SR540Beaver

Looks like jkhny is in hog heaven!

mspigner52, First off, welcome to the forums! I can understand your frustration. I don't understand your anger or your intent at posting the letter here. It seems somewhat vindictive. I assume you did it as a warning to other folks. There is little we can do except comment. After wading thru the letter, here is what I took from it. You made arrangements to pick your son up early at the camp office which required someone picking your son up and delivering him there for you to pick up. That didn't happen the way you wanted it to. Much of the rest of the letter dealt with things such as the road conditions and didn't really have much to do with anything. Again, I understand your frustration. I too have looked at the camp's website and thought it looked like a decent camp. Trust me, our troop just did a review of every camp in the states that border Oklahoma to see if where we want to go next year, so I'm familiar with what camps offer. This camp looks pretty standard. Having been to camp a time or two, I can tell you that the job most of the adult staff does are thankless jobs with little to no pay. They have to deal with EVERY problem that comes down the pike and there are many of them. If you think you were cranky when things didn't pan out the way you wanted, consider being responsible for the feeding and security of 400 scouts and staff and taking care of maintenance problems, health problems, etc. for 6 weeks. A person can get pretty cranky when there is someone there everytime you turn around wanting you to deal with their individual problem. I'd say you had a bad experience and for you to steer your sons clear of there and never worry about it again. I'd also suggest that you give the folks running the camp a break and consider that maybe their day wasn't going so grand either. To run 6 weeks of camp with 400 scouts per week and offer the program their website says they do is a pretty big accomplishment. Word travels pretty quickly by word of mouth in the scouting world. If it were truely a bad camp, they wouldn't be providing as many weeks to as many scouts as they do.

Beavah, I never mentioned handholding. Showing interest in the boys scouting experience is the job we voluteerers signed up for. I know every troop is different, but we had 51 boys and 11 adults at summer camp this year. The only "handholding" we did if you want to call it that was with two regular attender scouts. One waved a knife towards another scout and the other was homesick. The two of them required a little more time than anyone else. I just can't understand an SM or ASM thinking that going out of their way by simply asking a kid how he is enjoying camp and talking to him occasionally to get to know him is taking away from the rest of the boys. They should be doing it with each boy. I have 20 new scouts that I work with and they all attended summer camp for the first time this year. I talked to each one of them daily to see how things were going and showed some interest in them individually. In 7th grade, I was a shy, self-conscious kid with very low confidence. The youth minister from my church went out of his way to draw me in and include me and it changed my life. I ended up being a leader in our youth group as the years passed. His efforts on my behalf never took away from the other kids. To each kid in our group, they felt like they were the most important kid around when they were around him. I remember his influence whenever I put on my uniform and am around the boys. Everyone loses when you tell a boy he can't come to summer camp based on his meeting attendance. It just doesn't make sense.

I still don't see the issue here. Sure, you want each and every boy on your roster to attend every meeting, campout, summer camp, events, service projects, high adventure trips, COR, etc. and willingly and enthusiastically participate in each on his journey to making Eagle with Palms and crying when he ages out at 18. Now, back to reality. Some boys are there because parents make them go. Others are there in spite of their parents lack of interest. Some love to camp but could care less about advancement. Some only care about advancement and could care less about camping. Some will do scouting exclusive to all other activities and others will play sports or belong to another organization and casually drop in on scouting when their schedule allows. Some crave a leadership roll and with others it is like pulling teeth to even get them to be librarian. I understand the frustration. My son is 13 and a Star scout. He has everything done for Life except 6 months in a POR because he decided to accept APL this last go round instead of a POR that would count. Should he get elected or accept a position during elections in the next couple of weeks, he will be Life right before he turns 14 in February. I look at our 15 and 16 year old scouts who are 2nd class or Star and wonder what they are waiting for. Heck, my son got where he is at a fairly leasurely pace. But some of these boys are involved in sports at school and things like Civil Air Patrol. Scouting isn't the top priority of their extra curricular activities......and that's OK......even if we adult leaders don't like it. We want scouts we can count on. Again, what does it hurt if this boy hasn't attended meetings? Like I said, he isn't going to sneak up on you and earn his Eagle while you were not looking. Summer camp isn't high adventure. There is very little skill involved in eating in a dining hall unless he is eating utensil challeneged. Heck, many summer camps already have your tent set up for you. All you have to do is unroll your sleeping bag. I'd take him, show some interest in him, conspire with a few of the other scouts to try to draw him in and see if you can't turn him into a regular scout. What do you have to lose???

I'd be happy that the boy is back and we get another opportunity to attract him to scouting year round. Summer camp is fun, but I don't know that I would list it as a "perk" of scouting like some events would be. I would draw the line like CA when it comes to something like a high adventure trip where the boy has not participated in shakedowns and has not learned the needed skills and isn't prepared. My son went to Northern Tier this summer. They had meetings to discuss gear and such months prior to going. They did weekly paddling training for a couple of months. They did a shakedown weekend. They were going into the wilderness and being prepared was a necessity. Going to summer camp isn't that tough. Take him and put some effort into him and see if you can get him involved beyond camp. It isn't like he is gaming the system and will somehow make Eagle without doing any work. He can't advance without being there, doing service or POR's.

