scoutingagain

While I may have concerns regarding the current administration's policies and where they might take us in the future, bringing back the draft is not one of them.

NJ, I agree, that if one were to follow the stated "logic" of the administrations's reasons for going to war, we could concievably justify attacks on the countries you've listed, most notably Syria and Iran. While, Syria hasn't fired SCUD missiles into Israel, it's government seems to have no problem allowing other organizations fire shorter range missils into Iraeli areas from it's territory.

There is one big difference between Iraq and all the other countries on your list NJ. Anyone care to take a guess? Just why would we go to war with a country that did not pose an immediate threat to us or our allies and had no links to Al Qaeda? Because they didn't like us and might someday develop WMD? Because this administration felt an overwelming need to free the Iraqi people as opposed to any other country living under a dictatorship? Why would we not allow other countries that had previous economic ties to Iraq to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq? Why are we building long term military bases in Iraq? Why was the military ordered to secure certain Iraqi government offices and not have the resources to secure ammunition and weapons depots?

Our Troop, falls into the OGE and BW camp.(No pun intended.) I can't say we have had any real problems. In the evenings during down time scouts will play cards or somtimes privately listen to music. For the most part scouts don't seem to bring portable electronic game systems, they seem to understand they don't fit the activity. Scoutmasters sometimes play cribbage.

Needless to say, when we backpack, this cuts down on many of the "discouraged" items.

So far we havn't had issues with portable DVD players, but I'm sure that will happen sometime in the near future. Hopefully they will fall into the same category as portable electronic games, items the scouts themselves discourage.

So far no one has brought a pool table. We all know what kind of trouble that can cause.

Regarding "Sweet Tea"... Since it is now after Labor Day, most of the Restaurants here in Boston no longer serve iced tea of anykind.

I look at the "rules" below and have to wonder, what boy led troop came up with these.

SA

"Drinks other that water (I suppose this is meant to ban soda pop) Camp chairs or stools (one troop expects them to be made in camp as camp gadgets)

Electronic items of all sorts (pagers, cell phones, radios, electronic games, TVs, etc)

Book or magazines other than BSA published

Rain suits (they want the Scouts to use ponchos)

Games of any type including playing cards

"Toys"

Lighters

Matches

Knives

"Large" flashlights - not sure what that means.

Drugs or medications of ANY kind including over the counter items(prescribed drugs are handled by unit leaders)

Candy, snacks, gum

And many other items.

Some units actually have an "inspection" of what Scouts take to camp. I wouldn't want anyone going though my pack or dufflebag!

I know of one unit where all of the members have to have long sleeved Scout uniform shirts, campaign hat, and all of them have the same poncho, flashlight, pocketknife, boots,unit t-shirt, etc. They are generally not permitted to wear the "activity" uniform. "

The practice in our troop is:

Troop pays for training for adults.

There is no cost for adults to attend summer camp.

For long trips, > 200 miles, drivers have been reimbursed for the cost of fuel.

On normal weekend outings, adults pay the same as scouts.

No one seems to mind and we do not have a problem with adults willing to participate in outings.

SA

While the PLBs may be expensive many of our scouts have purchased the Family Service Radios. It is not uncommon for 50 - 60 % of our troop to go into the field with these things. We use the type with the availability of sub-channels so there is little interference with others in the area that may also have the radios. We have found them to be useful in communicating among patrols, groups etc. On a hike we will frequently break up into two or three groups, the Rabbits, that want to travel fast, some in the middle and then those that bring up the rear. The radios, allow the three groups to stay in touch with each other. I make sure my son has one, and I carry one. If he ends up in a different group than me, I can stay in touch with him. If either one of us is separated, a search party would only need to get within a mile or two of us to communicate.

Depending on the type of radio they claim to have a range of 2 - 5 miles. On a typical 5-10 mile hike it is very rare that one group will get out of range of the others. These radios are very inexpensive, (approx. $25-$35ea) and I have found them to be suprisingly sturdy. They also work in areas where there is no cell phone service. We have used them in winter, in the rain and in the summer heat.

