is council related. At Philmont they claim (meaning the published literature, at least in 2001) to have ranges that allow Scouts to shoot 30 caliber rifles. (.30-06 if I remember correctly) Yet Scouts may only use .22 rifles. At Philmont, the water purification method uses the "cupful" measurement, while the G2SS specifically warns against such imprecise measures, and instead says that measures should be by the drop. My home council normally includes the Cub Scout packs at the Camporree. I know that more than just the Webelos attend, and I know some of the Cubs stay overnight. Yet Appendix B makes it pretty clear that isn't age appropriate. I certainly don't claim to be the foremost expert on the G2SS, but it certainly seems that it would be best if National and Council activities lead the way in setting the example.

My apologies Bob White. I was in error. I suppose next time I will do my homework a bit more carefully. I do imagine there are many examples of commercial products being sold for fundraisers. Scouting magazine certainly has enough advertisements from fund raising companies to indicate that. I do however, wonder about one thing. I am going to create a hypothetical situation, and I am not really certain if it is within the rules or not. Troop XYZ decides to do a Krispy Kreme Doughnuts sale for a fundraiser. However, they are aware they cannot have a "Troop XYZ Krispy Kreme Doughnut Sale". They fill out the proper unit fund raising application and receive approval. The troop then takes orders for the doughnuts. During the promotion of the fundraiser and the sale of the doughnuts the commercial brand is never mentioned. When the product is delivered, it just happens to be KK doughnuts. Would that be within the rules? I am a bit uncertain. Can a unit sell a generic product and then fill the orders with a commercial brand name product? Does it make any difference if the product is in a brand name package or a generic package? I think this is a somewhat unclear area based on the Ten Guides to Unite Money-Earning Projects. (I searched them out and read them since my last post.) I don't think I would really want to be the one trying to "sell" the plan to the council, but it might be possible. Here is another question relating to fund raising. Can a charter organization carry out a fundraiser for its programs, and state that supporting its Scout unit(s) is one of the benefits of the fundraiser? This is obviously something that would be based on the terms of the charter agreement, but since I have never seen one of those, I don't really know. Also, what are the limits on the unit's or individual Scout's participation in a charter organization run fundraiser? I would like to note that in my opinion the BSA violates the sixth guide by the popcorn fundraiser. It does not provide either a good value or a competitive price. Also, just about any fundraiser will, under true strict scrutiny, fail on the eighth point. Simple economics dictates that any money spent on purchasing a product from a Scout is money that will not be spent on some other goods or services. Therefore, all Scout fundraisers reduce the amount of money going into for-profit endeavors. This may be mitigated by the following facts: portions of the money will be reinvested in the community through purchases of goods and services by the Scouts and unit, and Scouts and their families may have additional funds available to spend on commercial goods and services due to decreased demands for personal funds to support Scouting activities. Even something benign seeming like a pancake breakfast after a church service will impact businesses due to increasing the supply of that good (pancake breakfasts) while decreasing the demand (in the form of after church eaters).

(Rats! I had a great reply ready to go, then I re-read your post and discovered I had missed a small detail.) You may try your council's website. Another good resource is meritbadge.com look under forms and files http://meritbadge.com/files/index.htm I think you will find what you are looking for. They have several versions of the forms available there. Another simpler idea would be to email the information from those sections without going through the hassel of using the electronic forms. Then the information can be printed and added to the work book. (You are allowed to add additional pages as needed.) Make certain to impress upon these Life Scouts how important it is to: follow every step in exacting detail and in its proper order record any action related to the project or planning, such as dates of meeings, telephone calls, etc to save every scrap of paper in any way related to the project Best of luck to you and those Life Scouts, though if they have their acts together they shouldn't need much of it.

I would suggest that if the materials are not available then the new requirements cannot be expected to be used. If all that is needed to complete a merit badge is the list of requirements, someone needs to be asking why there are merit badge books. Perhaps we should do away with them and just have the requirements book. I however, favor the position that the books are a key (though perhaps not always essential) resource for merit badge counselors and for Scouts. In that case it is necessary for the new materials to be available before the new version of the badge can be taught. If the new materials are not yet available, I would suggest either waiting until they are, or continuing on with the old requirements.

