Twocubdad

Rooster -- what was mission from the story was that I really didn't want it to turn the thread into a debate about how old a boy should be before he can earn Eagle. Apparently, I wasn't too successful at that. Your perception is correct that the leaders I hear grousing are complaining about the idea of a 12- or 13-year-old Eagle in general, nothing personally about this Scout. They are just using his shyness and "lack of maturity" to justify their preconceptions. Acco -- nothing has changed with the Cub program. The potential problem is that with last year's move to make the base age requirement 11 instead of 10.5, there is the potential that a boy with a late birthday who doesn't earn the AoL will be left hanging until the end of the school year. In our pack/troop we cross the Webelos over in late Feb. That potentially could leave a boy with nowhere to go for several months. Over the past couple years I've had several new Scouts join the pack as second year Webelos. I've told tham that if they really work at it they can earn their Arrow of Light by crossover in February, but that it's a big committment for them and their parents. On the other hand, they could look at their six months in Webelos as a time to learn about Scouting and to get ready for Boy Scouts in the spring. Now, with the rule change, I need to be careful and look at a boy's birthdate before offering that second option. The problem isn't necessarily limited to new Scouts. Not everyboy earns his AoL. If they don't and their birthday is late in the school year, they could be left hanging until the end of school.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I've not seen this yet, but if true it is the second change in two years. I think this "floor," as NJ describes it, is a good idea. Last year they upped the basic starting age from 10.5 to 11 for boys who have not earned the AoL or completed 5th grade. I have more of a problem with that in that it creates a potential problem for packs like ours that cross their Webs over before the end of the school year. We have a Scout in our troop who is well below his "normal" age, although I don't know if he was actually nine when he joined. If not, he hadn't been 10 very long. He moved here from out of the country and tested well above his age and therefore place in a higher grade. Now, the boy is 12 1/2 and is a couple MBs and a project away from Eagle. (The kid is very bright so meeting the requirements hasn't been a problem for him.) I really don't know him well. He is fairly quiet and reserved. I don't know if that is simply his nature or if it relates to growing up in a different culture or both. I think a lot of people take his shyness for lack of leadership and maturity. Because of his age, he's not really been give any tough leadership roles. He was the "acting" PL for a big council camporee and did a good job leading a drill for his Emergency Preparedness MB a month or two ago. But already I've heard a couple comments from leaders along the lines of "he's too young/immature to be an Eagle, what are we going to do with him?" Of course that's another thread we've covered thoroughly in the past.

From the info in this and the previous thread, it seems you've given the troop leadership every opportunity to do the right thing -- they just don't have the sense to do it. I would absolutely appeal to the advancement committee immediately and request a quick resolution of the matter. I would stick with the current troop long enough to receive the badge at a Court of Honor with the old troop and to shake the SM's hand. Then I would immediately transfer to another troop.

I don't know of any policy preventing Cubs from building fires. It is more a matter of judgement and control. Our pack is so large it is very difficult to control Cubs tending the camp fire, so we generally limit fire building to the Sr. Webelos and prohibit younger Scouts from working the fire. That has the secondary benefit of becoming a perk for the Webs. If we had a smaller, more managable group, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Knowing fire safety and building a fire is a requirement for the Webelos Outdoorsman pin. While teaching my Webelos fire building I was surprised that none of them could even light a match. With fewer and fewer people smoking and having "don't play with matches" pounded into their heads, none of the boys had ever used a match previously.

At one time wasn't there another silver critter associated with the District Award of Merit? I thought I remembered my old SM getting some other award with a critter. He also has the Silver Beaver, so maybe I'm just confusing the two.

Terry-- Thanks again for providing the fire ring for our little virtural campfire. I also appreciate your tossing out the occasional nut that wanders in. It is unfortunate that it is necessary, but still appreciated. TCD

I don't know if we're talking about the same thing, E, but I've got a Coleman distribution tree that screws onto the top of a 20lb propane tank. It has three nipples on it that allow you to connect stoves and other appliances to it by way of several hoses. The hoses are about 3-feet long and have the same fittings as the small propane bottle and stove. I really like the rig. First of all it lets me run several things from one a big propane tank instead of the little disposable bottles. It also has a nipple on the top of the tree that lets you screw a propane lantern on top. A local troop uses as its standard patrol kitchen arrangement two Coleman stoves, two stove stands, a propane tank, distribution tree, two hoses and a lantern. It's a nice setup. As to the hoses, they are about 3-feet long and cost about $15 as WalMart. I don't know if it is legal, but they will connect end to end for added length. If you really want one hose of a particular length, go to the local propane distributor. They can probably make one of any length you want.

