SR540Beaver

This is off topic, but I wasn't the one who brought it up. Guess what the very first requirement of the Computers Merit Badge is? 1. Discuss with your counselor the tips for online safety. I wonder why that is?

GWD, If properly lashed, a sedan chair can easily be converted into a catapult. Send me your SPL's e-mail address and I'll forward him the plans.

Brent, You just repeated the tired old talking point line of, "They would rather fight the terrorists there, instead of here, in our backyard". That statement has always driven me nuts. Explain that to me. Do you think al Queda has some sort of standing army in uniform that will be dropping paratroopers out of C-130's in downtown Milwaukee? Are they sending bombers over St Loius and fighter jets off of aircraft carriers outside San Francisco? Will there be a beachhead in Florida? How are they transporting their artillery and tanks? Just what does fight them there instead of here in our backyard mean? How in the world do you envision the US military fighting a war against al Queda on US soil? There is no "fight" to be had here by the military. There are cells to be tracked down by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, but they probably number in the low 100's rahter than the 10's or 100's of thousands and they most likely are not even armed. The greatest danger we DO face here at home is the unsecured borders that Bush ignores and refuses to do anything about. I do suppose bin Laden could dress his men in sombreros and send them across the Mexico border without us knowing it. Then maybe we would have to fight the war here. As far as facts go, you might want to dig a little about those "has-been" generals who "didn't" spend any time in Iraq. You want to honor those in uniform and rightly so, yet you want to denegrate uniformed men of honor who gave their entire adult life in service to our country because they disagree with your ideology.

I like to think that we always explain any rules we do impose. I believe we do. As mentioned, we are one of those troops that uses two trailers (close to needing a third) when we go to camp and we don't allow chairs. Why, because one trailer contains all of the gas bottles, lanterns, stoves, tents, dining flies, patrol boxes, etc. to support 60 campers. The other trailer contains soft-sided personal gear, sleeping bags, sleeping pads and food. They are packed to the top and there is no room for 60 folding chairs.....or cots. Simple enough. My son has to purchase the food for his patrol for this weekend's campout. We don't allow pop. We do allow kool-aid. They had Capri Sun's listed on their shopping list. Due to the cost factor, we usually don't allow this. I asked him why they had it on the list. Because on the last campout they had one of their ADHD boys eat a can of kool-aid mix and he had red lips and hands most of the trip while he bounced all over camp. I saw this happen in another troop and in our Jambo troop with different boys. We didn't outlaw kool-aid because of it. My son's patrol decided on their own to try using packaged drinks in an effort to stop the eating of kool-aid powder. In our old troop, we had a rule that a boy would be sent home if he didn't show up wearing his boots for a campout. Why? Because we had boys showing up in open toed shoes and nothing else. No amout of educating them seemed to change their behavior. We made the rule and never had a boy not show up in his boots. Eventually, it just became standrad practice and never had to be mentioned or enforced. I personally break the no food in the tent rule. I am an insulin dependent diabetic and I can't afford to wake up with a very low blood sugar when it is 15 degrees outside and rummage thru the patrol box in the dark looking for food. I need it now. I use my own tent and we don't live in bear country. That doesn't mean a coon or skunk won't rip a hole in the tent trying to get to it, but it is my tent.

sst3rd, Sometimes it is difficult to realize the intent of someone's post with just word's in a post and no vocal inflection to go by. I'm not sure why you took such exception to mikeb's post. I sure didn't read it the way you did. The rules say, "The youth must have experienced fifteen days and nights of Boy Scout camping during the two-year period prior to the election. The fifteen days and nights must include one, but no more than one, long-term camp consisting of six consecutive days and five nights of resident camping, approved and under the auspices and standards of the Boy Scouts of America. The balance of the camping must be overnight, weekend, or other short-term camps." I can see where some folks would question what you do if all of the nights have been done within a 12 month period? Can a boy then not go on another single night of camping for the next 12 months and then be elected to OA? Does he actually have to wait 24 months even if he did all of his nights of camping in the last 12? Mikeb simply sees a kid he considers to be a good kid and good scout who "might" actually have been eligible for OA and wants to know if he understands the rule or not. No harm, no foul. We have questions like that come up all the time in our unit. Right now there is a discussion of when to begin counting nights of camping for Camping merit badge. Do you start counting when the boy tells the SM he wants to do the MB, or do you count nights he has spent over the past year? I've seen units approach this question from both angles. It never hurts to ask a question and get everyone on the same page. That was all mikeb was doing and that is why this board exists.