I do not have the uniform and insignia guide in front of me, so I can't say what the right answer is. However, like NW, every time I have seen someone wearing a region patch (Southern in my part of the country) it has been on the right sleeve.

I wonder what would have happened without the rescue. I would like to think 39 people could have figured out some way to dig themselves out, particullarly if they are Scouts.

I think it is great that he was able to save the person. I also think it is great Scouting is teaching people the skills needed for such action, and the courage to use them. I do however, wonder if this is the sort of above and beyond the call sort of action that deserves a medal. I would expect any Scout trained in the heimlich maneuver to help out someone that they noticed chocking. I suppose I consider that to be part of a Scouts duty. Perhaps he deserves commendation for not panicking, and for performing correctly under pressure. I cetainly can't say what I would have done. I nearly ran into a similar situation. I was at a certain famous barbeque buffet in Owensboro KY (that President Clinton once ate at). There was a group of older people (not really old, but past middle age) sitting at a nearby table. I happen to notice something didn't seem right, the conversation pattern on that side of the room had changed. I turned around and noticed on of the old guys was choking. He was not, however, choked. He was still breathing and caughing. Therefore, there was little that could be done. I kept my eyes on the situation. By then one of the younger members of that group had gotten up and was standing by. The guy (apparently) abruptly quit choking (rather suprising the way it happened), the other guy performed the heimlich (I wondered later if it was really necessary), he caughed a couple times, and then everything was OK. Everyone went back to their dinners and everyone involved seemed to enjoy the evening. It all happened in about 90 seconds from start to finish. I will never know if I would have been able to provide aid if the other guy had asked for someone to come help instead of performing the heimlich manuever himself. I would like to think I would have. I certainly think I should have if he had needed it and help hadn't been forthcoming from his tablemate. "to help other people at all times" Maybe I expect to much of everyone. Maybe I don't appreciate the difficulty of performing under pressure. Mabye I have some subconsious envy about never having had the opportunity to help someone in such a dramatic way. Maybe the guy deserves a medal. Maybe I would have frozen up and the poor old guy would have choked to death. Maybe I would have lept up, saved him, and earned a medal. Maybe the best thing to do was help the guy and go back to eating dinner and enjoying the evening as if nothing had ever happend (save for chewing a bit more carefully). I don't know, but I just thought I would share those thoughts with you.

(WE ARE GOING INTO A TANGENT. BRACE FOR TANGENT.) Bob White, I believe, is correct about the rules. They are somewhat strict and restrictive. They are also a bit unrealistic in my opinion. However, the best interests of the BSA are being looked after. There is a certain notion that the BSA is endorsing a product that it sells. That being said, you will see many unit fundraiser being done all over the place. "Boy Scout Christmas Tree Sales", "Troop XYZ Pork Chop dinners", "Pack LMN Pancake Breakfasts". These will be done with participants in everything from troop shirts and hats, to the complete field uniform, to civilian street cloths. The fact that it is wide spread doesn't make it good, but it does say something. I think the thinking of most is that it is explicitly a unit fundraiser, and therefore the unit (legally the charter organization) is endorsing the product (if anyone is, I think it is a bit of a stretch to think that just because someone sells something means they endorse it), not the BSA or the council. It would be foolish to hold a unit fundraiser and then when someone asks what the money will be used for, all you could say is, "I am not at liberty to discuss that" for fear of making someone think the BSA had endorsed something. (NOW RETURNING TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED THREAD) I have also known troops that held fundraiser just to support various special opportunities for the members. The understanding is that those not going this time will be able to go next time, or to some other special event. I have seen troops do this for the jamboree, for Philmont, and for other activities. It is also not uncommon for troop to hold a fundraiser, send some money to the general fund, but use some to support Scouts going to jamboree, NOAC, Philmont, JLTC, or other special programs and events. I think that is OK, so long as there is some consistent system for selecting who the troop will support, that gives everyone the opportunity to receive similar benefits over the course of their Scouting career. However, if the parents of the boys going to Jamboree just force some one time diversion of troop funds to such a purpose, that is not right.