It is against my better judgment to re-engage this thread, but as a graduate of UNC I feel the need to defend the institution. First, the article is obviously a hack piece. (WorldNetDaily? Another member of the liberal media elite, right?) It is interesting to me how these guys can start an article in one direction and then turn on a dime to grind any old ax they like. Secondly, to say that the "ACLU went to court to support the University of North Carolina's mandatory reading assignment of the pro-Islam book" is a reach. It makes it sound that the ACLU took the case as the lead attorney and was the driving force behind the case. Trust me, UNC has some fine attorneys working for them. They can handle the heavy lifting themselves. At best the ACLU filed an "friend of the court" brief in support of the university's position. You want to take a bet at the number of conservative Christian organizations that weighed in for the plaintiff? And the students were not assigned to read the Quoran itself (not that that would have been a bad thing). The book is about Islamic society and the religious teachings on which it is based. In 2002 Islam, Iraq, and the Middle East generally was -- and is -- the most important topic in foreign affairs and probably current events as a whole. What is wrong with requiring students to study a society and religion that has that occupies that much of our national attention? If you were studying Israeli society wouldn't an understanding of Judaism be good? Isn't understanding Hindu philosophy an important part of studying India? I would certainly say that understanding Christianity would be an important part of understanding America. The real issue here is not one of religious freedom but one of academic freedom. Should a university have the right to require it's students to complete certain assignments or not? I had religious reason for not wanting to take organic chemistry -- I didn't have a prayer of passing it. But if you want the degree, it's one of the requirements. And why are you going to the university in the first place? To reconfirm the same old ideas you've always had? Then stay home with your same old friends and re-read the same old books. What's wrong with considering the world from a different point of view? Unless, of course, you are convinced you already have All The Answers, then that would just be a waste of time.

To answer both your questions, our units are chartered to a Presbyterian church. The pack is nearly 20 years old and the troop almost 40. Both ministers are Eagle Scouts. One is Wood Badge trained and a registered leader. The church views Scouting as one of their outreach programs. They see it as an opportunity to serve the community and to reach potential new members. Of course they also serve their existing members who are involved in Scouting. At the same time I believe they have a broad understand of BSA's Statement on Religious Principles. They welcome Scouts of all faiths. As the minister has told me he would like to see everyone join the church. But even if a Scout and his family are of another faith or no faith, he is glad to see that boy and his family in Scouting. Reciprocally, our pack does its best to support both the church as our chartered organization and the religious element of the Scout program. We always hold a Scout's Own devotion if we camp over a Sunday morning. Since becoming Cubmaster I've tried to have one den or one Scout open our pack meetings with a prayer or devotion (the Scouts and den leaders sometimes forget to prepare something since this is a new thing for us). And we encourage our Scouts to earn the religious emblem of their faith and keep Protestant, Catholic and Jewish workbooks in our pack library (we would certainly add others if there were a request.)

TP -- I don't hate him. I don't know him so how can I know him? (Although he claims to have me figured out. I'm just like he was before he found God. No wait, today I'm a Communist. We'll see what labels this post brings.) I don't think I've written anything hateful to or about him. I have ridiculed what he has written, that due primarily to the fact that I find much of it ridiculous. I admit to having a very large suspicion of anyone who thinks they have All The Answers. Debating people like that is futile. Responding point-for-point is only going to bring a flood of off-target quotes and articles that have little bearing on the discussion. "Facts" are facts only if they fit their view. I've found that the best way to deal with them is with sarcasm and by poking fun at their arguments. They will never change their mind, but maybe others will see the folly in their position. Secondly, I don't like rude people, and we seem to have gained a couple of them here recently. Passion and enthusiasm don't excuse rudeness. I particularly don't like people who join a group (in person or virtually) and immediately start trash talking and name calling. Take the time to learn little bit about the people in the group before trashing them. And finally, I don't like having to read poorly written drivel. Either learn to craft a coherent paragraph or stick to the chat rooms. And if you can't synthesize an original thought don't post some long article and expect me to divine your argument from it for you.

Oh I do appreciate the homework you did! With your reminder of all the accomplishments and great work the ACLU has done and continues to do, I plan to make a contribution and renew my membership, something I've not done since college.

We were told in our health and safety course that one of the primary reasons for tour permits is to document what is and is not a Scout activity. Monday my younger son went to a birthday pool party for a friend. Every kid there was a Cub Scout and a member of the same den. Also there were the den leader, the asst. DL (father of the birthday boy) and the Cubmaster (me). Has something happened it is possible that someone might claim that this was a Scout activity to try and get the BSA insurance to kick in. BSA could use the lack of a tour permit to substantiate that the party was not a BSA activity. According to the guys teaching the course (interestingly one was a lawyer and the other an MD) it's not necessarily an all or nothing thing (although a lot of people like to make you think it is). If someone gets hurt at a council camp, in uniform at a established Scout activity while following all the other rules, that you forgot a tour permit is not necessarily a fatal flaw. On the otherhand, if by yourself you take your troop to play paintball without a tour permit and something happens, you're pretty well cooked. But unquestionably, it's a whole lot better to simply hand someone the approved tour permit and smile than it is to pay an attorney big bucks to prove the same point. As to the fire, I understood the article to say the Scouts were at a council summer camp when the fires occurred.