Brent, There is a world of difference in speculating that Saddam had WMD's and making a decision to actually go to war based on those speculations. Bush's answer was war. It was from the beginning of his admin. It is well documented that PNAC advocated for this war when Clinton was still in the Whitehouse. Since many PNAC'ers ended up as part of Bush's admin, this war was going to happen one way or another. 9/11 made the job easier and stirring up fear of WMD's was the icing on the cake. Ask yourself this, if Saddam was such a threat to our security, why was he more of a threat 12 years after the first gulf war than he was during those 12 years? What was he waiting for, a 20th annaversary? His military might and power was crumbling more and more with each year. I won't call it a lie, but the intelligence was presented in such a way to support what Bush and company wanted.

I'm pretty sure that one of the exclusions we have for adult registration takes care of the speedo problem.

Where's that "representative Democracy" BSA touts? Can you point me to the BSA publication(s) that reference this?

Kahuna says, "Those generals, in my opinion, are running for SecDef under Hilary or Kerry. They could not have spoken out before retirement, but they certainly could speak their minds to the establishment. If they felt as they say they did, they should have resigned. I saw General Myers, the recently retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, yesterday on Fox. He said that Rumsfeld always listened to the generals and frequently took their advice. He also said the same thing Rumsfeld did: You got hundreds of generals out there and lots of egos." I wouldn't pay too much heed to the spin that the radio talk show pundits are trying to put on this. These guys are the real deal, who actually were over there doing the job. You can't dismiss them that easily. They didn't resign at the outset because they are patriots who belive in what they do. They id retire when it bewcame apparent that Rummy wanted to micromanage and had no respect for their opinion or their actual experience in waging war. As far as why we have not heard much from Air Force or Navy brass is because the brunt of this war has been on the shoulders of the Army and Marines. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49756 Patrick J Buchanan The Generals' Revolt Posted: April 15, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc. In just two weeks, six retired U.S. Marine and Army generals have denounced the Pentagon planning for the war in Iraq and called for the resignation or firing of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who travels often to Iraq and supports the war, says that the generals mirror the views of 75 percent of the officers in the field, and probably more. This is not a Cindy Sheehan moment. This is a vote of no confidence in the leadership of the U.S. armed forces by senior officers once responsible for carrying out the orders of that leadership. It is hard to recall a situation in history where retired U.S. Army and Marine Corps generals, almost all of whom had major commands in a war yet under way, denounced the civilian leadership and called on the president to fire his secretary for war. As those generals must be aware, their revolt cannot but send a message to friend and enemy alike that the U.S. high command is deeply divided, that U.S. policy is floundering, that the loss of Iraq impends if the civilian leadership at the Pentagon is not changed. The generals have sent an unmistakable message to Commander in Chief George W. Bush: Get rid of Rumsfeld, or you will lose the war. Columnist Ignatius makes that precise point: "Rumsfeld should resign because the administration is losing the war on the home front. As bad as things are in Baghdad, America won't be defeated there militarily. But it may be forced into a hasty and chaotic retreat by mounting domestic opposition to its policy. Much of the American public has simply stopped believing the administration's arguments about Iraq, and Rumsfeld is a symbol of that credibility gap. He is a spent force. ..." With the exception of Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former head of Central Command who opposed the Bush-Rumsfeld rush to war, the other generals did not publicly protest until secure in retirement. Nevertheless, they bring imposing credentials to their charges against the defense secretary. Major Gen. Paul Eaton, first of the five rebels to speak out, was in charge of training Iraqi forces until 2004. He blames Rumsfeld for complicating the U.S. mission by alienating our NATO allies. Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs up to the eve of war, charges Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith with a "casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions or bury the results." Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Division in Iraq, charges that Rumsfeld does not seek nor does he accept the counsel of field commanders. Maj. Gen. John Riggs echoes Batiste. This directly contradicts what President Bush has told the nation. Maj. Gen. Charles J. Swannack, former field commander of the 82nd Airborne, believes we can create a stable government in Iraq, but says Rumsfeld has mismanaged the war. As of Good Friday, the Generals' Revolt has created a crisis for President Bush. If he stands by Rumsfeld, he will have taken his stand against generals whose credibility today is higher than his own. But if he bows to the Generals' Revolt and dismisses Rumsfeld, the generals will have effected a Pentagon putsch. An alumni association of retired generals will have dethroned civilian leadership and forced the commander in chief to fire the architect of a war upon which not only Bush's place in history depends, but the U.S. position in the Middle East and the world. The commander in chief will have been emasculated by retired generals. The stakes could scarcely be higher. Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war, dismissal of Rumsfeld in response to a clamor created by ex-generals would mark Bush as a weak if not fatally compromised president. He will have capitulated to a generals' coup. Will he then have to clear Rumsfeld's successor with them? Bush will begin to look like Czar Nicholas in 1916. And there is an unstated message of the Generals' Revolt. If Iraq collapses in chaos and sectarian war, and is perceived as another U.S. defeat, they are saying: We are not going to carry the can. The first volley in a "Who Lost Iraq?" war of recriminations has been fired. In 1951, Gen. MacArthur, the U.S. commander in Korea, defied Harry Truman by responding to a request from GOP House leader Joe Martin to describe his situation. MacArthur said the White House had tied his hands in fighting the war. Though MacArthur spoke the truth and the no-win war in Korea would kill Truman's presidency, the general was fired. But MacArthur was right to speak the truth about the war his soldiers were being forced to fight, a war against a far more numerous enemy who enjoyed a privileged sanctuary above the Yalu River, thanks to Harry Truman. In the last analysis, the Generals' Revolt is not just against Rumsfeld, but is aimed at the man who appointed him and has stood by him for three years of a guerrilla war the Pentagon did not predict or expect.