My grandmother works at a St. Vincent de Paul store. (similar to Salvation Army or Goodwill) We used to have her keep an eye out for any Scouting related things, particularly uniforms. Unfortunately, I think our uniform bank is no longer in operation. That only ever turned up a uniform every once in a while, but it turned up flags in need of retirement all the time. If you are able to work out an agreement with a couple of thrift stores in the community, you should be able to pull in a decent amount of uniforms over time. I would second the suggestion of checking with the local council and the charter organization to try to find funds. Also, there are sometimes grants available from various trust funds and charitable groups that could apply to Scouting. I know a local unit in the housing projects was fully equipped using a grant they got from someplace a few years ago. Another possibility would be to approach churches, civic groups, or other Scout friendly organizations that do not currently sponsor a Scout unit of their own. They may be able to provide some help. Also, check with other local Scouting units. Some unit may have a bunch of old uniforms in its bank that it is willing to let you have. There could even be serviceable equipement that they have replaced that you could use. If all else fails work with the charter organisation to plan a fundraiser to benefit the troop and pack. In fact, it is probably a good idea to do a fundraiser at some point even if you get uniforms, books, and other supplies donated. That way there will be funds for activities and for future needs.

We have enough troop tents for everyone. We have yet to have a camp out since I joined the troop in 1995 where there weren't enough tents for all Scouts and leaders. I think there were a couple of "family" campout when there weren't enough for all the parents, brothers, sisters, etc. The tents are Eureka Tiberline 4s (4 person model, we only put two people in them most of the time). The newer ones are definetly the Outfitter 4 version, the older ones may or may not be. We also have a Timberline Outfitter 6 used by the adults, mostly on longer trips. Many of the families involved with the troop own one or more tents. Usually these are the discount store dome tents. Most Scouts would rather use troop tents, unless they get stuck with one of the really old ones. There are a couple of Scouts, leaders, and parents that have high quality personal tents of various types, ranging from huge Coleman domes to tiny little bivy style packpacking tents. Generally these are only used for special occasions (backpacking trips, long term camps) to keep the level of wear and tear to a minimum. The troop also owns a pair of dining flys. These are the heavy canvas BSA type with a custom set of metal poles.

This is a very tricky issue. I certainly don't want to turn Scout camp into Proud Eagle's Political Re-education Camp. I would also hope most Scouts are mature enough not to easily be taken in by someone who does, in part or in whole, turn Scouts into a political tool. Certainly part of duty to country is staying informed about current events. This is important for Scouts, but not as important as it is for voters. For someone that votes, it is a great obligation to remain as informed about current events, politics, and related issues as is possible in their situation. (That doesn't mean that you should read the paper between your favorite reality TV show, instead it needs to be something you make time for, after other important obligations (such as feeding the family, talking to the kids, meeting religious obligations).) So, since we are trying to create good citizens we should certainly encourage the Scouts to stay informed, though that doesn't necessarily mean we should be "informing" them. You could also encourage them to evaluate the latest events, policies, etc based on the values of Scouting, and other values they hold. Beyond that you get into shark infested waters. Perhaps an adult could moderate a discussion, but even that has dangers of favoring one view. I suppose beyond encouraging the Scouts, it is best left to the leader in the local unit to figure out what is appropriate based on their abilities, the Scouts maturity and interests, and other variables.

This list didn't by any chance come from some third source did it? It sounds like something I have heard or seen before, though I could be wrong. I know I have seen several different similar lists based on the Scout Oath and Law. Some are very good, while others aren't so good. This one seems to be pretty good.

It seems to me that if in doubt you should err on the side of showing respect. That being said, I would also lean toward using the "civilian" mode of showing respect when in doubt. Though if it is part of some planned ceremony, and the person leading it calls for "Scout salute" I would think it better to play along. Now I know the Army only uses the salute if the national anthem is being played. I am certain the reason is rooted in history and military tradition. Also, the Army does not salute for the pledge, if I remember the regulation correctly. It does however salute for Revelry, which it would seem, the Army plays while the flag is being raised in the morning. On the other hand, BSA normally uses Revelry at the appointed time to wake people up. So it would seem the BSA picked up some of the same rules the Army uses, while not taking them all. Now another issue of debate is what to do while wearing the "activities uniform". That brings about many responses.