This used to be really interesting thread. Since it has gone off the deep end, it is with some disappointment that I'll no longer read or post to it. Rooster, although you and I come from different philosophical points of view, I appreciate your thoughtful contributions. Maybe we can pick up a similar conversation later when things cool down. Please know that the following comment is in no way directed at you: I'll close and possibly bring the thread back to it's beginning by noting that some of the bile we have seen spewed here is just the beginning edge of the slippery slop some people descend when they believe that their's is the one true religion. History -- and even current events -- shows the other end of the slope.

The last times Christians lost their way was in the dark ages Within my lifetime I seem to recall religious conflicts in Belfast and Lebannon where the Christians didn't mind offing their fellow man in the name of religion. I'm sure someone who pays more attention to these things than I can list more. Frankly, I think this whole line debate is nonsense, but let's try to maintain a little accuracy.

Well I certainly learned a lot from that, Jason. Thanks for sharing. I'm glad I took the time to click on this thread.

I can't say I completely understand the tale, but it would seem that with four-or-five other Scouts witnessing the incident you should be able to get a better idea of what went down. Generally, I wouldn't be too upset about the older boys trying to handle the situation on their own. That is part of what we teach them to do. A conversation may be in order regarding when they need to involve the adults. There is also the question of handling the immediate situation in the absence of adults vs. trying to cover it up afterwards. As to the actions of the older brother, if after talking to the other boys it appears that he acted inappropriately, you'll need to deal with whatever the facts are. If he simply gave his brother preference, that's a leadership issue. He needs to understand that as a troop leader he needs to deal fairly with all the Scouts under his leadership. On the other hand, if he or the other older Scouts were encouraging the younger brother to hit the other Scout for what ever reason (retaliation, to "even the score," whatever) they all need to understand that that is unacceptable Scout behavior and a poor example of leadership.

Can someone cite a reference which states that the expedition hat is not an "official" hat? Same for the light green/no red strip hiking socks?

BE -- you may have noticed that folks here have trouble dealing with ambiguity. The bottom line is that the official publications have not caught up with the recent uniform changes. The Insignia Guide (which is due for an update by next year) is silent on what headgear Cub leaders should wear. The male leader inspection sheet says Cub leaders should wear either the Webelos or the blue and gold Cub Scout visor hat, the latter of which has now been replaced by the Wolf and Bear hats. Divining the underlying principle from the above, logic suggest that den leaders wear the hat corresponding to the level of the den they serve. I'm assuming all those hats come in adult sizes (I don't have a catalog handy.) Hats for Cubmasters and other unit-level leaders is a bit more problematic. In that case, I'd say pick one. I will note that our local scout shop still stocks the old generic Cub Scout hats in adult sizes. I don't know if they are intended as official adult Cub Leader hats, or if it is a matter of working through the stock of old hats.

Crew -- what's your position in the troop?

And if you ever want to go to the mother of all Scout Shops, you should stop by the one attached to the National Supply Division's warehouse in Charlotte. They literally stock every item in the catalog, including socks. It's just off I-77 for you snowbirds headed to the beach and only about 10 minutes from the Charlotte airport if you ever have a long layover there (those of you who fly USAirway know what I'm talking about).

Bob writes: They expect you to behave "in an orderly manner" as you promised! That does not mean to publicly air your protests or whine to the masses. They expect you to organize your thoughts and present them throught the avenues available to you in the BSA "in an orderly manner". At best you seem to be adding to the requirements. I take it that the parts of that paragraph outside the quotes are your own. When did "public" equate to "disorderly"? Do you really believe a letter to the editor or participating in a public forum is disorderly conduct? What are these proper channels we keep hearing about? In past threads you've suggested people contact their Scout Executive. Does the SE have an obligation to pass my concerns along to the proper decision makers at national? If not, that's not much of a channel. You have also repeated that complaints should be addressed those whe set policy. Are meetings of the executive board open to all members? Do they conduct open hearings from time to time? I've not received notice of one recently. They don't even list the names of the members in the annual report. Your proper channels sound like deaf ears. And Eisley says: I would not expect a business corporation to keep an engineer on its payroll if that individual convenes a press conference to claim in public that the corporation's products are defective. The decision to keep such a person around in this instance has nothing to do with the merits of the claim or position taken. Please tell me you don't work for Chrysler. I'll be walking to work tomorrow.