E, Thanks! I always enjoy reading your posts and never fail to learn something new. Let me ask another question that I've been to lazy to ask locally. How does one camp at an OA weekend. Having only been active so far at the unit level and camping by patrols within a troop, I have always wondered what the camping arrangements were at OA events?

I'm kind of all typed out right now, so I'll just take on the Rummy question. Why didn't they say anything before? Most of them were active military when the war started. Military officers don't get the luxury of speaking against their leaders in public. Those that do, like Zinni did in the run up to the war, end up like Zinni......marginalized and retired. Bush and Rummy were not looking for advice from the professionals. They were looking for can do guys to carry out their wishes. This morning I heard one of the right wing radio talking heads spinning the story by pointing out that other Generals such as USMC General Peter Pace who is Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff had not criticized Rummy. Well DUH, who does he work for? In his position, he can't say anything....just like the Generals who are speaking out now couldn't when they were active. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say a few years down the road.

Campcrafter, I'll try to make a long story short. Our Webelos all crossed over to a troop we had "checked out". The SM was in Iraq and a friend from another Pack who's son had also crossed over stepped up to be acting SM in his absence. No one else in the troop was willing. They were without a CC, so his wife stepped up since no one else would. There was this influx of new boys and 5 Wood Badge trained leaders. WE didn't come in throwing our weight around or trying to change the world. We just wanted a place to serve. This troop had not done much recruiting in previous years and the older boys were looking forward to high adventure and didn't want to be saddled with a bunch of little kids. Many of their parents felt the same way. I had one adult suggest that we just sit back for the first year and get the hang of how things are done. We were vocal (but non-confrontational) in committee meetings because we saw things that were being done wrong. The straw that finally broke the camel's back was when the treasurer (overseas SM's wife) got mad at the CC (acting SM's wife) during a committee meeting and screamed at her and threw a stack of three ring binders at her. The worst part was that the boys were just on the other side of a partition wall. The UC happened to be attending the meeting. A special meeting was called to clear the air and the UC and COR were in attendance. All of the "old time" adults gave the treasurer a vote of confidence. We saw the hand writing on the wall and knew we were not welcome. Besides, we didn't want our boys in that environment. This all happened in a February thru June time frame. We decided to start our own troop. It was a great experiment and maybe some better scouters could have pulled it off. Our biggest problem was trying to have a "normal" boy led troop with no older scouts to lead by example. All of our scouts were 11 years old and most not even tenderfoot yet. We only had enough for 1 patrol and my son was elected PL which effectively became SPL. Six months later we crossed over a new group of Webelos and had enough for 2 patrols. This time my son was elected SPL. He got a lot of support from us adults, but it is a big responsibility to put the running of a troop on an 11/12 year old, first year, 1st Class Scout. He was nearing burn out. Many of our boys were immature and unwilling to step up. Step up not just to leadership, but simply to put much effort into cooking or setting up camp. Without older boys, they wanted to revert back to Webelos. As much as we hated to, we decided to visit other troops, transfer the boys and shut down our troop after about 14 months of operation. My son and I went to Jamboree last year and the gentleman who was our SM had an outstanding home troop. He had 13 boys from his troop in