I suppose it was all the way back in 1995 when I was at Old Ben. I was also a very new Scout, so my perception was likely a bit flawed. At the time the facilities seemed very nice. The layout was a bit unique, but I didn't really see that as a plus or minus. The Amish or Mennonite or whatever they were cooks were exceptional. The old chaplain seemed like a good guy. The dining hall procedure was excellent. I particularly liked the detail of filling everyone's glass with water, essentially forcing everyone to have one glass of real water before switching to kool-aid. There were certainly many high quality, knowledgeable staffers. There were some problems, as is the case with every camp. Some staff members were intentionally malicious, taking advantage of the first year, out of council, campers. There were little details like the staff telling us the best way to get to the next destination was taking the long way around the camp road. Generally the staff seemed somewhat unorganized and sometimes disinterested. Then there was the troop that set up a toll gate on the main camp trail going down hill from the dining hall (referred to as "highway 1" if I remember correctly). I am certainly glad to here that improvements have been made. It seemed to be a camp with great potential. I imagine I would have had a better time if some troop level conditions had been just a bit different that week, and if I had been a more experienced Scout.

This is about as strange as another palm related happening I heard about. Apperently a BOR in my general area (I won't be specific to protect the innocent, and the guilty) approved palms for an Eagle based on the number of extra months he had since fulfilling the 6 month requirement for Eagle, rather than counting from when he actually earned Eagle. To make matters worse, they awarded multiple palms at the same time. It would seem there is a need for at least a bit of clarification about palms to prevent these sorts of things from happening.

If the parents determined that the values of the Girl Scouts are not compatible with their values, they should have removed their daughters. The GS don't have to have any "bad" values for their values to be insufficient. Instead the GS could just have some value these parents see as being critical lacking from their values. It is clear that the GS don't have any firmly grounded value against teaching the various things that these PP literature and coarses taught. Also there is the indirect connection now between GS and abortion (GS linked to Planned Parenthood, which in turn is tied to abortion). If I had youth that I was responisble for involved in the GS program I would at least have to consider weather values that allow promotion of these things are compatible with my values. I don't know what conclusion I would reach.

I personally don't like popcorn sales. Every time my troop has done it recently it was nothing but a mess. It requires a large amount of effort for very little return. Generally most reported after popcorn sales that only a very small fraction of all those approached actually agreed to buy. I know that matches my own experience. It isn't just the Scout parents that think it is overpriced. The customers also think so. Most people I have asked to buy popcorn would not do so because of the cost, or they simply bought the cheepest thing because the felt guilt tripped into doing it. There are far too many groups that sell things that can be eaten as is. The GS sell cookies. Every sports team in town sells candy. Many youth groups sell candy. At least one other group has been known to sell popcorn, but at much better prices. GS cookies are an American institution, maybe even raising to the level of an icon. That gives it the ability to sell even despite the poor value. However, GS cookies have another significant advantage over BS popcorn, they are really, really good. Everyone has a favorite type of GS cookies. Most people have never heard of BS popcorn and could care less. You don't hear about people being upset for not being asked to buy BS popcorn, but I have heard people complain that no one sold them any cookies. For my unit it is far better to do other types of fundraisers. We sell Christmas trees and now some wreaths. The level of income is relatively stable from year to year, even when the number of troop members fluctuates. We are able to offer competitive pricing and still make a large profit. It is also done during the time of year we have the least opportunity for things like high adventure. The troop has also discovered it can make a killing doing things like selling barbequed pork chops. The product is at a competitive price. People are always willing to buy a good meal. It only takes a single day of all out effort for a very good return. Now for some units popcorn is a good system. It is a ready to go fundraiser. In some places there is even real support from district and council. (beyond the "please sell popcorn because it makes us both money") It provides a fundraiser that can easily have individual sales incentives built in to it. It does provide funds for both the unit and council. The added support means the volunteers and pros at the council can spend less time fundraising and more time working on program.