SA

"Jackson Pollock comes to mind"

I was thinking more like Moe, Larry and Curly (No Shemps).

Still think it's a great idea if second grader quality is considered OK. If your careful with specific painting assignments it might not be as bad as some might think. Some boys can probably do a decent job, other will still have trouble keeping the paint away from where it's not supposed to be. Judicious use of drop cloths, masking tape, etc. will help. These are Cub Scouts, so I would include relatively close adult supervision. I would want the boys to use only latex paints, soluble in water, and if possible avoid the use of ladders, or use them only under very close adult supervision. (I've had adult construction workers, supposedly trained in ladder safety, suffer life altering injuries from step ladders. I would not want to see that happen to a second grader.)

Good luck.

SA

What kinds of political activity would I sign off on?

Simple...Nonpartisan activity.

I agree with Bob White. Any individual is free to support any cause or candidate of their choice, and scouts should be encouraged to do so, but they are not free to do so while representing, or appearing to represent, the BSA. Why? Because one person's political ideas are not likely to represent those of all scouts or scouters and an individual's participation as a scout or scouter at a partisan activity would imply support by more than just the individual, which would not be true. Such activity is unscoutlike in my mind and not in keeping with the Scout Oath and Law.

There are activities within the political arena that scouts can do though. I could see scouts participating in a "Get out the Vote" campaign, as long as it was not get out the vote for a specific candidate. They could volunteer to assist at debates sponsored by non-partisan organizations and other non-partisan activities.

SA

Well I may as well throw my 2 cents in.

I've read the thread, and while I sympathize with foto I'm inclined to agree with those that would let the boy attend. EagleinKY comes the closest to capturing my thoughts.

If the boy is still registered, and has expressed interest in the trip and has paid a deposit he should be allowed to attend...as a Cub Scout. I would ask the boy if he is a Cub Scout or not. Let him know that the trip is a Cub Scout/Pack activity. If he says he is a Cub Scout, and is willing to try an live up to the Cub Scout Promise, he is welcome to attend as a part of the Pack and his Den. If he says he is not a Cub Scout, tell him the Pack will try and find someone who is interested in his spot and refund his deposit. If he decides he is not a Cub Scout, I would let him know if he ever changes his mind, and wants to be a Cub Scout or Boy Scout again, he would be welcomed back.

When my boys were Cubs, we went to Battleship Cove twice. It really is an interesting place. You get to sleep on the Battleship in the crews quarters, explore the ship(It's hugh,) and learn about life aboard a Navy vessel. There is also a Submarine and a Destroyer you can go through. We had several Navy vets among the Dads that attended with us, and they all had great stories about their time in the service. The trip was one of the highlights of my boys Cub Scout experience.

So, foto, go and have fun and don't get too wrapped up some of the small stuff. Good luck.

SA

I've watched this thread and the responses. In the specific case that initiated the thread, I see no reason why a scout shouldn't be able to use money from his troop account for an Eagle project, any aspect of it. Presumably this money is there because the scout made an effort at some point to participate in fund raising. If he is willing to donate his share to an Eagle project, even his own, that benefits the community, well I think that is an honorable use of the money. More so than using the money on himself, so he can attend camp, a trip or buy himself equipment.

On another thought,

Boleta said the following:

"Is it reasonable to ask all Scouts to start from the same point? Yes.

Should a rich kid have an advantage of funding over a poor one? No.

Should funds obtained prior to approval of the projects be allowed? No.

Are any of these requirements? NO! "

These are nice thoughts, but how is a project that is funded from, as someone said, Bank AmeriDad, different with respect to the scout's ability to show leadership, from a project where funding is fully provided by a town Recreation Dept. or a Church? In both cases the scout does not have to deal with fundraising and must demonstrate leadership in other ways. Sure, a scout that developes and runs a fundraising campaign through donations shows a lot of leadership and initiative but, fundraising for the project should be a requirement for all candidates or none. As currently written, it is not a requirement and to hold any candidate back based on the funding source of their project is adding to the requirements and not fair to the scout.