I'm not asking the school nurse (we don't even have a school nurse) or anyone else to take any risk. All I'm want is the ability to take care of my own kid as I see fit. Please explain to me why I'm not permitted to come to school and give my own child non-prescription cough syrup. Apparently the BSA doesn't get it either, Boleta, as the preferred method for handling medications (as described in G2SS) is to leave it up to the Scout and his parent. What is my liability in telling a parent "if your son needs to take a prescription this weekend, you and he need to work it out"? Neither do I see much added liability in walking from tent to tent shortly before lights out asking Scouts if they have remembered their medications.

What are you guys afraid of? Is BSA so fragile that it cannot withstand the thoughtful disagreement of its members? Has Mr. Lipson's statements in Philly caused the collapse of the program? It their position so tenuous that Merlyn is going to cause the house of cards to crash? This is basic democracy in action. When someone complains or dissents from the majority opinion, those in majority should rethink their position in light of the opposing arguments. Either they amend their position to strengthen it or conclude they were correct all along. Either way, the policy is better for having gone through the exercise. How long does it last? As long as it needs to. Yes, it's a messy process, but so was the last Presidential election. And all this "proper channel" and "keep it in-house" is a bunch of hooey conjured up by bureaucrats and PR flacks whose jobs are easier if they don't have to deal with the fallout. Of course there are limits to how one should voice their dissent. Common courtesy tells you that disrupting a meeting or accosting the Scout Executive is over the line. But how does a thoughtful, well crafted letter to the editor hurt? Bob calls such letters "social extortion." He says they are unproductive because the readers of the paper are not in a position to effect a change to BSA policy. I disagree. Many Scouters and Scout families read the paper and may be moved to voice their opinions through their units and councils. Many BSA and/or United Way contributors read the paper. They vote with their check books. Members of chartered organizations read papers and may influence their CORs who have real votes. Threatening the expulsion of those who voice their conscious and try to change policies they disagree with is despicable, un-Scoutlike and un-American. "If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them. Trust your own beliefs and obey your conscience when you know you are right."

Oh don't get me started on the schools. Our school requires you to have a doctor's letter to give YOUR OWN kid an OTC med. My boys both have allergies and are suceptible to bronchitis and sinus infections. So when they get the sniffles we are quick to get them started on decongestants so things don't start backing up. My options are 1) pay for a visit to the doctor's office to get the letter, 2) check him out of school, walk across the street, give him the medicine and then check him back in, or 3) decide to "have lunch" with him and palm two teaspoons of Triaminic to him. What a bunch of baloney. As to camp (and my experience thus far has been with Webelos resident camp): If the health lodge is going to take the medications, then they need to take responsibility for dispensing them. It's difficult enough for kids to remember to take their meds, but when you add the inconvenience of a two-mile hike to and from the health lodge at 11 p.m., forget about it. Even if the unit leaders remind them, invariably they're already in the sack or their buddy is. If the health lodge is taking the meds, then they need to have a better system for dispensing them to the boys at the proper time. If that means the health officer has to make a lap around camp three times a day then that just becomes part of the job. A much easier system would be for the Scouts to keep and be responsible for their own medications, as the G2SS suggests. A quick reminder whould then be sufficient to keep them on track. I understand that having a lot of precription meds floating around camp could cause problems. But a simple lock box in each campsite would solve that. The unit leader would secure the meds, but the Scouts would still be responsible for taking them. I would think Scouts with actual controlled substances would be a fairly rare occurance and could require stricter control. I've been proven wrong before, but I have a hard time seeing anyone trying to get high by swipping my bottle of Zantac. People will argue that boys looking for mischief will get into anything, but that could be true for bug spray, lighter fluid or a can of Right Guard.

Our council doesn't make any distinction between the units which do and don't support the council. I'm not sure what I think about the idea. The devil is in the details and I would think it would be awfully difficult to craft a system that is fair to all. What about units that don't contribute much financially but supply a lot of district and council-level leaders or always bring a bus load of boys to work days at camp? Units who can't contribute financially mak very well be the ones who need camperships the most. Our pack contributes in just about every way. We are always one of the top units in both FOS and popcorn sales. A number of our folks have leadership positions in the district and we provide way more than our share of labor planning and running district camps and events. We are in a fairly well-off part of the council and we very plainly tell our families that we have an obligation to support Scouting beyond our unit. On the other hand, everyone has a horse's behind to deal with from time to time. Last fall I asked one of our Cubs how much popcorn he had sold. His father -- who is the Scoutmaster of a nearby troop -- piped in and said the both his son and his troop were boycotting popcorn sale due to the high percentage of profits the council keeps. I asked him that being the kind of man who puts his money where his mouth went if he was planning to write the pack a check for the money his boycott was costing us. I also asked if he would mind if the council started charging his troop to use the council camps. No response on either questions and -- of course -- no check.