"Do you think every parent who applies knows that atheists can't join?" Yes, considering they read and sign the application form that states: "Excerpt from the Declaration of Religious Principle The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to this Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of membership."

No, I'm not talking about Sea Scouts. I'm talking about Sea Cadets. It is a coed program for youth aged 13 thru 17. My son has discovered that there are Sea Cadets in Oklahoma City thru a friend and he is interested in joining. It looks rigid compared to scouting and has a two week required boot camp. I'm just curious if any one has had experience with this program? www.seacadets.org

"On the other hand, I have seen plenty of people on the left who complain about being called leftists, lefties, liberals, blue state left-wingers. Why is that?" Perhaps because of the way the folks using them spit the words out of their mouth and equate them to treason, loving terrorists, hating America, being Godless, etc. I wouldn't like someone taking a word that describes me and using it negatively, so I can see why liberals would dislike the way the words have been co-opted by the talking heads to mean something bad. Let's look at a few popular book titles from the past few years. Michael Savage - Liberalism is a Mental Disorder and The Enemy Within (Saving America from the Liberal Assault on our Schools, Faith and Military), Sean Hannity - Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism and Ann Coulter - Godless: The Church of Liberalism, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism and Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right. Thes popular media people's job revolves around the popular sport they like to refer to as "lib smashing" more than it does advancing the debate or discussion of current events. I'd be unhappy to if I had a mult-million dollar cottage industry making outrageous claims against me.

And ducks.

O'Reilly isn't the worst, he is just the most full of himself. The worst would go to Sean Hannity. Crossfire. What a great show in it's heydey. There was hardly anything like it at the time. I used to watch it every night years ago when it was Tom Braden and Pat Buchanan. It had a 30 minute format with two 15 minute topics each night. Each topic usually had a single guest sitting between them in the Crossfire. Yeah, it got heated at times, but it was always above board, respectful and fair and balanced. There was some real analysis of national and world issues in those days instead of gotcha politics and scoring one for the team. Hannity and Colmes came along and kicked it up a notch on the partisan rhetoric and Crossfire started losing ratings. Crossfire tried to emulate the slugfest style and ended up losing in the end. Again, it was the carnival style that attracted the most viewers and won the ratings.

myles, Thanks for coming back and letting us know where your plans stand. Good luck! Let us know how it turns out.

Great!!! Just great! Next, someone is going to say that Santa isn't real either. I feel my world slipping away bit by bit.

Andrew, Thanks for the link. I'm about halfway thru the guy's journal of his quest to kayak the length of the Mississippi and it is very interesting. His description of his young life is sad and the pain he feels over the loss of his father keeps bringing a tear to my eyes remembering when I lost my father 5 years ago. I didn't experience the pain growing up he did, but I can sure relate to wishing my dad was still here to spend time with. Thanks again for the link.

Me too!

Ah yes, I remember watching Haystack warm up by breaking 2x4's with his massive belly. Remember Skandar Akbar and Danny Hodges? When I was growing up, we had championship wrestling each weekend at the Coliseum in the Stockyards in Oklahoma City. A local TV and radio personality named Danny Williams hosted it on a local TV station right after the 10 PM news on Saturday. The old codger is still around and must be in his 80's now. He gave Mary Hart of Entertainment Tonight her start in the business as his sidekick on a noon time TV show called Dannysday. His tag line at the end of the wrestling program was, "look out for flying chairs!" It seems that meyhem broke out once at a wrestling match and chairs were being tossed about. I don't think my brother or I ever missed watching wrestling. We used to tag team wrestle with the other kids in the neighborhood.

Championship wrestling isn't real? Say it ain't so.

Forget the chickens......how many ducks will it hold?

"So FNC is the equivalent of feeding Christians to lions and car wrecks... I guess it would be too hard to admit they are just doing a better job..." It depends on whether you are talking about NEWS or entertainment. News is what Shepherd Smith does and Britt Hume for the first 40 minutes of his show. Entertainment is what O'Reilly and Hannity do and gets the biggest ratings. Calling people cowards and pinheads or asking them carefully worded yes or no answers designed to make your advesary bad is not news. It is entertainment that rates up there with "reality" TV. Yes, they do the entertainment side on cable news better by having more outrageous fare and attracting a larger audience. It isn't news though. It is just telling people what they want to hear. All the cable news channels do it, Fox just does it best. You now what the difference is between the mainstream media and the new improved media. Accountability. Rather had a distinguished 40 year career and it was brought down by one bad story. Newspapers, magazines and network news have editorial staffs that check the content and sources before they report. Sometimes they mess up and heads roll like Jason Blain and Dan Rather. That is due to not only having standards, but having high standards. O'Reilly and Hannity have been busted so many times with inaccuracies and bending the truth without once ever retracting what they say or being held accountable by their employers. It is just apples and oranges. News and entertainment. Matt Drude's claim to fame was breaking the Monica Lewinsky story on the internet and beating the MSM getting it out. What people tend to forget was when he tried to accuse John Kerry during the election of having an affair with a young intern. The story turned out to be false. No retraction. No I'm sorry. No head rolling. Sorry, I like jounalistic standards and the editorial process of the MSM. They get it right more than they get it wrong and they self police and fire people who go out of bounds. The "news" you get on the internet usually isn't worth the electrons it is floating on. Most of it is more agenda driven than the MSM.