SA

Well I find myself in Rooster's corner on this one, although I'd express the point a little differently.

Instead of saying a man is "uniquely qualified" to be a mentor or role model for a young man I'd say a man is better suited in this role. Why? Simply because boys grow up to be men not women.

Instead of saying boys grow up to confront a man's world, I'd say boys grow up and must face the world from a man's perspective.

None of this negates the value women leaders can contribute to the program and I have yet to see anyone in this thread express the idea that women should not be allowed to be leaders in the BSA.

I believe boys of Boy Scout age can derive a great benefit from watching grown men interact with each other, youth and women leaders with repect. Observing this interaction simply cannot occur if a troop does not have male leaders. I just don't believe boys that were in a troop that had predominantly female leadership would have as much opportunity to observe respectful and leadership behavior amoung adult males if they are not present and that observation of men of character would be to the benefit of the boys. It simply is not the same as having even the most qualified all or predominantly female leadership do the same things.

SA

I think women should be able to hold any leadership position in the BSA they want and can effectively do. Same as men. However, while I might not go so far as to say men are uniquely qualified to mentor boys, I share the belief that there is added value when boys are mentored by men of character and that part of the Boy Scout experience should be the association of young men with adult men of character.

This does not mean that women are not able to mentor boys. I think each gender can bring their own unique value to the program. Men bring some things to the program that women don't and the same can be said for women.

SA

My mistake, I see the school is an elementary school. Maybe the candidate attended. Maybe he didn't. Still doesn't matter. Bottom line is I would tend to believe the scout feels the project would benefit the students at the school.

SA

Noah,

Welcome aboard. I expect you thought you had a fairly simple question. Suprise!

My thoughts on this tend be with those that would allow the project. From the scout's perspective he sees a school with a need and would like to help the school. I assume, he attends this school. It is his community. I doubt he sees it as for-profit, non-profit, S or C corporation. To him it's his school or at least a school.

He sees the need for a flag pole and volunteers his services to organize and lead an effort to build one for the benefit of his school, classmates and community. I doubt he's volunteering this service to add to the bottom line of the coporation that owns or runs the school. If during a review of his proposal I asked him why he wanted to build a flag pole for the school, he answered, "Well I'm a shareholder of the company that owns the school and this way I might get a larger dividend." I would deny the project. But if he said he just wanted to help out the school he should be allowed to proceed. I share the view of others that this project can be made to be of sufficient size and complexity where the scout would be able to demonstrate adequate leadership and organizational skills to be worthy of an Eagle project.

My two cents.

SA

Several years ago while we were gathered for a family function my wife and sister-in-law, both scout moms, ran into an ASM and a few scouts in uniform at the local supermarket. The scouts were apparently travelling and spending the night at a nearby campground and were in the market to pick up some items for their dinner. It was supposed to be a quick trip. An hour later my wife and sister-in-law finally returned with the 2-3 items they had gone for. When asked what tool them so long, they said they just had to stay and help the scouts shop!

Moms will be moms.

SA

Hmm, Interesting idea Hunt.

But, I'm inclined not to go for it. I would prefer scouts do outdoor activities because they actually like to do them, earning MB's as a consequence of doing some of the things they like to do. The approach outlined, seems to make advancement the primary motivator to do outdoor activities.

SA

Thanks for the responses. Eagle74, I was wondering what your source was for the caffiene content in the various beverages you listed. I don't doubt the accuracy just curious.

Personally, I do not use these so called booster drinks, but I am one that enjoys a hot cup of coffee in the morning. My son's do not drink these drinks either, but they do consume more than their share of soft drinks, mostly the non-caffienated varieties. I have noticed that on our backpacking trips, the quantities of these drinks, and other soft drinks that are hauled into the wilderness is much less than when we car camp. I will be continuing to encourage the troop to do more backpacking and for scouts to consider their choices.