our Jambo troop. My son and I had gotten to know them well and decided to give them a try when we shut down our old troop. It is a 25 mile one way trip to this troop. It is worth the time, effort and money to get there. I'm the ASM for new scouts, my son is now a Star and APL and is going to Northern Tier this summer. The troop regularly had 35 to 40 boys at each weeks meeting. The troop has such a great reputation that we have crossed 20 Webelos over since February. I can't imagine being anywhere else. The troop has many dedicated parents and leaders and is a true boy led troop. My son loves it there and that is all that matters to me. The cherry on top is that I love it too. I say all of that to say this. If your son isn't happy where you are, find somewhere where he will be happy. If you want to start a troop with young boys, understand that it is HARD work and has it's rewards and pitfalls. Good luck!

Curses!!!! ANOTHER woman!!! Just kidding gwd. My WB Troop Guide was female and if it wasn't for her and her husband, one of the council campgrounds wouldn't be the great facility it is. The Course Director for the WB I'm staffing this fall is another woman of great value to our council. Do what is right for you. You'll know when the time is right. I'll urge you to go and go as soon as you can. You will not regret it. I'll even promise you. But you need to do it when the time is right. I do like Barry's suggestion to send your CC in the mean time if possible. You can focus on the program side while they work on strengthening the support structure. A good CC is worth their weight in gold.

Eamonn, I don't want to hijack the thread and maybe this isn't the time or place....but. You mention OJ really got on fire with OA as opposed to the troop. I've heard this same scenario a number of times. My knowledge of OA is zip as I won't be doing Ordeal until probably September. My question is, what is it about OA that boys find so much more appealing and why can't some of it be duplicated at the unit level? This has always bugged me. Some boys (although they are not supposed to) get so wrapped up in OA that they basically begin ignoring their troop. Is OA like BSA "crack" or something? Why can't the same excitment and expectations translate to a unit program?

CC, It is the opposite for me. I quit while in Webelos. I had no interest in joining the Boy Scouts. That was 1967, so I can't really tell you why.....I just don't remember ever having a burning desire to do it. My son on the other hand, joined as a Webelos, is in his third year, a Star and loves it. I registered because of him. Him and our old Cubmaster who was an inspiration to me. He lived, ate and breathed Scouting. His son (same age as my son) did to as a Cub. His first year as a scout he seemed to enjoy it. He started losing interest around the beginning of his second year. I think a lot of it was that he enjoyed Cubbing when the adults did all the work. He loved going camping, he just didn't want to put forth ANY effort whatsoever in camp or at meetings. He wanted to quit. His dad had been selected as an ASM along with me for Jamboree and had paid $1900 each to go. He made his son stay in until Jambo was over. His son fought him over every single meeting in between then and when we went to Jambo. There were times when he made his dad's life a living hell over scouting. After Jambo, he finally allowed his son to quit. As much as he loves scouting, he has basically dropped out to pursue other interests with his family. One of the reasons his son gave was that going to the meetings and campouts cut into his skateboarding. Go figure. 60 to 90 minutes a week doesn't take that much away from other activities. I think it was more of an excuse. The real reason that I observed was that he didn't want to be responsible for anything. Scouting is a great program, but it won't be attractive to every boy. My wife has asked me before what I would do if my son wanted to quit. I told her I'd probably stay active at the district or council level, but I don't honestly know how long that would last.