I don't recall retired Rather's name being mentioned here or anyone defending him. The Roman's found that feeding Christians to the lions draw larger crowds than chariot races, that didn't make feeding people to lions better....just more attractive. People will always rubberneck at a car wreck. Since you want to compare Rather and O'Reilly, here is something to consider. Rather worked for a broadcast network on airwaves owned by the public and the network had a government required obligation to provide news reporting to the public at large. O'Reilly works for a pay cable network and comments on current events in a confrontational style to garner ratings in order to sell more doormats, books and coffee mugs. He is laughing all the way to the bank. Apples and oranges. One was a public service and the other is a commercial venture.

Two of my favorites tactics are O'Reilly calling people cowards for not coming on his show to be browbeat by him and Hannity's, "do you still beat your wife, answer yes or no only" questions. but hey, Bill is "looking out for you" and Hannity offers the "most comprehensive news" available. I prefer to get NEWS from a variety of sources and draw my own conclusions instead of having it fed to me by guys with an agenda......and yes that includes all the wannabes on CNN and MSNBC too. There are far more entertaining things to watch on TV than Jerry Springer style political "debates".

The sad thing is that they are all lumped together for ratings. Only about half of those programs are actual NEWS programs like Shep or Cooper. The other half are opinion/entertainment. That is why O'Reilly and Hannity/Colmes are at the top of the list. They can take liberties with the format to sensationalize the program and attract viewers. Olberman is newer in their market, it will take him time to catch up with their antics.

SA, I fear you are correct about the 10 to 15 year figure and trillions of dollars. My 13 year old son is in love with the Marines. He and his mom took a trip to the recruiting office a few weeks ago to get posters to decorate his bedroom with. I know things can change over the next 5 years, but today he says he wants to be a Marine. My dad was a Marine in WWII and I had strongly considered following that path myself until I discovered I was an insulin dependent diabetic at 17.5. My son took after his mom and is smart as a whip. He is a straight A student, doing pre-AP courses and made a 19 on the ACT this past February in a special offer for 7th graders to take the test that comes thru Duke University. If he keeps it up, he will be a good candidate for Annapolis when he graduates high school. While I love this country and love our military, I am defensive in how they are used. I don't take committing young men and women to conflicts where they can lose their life lightly. When we put boots on the ground, it needs to be strictly in defense of our homeland and not for nation building or to fight an idea. Our forefathers won our liberty with their blood. The American people have always been aware of the cost and it gives them a more appreciative understanding of our liberty. I have a hard time believing that Iraqi's who we win liberty for can ever understand and appreciate the price like we do since it is given to them rather than won by them. I spent yesterday evening on the Naval Academy website with my son exploring what life as a midshipman is like opposed to attending a college or university. While I love the Corp, I love my son more. While I would be proud for him to be a Marine and defend our nation, I have an issue with him possibly being tied up in the kind of mess we have today. Remember the war on poverty, the war on hunger or the war on drugs? Remember when those were won? They will be won about the same time as a "war on terror" will be won. Terrorism is a method, not a state. It will never surrender and be defeated. I am trying to be as even handed as I can and lead my son in his own discovery and opinion of world and national politics. He will be his own man someday and will be responsible for making his own decisions. I will respect and honor them. However, I hate the thought of him losing his life for another country or fighting against an idea. It is not what the US military is designed for.

Brent, I don't know that I would say that FDR and Churchill LED their nations INTO war. They did LEAD their nations IN war. The US and England were both attacked and forced into the war in defense of their nations. Prior to that, they had tried to avoid the war. Like Zahnada, I don't care much for the comparisons of WWII to the Iraq conflict. However, how we got into the two different wars is completely different. WWII was to defend our nation after having war declared on us and being attacked. The Iraq war started as a preemptive attack by the US out of fear of possible WMD's. that could possibly be used against us one day. This scenario is not consistent with previous US history and policy. I truely believe that you will see our troops come home and our foriegn policy drastically changed when Bush leaves office....regardless of which side of the aisle wins the Presidency.

funscout, I have to agree with Lynda here. I have seen ADHD used as an excuse rather than an explanation numerous times. We already knew the boy(s) had ADHD and that it was the contributing factor to the behavior. But I've seen too many parents who excuse the behavior rather than deal with it and expect the same from teachers, coaches and leaders. Maybe it is in the eye of the beholder. What one person considers an explanation, another considers an excuse.

The SM Minute should be a "short" refection on an element of the Oath and Law to get the boy to think. It should not be a springboard into a long deep discussion of world politics.