SA

Since we are discussing adult consumption of alcoholic beverages, I'd was wondering about how folks felt about some of these so called Energy drinks that are available. (The name Red Bull somes to mind but there are others.) These so called energy boosters may contain some stuff that could be consider nutritious and are high in calories, but many contain large amounts of sugar and an extra dose of caffiene. There are no restrictions on their sale and it is not uncommon for some of our youth members to show up with a six pack or two of this stuff as their beverage of choice for an outing, or if we stop to refuel they make a beeline for a snackbar and buy the stuff. Should this be treated the same as Coke, Pepsi or Mountain Dew or other soft drinks or are they different? What beverages do you bring on campouts, or does everyone else just drink water and bug juice?

SA

Eagle in KY,

A good question. In general I believe we as leaders have a responsibility to uphold and live by the rules set forth in the G2SS.

I also agree with Ed, and that our primary concern should be the safety of the youth members.

And, it's great to see BW back. I would have been suprised to see him stay away for long.

Just for yucks I'll pass on my 2 cents with respect to some of the examples you gave.

"- A parent shows up at a Pack meeting or event after having some drinks. Maybe they just stopped for happy hour or had a few glasses of wine with dinner. Whatever the case, it's obvious they've had a few too many. Hopefully they are riding with someone else (so breaking the law isn't a factor). "

I agree with BW, if the individual is obviously intoxicated. i.e. Slurred speach, stumbling etc. The individual should not have contact with the youth members. If he drove to the meeting and expects to drive home, again I agree with the previous statments with respect to making arrangents to drive he(or she) and his family home.

However, if the person is not obviously intoxicated and appears to be in control of themselves, are we saying he should be excluded from the meeting because he consumed an alcoholic beverage somtime before the meeting and we know it? To me that seems a little extreme. He has not engaged in any activity that violates YP or G2SS guidelines and if there is no reason to believe there is a safety concern (i.e. As far as anyone can tell, even though we may know the individual had a drink, there is nothing in their behavior to indicate they would not be able to legally operate a vehicle.) Why would it be an issue? The same would be with a parent or adult leader that arrived from a social function where it was known that alcoholic beverages were served.

"Adults leave summer camp for a "business meeting" and return late. I've heard rumors of this in the past. I think there may have been some of that at this year's summer camp."

Personally I think if, as an adult leader you sign up for summer camp, you should commit yourself for the duration of your agreed stay. Adults should not leave the camp for social reasons, whether it's to have a meal away from the youth, consume alcoholic beverages or whatever. Granted there may be circumstances related to one's occupation, or personal reasons, as to why an adult might have to leave for an evening, in general I believe adults should commit to the camping experience and not leave.

If, as in the other thread, one is confronted with an adult who is obviously drunk, and that individual is preparing to drive, with youth or not, I believe the correct course of action would be to try and stop the individual from driving.(Not physically, I agree with BW.) The individual should be confronted, and asked if they would like someone else to drive or have them stick around until they sober up. (Even if it's overnight.) If they insist on driving, I would not hesitate to call law enforcement.

Regarding the last example given by, SWScouter, I personally wouldn't have a problem with an adult bringing a non-alcoholic beverage on a campout. He's conciously living upto the rules in the G2SS. He's not sneaking an alcoholic beverage in behind your back. He's open and honest about his taste preferences and has made a choice to accomodate those and meet the G2SS rules. Would you prevent someone from bringing tonic water with lime, because it looks like a gin & tonic? or grape juice because it looks like a red wine? I would prefer to ban the consumption of carbonated beverages that contain 30-35 grams of sugar per serving and contain caffiene for all. (This reminds me of something and I think I'll start another thread.)

SA

" . Any hope of stoppin' this train before it leaves the station again?????????"

Doubtful, All you have to do is go down the list of topics in this section and look at the title of the thread. Any thread with more than 5 pages, probably involves issues of religion or sexual orientation or both.