In regard to costs. I don't know about other councils, but ours does have a limited number of camperships for those in need. Also, our old Pack committee passed a resolution to pay half of the cost of WB if funds were available. I realize not every unit would do this and some would even frown on it. The possibility of a unit deciding to do this usually happens after a good number of leaders have attended WB, see the value in the training and realize that it is a cost that actually benefits the unit in particular and scouting in general. We had six WB'ers in the Pack when we passed that resolution.

I've worn the medic alert necklace for years. If boys don't want to wear a bracelet, the necklace is a good alternative. It will be under their shirt where it won't be noticed except by folks who know to look for it in an emergency.

PATCH!? There is a patch? I'm taking this to the Council and heads are gonna roll.

Being diabetic myself, I'd be interested to know this info as well. My son was elected and I was nominated for OA a month or two ago. It will be a few months before there is an Ordeal that fits our current schedule.

I don't know, I've been a senior member for some time and I have to tell you.......the benefits are NOT that great!

Gern, Northern Tier? Wow, I'm impressed.....and envious!!! My 13 year old son is going with two crews from our troop this summer. I won't be along. I'm a pumper and a big guy at 6'2" and 275+. I can't put the boys or adults in a position of having to care for me or haul my big butt 30 miles out of the backwoods. I got to go as an ASM to Jambo last year. Since that involved flying, tour buses, living in a tent city with 40,000 scouts and having a first aid station about 100 yards from our camp, I didn't see much risk. I never miss a campout or summer camp. My diabetes has always been under great control over the past 31 years since I was diagnosed at 17. Your son is fortunate to have you there as backup. As an adult with no backup, I won't allow myself to risk high adventure trips out of concern for the adults and boys.....no matter how tempting it is. Have a great time. I concur with switching back to syringes on the trip.

Trev, We've talked offline about this since I'm a type 1 (insulin dependent) diabetic myself. I'm sure you've already thought of these things, but for the benefit of others who have not, I'll list a few things. Get him a braclet or necklace and/or ID card for his wallet that lets folks know he is diabetic. He should already be carrying a daypack with items like a first aid kit, water and rain gear. He needs to also carry a glucometer to test his blood sugar and have some sort of glucose to treat low blood sugar conditions. Don't let him carry chocolate or something that will melt. Wal-mart and other pharmacies carry the glucose tablets in either bottle or little containers or 10. Take plenty. He will probably be more active and hot than at home. Talk to the SM about allowing him to keep a sourse of glucose in the tent....unless you are in bear country. Food in tents are a no no, but my health trumps that rule. I'm not getting up in the middle of the night with my blood sugar low and fumbling around in the dark digging around in the food stores. If nothing else, store them in a 5 gallon bucket just outside the tent door. Make sure the health lodge is aware of his condition. If he is taking something like swimming merit badge, it would be smart to let those in charge know as well. Chances are that he will have no problems and have a blast. However, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Try not to restrict anything he wants to do. Just make sure he/you think thru the contingecies to allow him to do everything the other kids do. Take twice what you think you will need of his supplies.

Rooster, I hate to see you leave. I'm not sure how the length of time posting here translates into something bad. We all go to work everyday and don't consider that a bad thing. Maybe a refocus would help. I've noticed that you seldom if ever post outside of the Issues & Politics forum. That would wear anybody out in fairly short order. How about sticking around and discussing things like the patrol method, summer camps, recruitment, gear, etc. It might be good for the soul. God bless you in wherever and whatever you do.

Ed, That is what the second half of SM Specific is....Introduction to Outdoor Leader Skills. It teaches adults all of the skills needed for a boy to reach First Class. No SM/ASM should be wearing a trained patch until he has completed both the SM Specific and the IOLS course and can not attend Wood Badge without having done both. Skills are being taught to adults who want to learn them.

Don't forget that a copy of Slim Whitman in your vehicle doubles as a dandy weapon if Martians attack.