Does it suprise me that a hungry 16 year old might find a prayer before a meal "rather annoying" ? Not really. At least he didn't say it was an infringment of his constitutional rights to eat, without having to be forced to participate in a religious ritual. (That last sentence is meant to be sarcastic)

At our summer camp the mess hall is about a quarter mile away and requires a climb of about 150 feet to get there. That's annoying! But somehow the scouts all seem to make it. When they get there they say a prayer, and eat. Over the years I've heard a lot of complaints about the walk to the mess hall (as many or more from adults as scouts), I've never heard a single concern about the prayer.

SA

I'll admit the hiking MB requirements are fairly rigourous. I'm not familiar with the requirements for biking.

However, the idea that the Emergency Preparedness MB is equivalent in difficulty as Lifesaving MB is ridiculous. I wonder what percentage of Eagle candidates get the Emergency Preparedness MB instead of the Lifesaving MB.

SA

Perhaps they could sell little stuffed animals and claim they have been issued as a limited edition.

What? Someone does that? Never mind.

SA

Think of all the bad hair days to come.

SA

"I disagree with swimming and life saving with being required because some people can't swim. Lifesaving can be diffcuilt especially if the kid is out of shape."

If I recall correctly, when swimming and lifesaving were required MBs, if a scout could demonstrate a handicap or physical impairment that prevented him from completing the requirements of these MBs, he could apply for alternative MBs to be earned. Otherwise, scouts that wanted to reach the status (Rank, achievement, award) of Eagle scout were expected to complete these badges. I too think the elimination of these bages as absolute requirements significantly eroded the status of the Eagle badge. Not because of the specific skills one had to perform for these badges, but the discipline and tenacity required to develop those skills.

SA

If the premise of this article is correct, it would seem there are other places we can go looking for oil and gas before we need to start poking holes near Philmont.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20040813/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/oil_leases_exploration

I tend to agree with others, that we should be looking to other technologies as well and believe they will be developed as they become economically viable. Economic viablity will come from developing ways to offer alternative technologies at lower cost and continued increases in the cost of petroleum based fuels. At some point the line will be crossed and it will be cheaper to buy and operate a hybrid vehicle than it is to pay $3.50 - $4.00/gal for gas in a traditional internal combustion engine. The government could accelerate this transition by increasing gas taxes, or it can delay the process by passing protectionist policies that protect the status quo and current players in the industry.

It's not uncommon for a new generation of companies to take over dominance with a new technology. I.e. Why didn't IBM come up with Windows? Anyone remember companies like, Wang, Digital, etc. This is what has the Exxons, Texacos, and Shells of the world concerned. What happens to the stock price of these companies when XYZ Inc. comes out with a fuel cell that can be installed in a Ford Explorer, Chevy Blazer or Dodge Durango, that allows the vehicles to perform as well as they do today, but to refuel them, you bypass the gas station and go home, add water and plug them into your home micro turbine generator that runs on gas produced from your home compost pile?

Given the backgrounds of the current leadership of the executive branch of government, is there any reason to believe, this administration would truley support policies to change our dependance from an oil based economy? How many alternative energy companies has Dick Cheney met in secret with?

SA

Under some circumstances I could see that there might be nothing wrong with these types of activities. I can see have special events for older scouts or the leadership core of the troop, or specific patrol activities.

However if this is just a special clique that wants to do things exclusive of others in the troop, it doesn't sound very scout like. I would ask how arbitrarily excluding others in the troop is friendly, courtious or kind. If they are making plans in secret, how is that being trustworthy?

If this is boy led, I might asks the scouts if they minded if others in the troop attended these events. If the scouts don't object, I don't see where the adults have standing to exclude them.

One last thought, and it's not very nice. If the scouts do object, you could deny them advancement based on not living up to the requirement to show scout spirit.

If they want to have private non-scout events, they are free to do so, but should not expect to use troop equipment or use scout properties. Just my opinion.

SA

In 20 - 30 years how will the scouts of today look back on their merit badges? We will hear the kind of nastalgic descriptions we see above or will they say it was easy?

SA