Twocubdad

Regarding the SAR, does it matter on which side the ancestor fought? Not to me, but the DAR and SAR is pretty persnickery about it. This is WAAAY off topic, but you've wadded into my other great passion, genealogy. I've got folks on both sides of the fight during the Revolution. I'm SAR eligible on both sides of my family. One ancestor was in the NJ Militia (come to think of it, NJ, we may be related after all) and another was a Continental in Washington's quartermaster corp at Valley Forge -- tough job. The story goes that he met my ggggg-grandmother while foraging apples from her father's orchard and asked if he could call on her after the war. My paternal family had brothers who fought on both sides. My ggggg-grandfather died before the war and his children we too young to fight, but my ggggg-grandmother remarried to a loyalist. There are written accounts of the this guy having been captured by the Whigs who "beat him with the broad sides of their swords" trying to get him to give of the names of the other loyalists in the area. During the Carolinas campaign (1780-81) Cornwallis used my ggggg-grandfather's brother's house as his headquarters shortly after the Battle of Guilford Courthouse. This uncle and his son, a private in the Continental army, were arrested by Cornwallis and held until shortly before Yorktown. Another Tory ancestor was a Captain in the North Carolina loyalist militia and served under Col. David Fanning. Fanning was the militia's equivalent to Tarleton -- a real nasty fellow who had a knack for ambushing the Whigs and disappearing. At one point Fanning's militia captured James Burke, the revolutionary Governor of NC and turned him over to the British army at Wilmington. On the way to Wilmington, the Whigs ambushed Fanning trying to rescue Burke, and my ancestor was killed in the battle. The rescue failed as Fanning had secretly sent the governor to Wilmington by a different route with only a few guards. FOG explained that the DAR/SAR doesn't literally require a DNA sample, but the day is coming. As part of my research, I help administer a DNA database for our family. We've got about 20 participants now from the US, Canada and Great Britian. Through it we've been able to reinforce our genealogical research and confirmed some relationships we've suspected and disproved others. The DNA technology can't yet tell you how your are related to someone, rather it gives you a probable number of generations back to a common ancestor. Basically, the closest answer the DNA gives you is related, probably related, probably not related or not related. If anyone is interested, the company I use has a web site at www.FamilyTreeDNA.com

I learned the basic knots as a Scout, but didn't get into knotting until I learned to sail. Sailors as a group tend to have an appreciation for interesting knots (you should see my flying bowline). For me at least, knot tying is something you have to practice to remain proficient. I have a hard time remembering knots I don't use often. Every few years when I have to replace dock lines, I still have to look up how to put an eye splice in a line. For a good reference, look in the boating section of the book store. I have several knot books, most relating to sailing. One of my favorites is A Rigger's Apprentice by Brian Toss.

Moore's claim that he was upholding the Alabama Constitution is tenuous at best. I don't know what the case law says, the Article I, Section 3 reads: Religious freedom. That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles. That seems to me to be much stronger and more specific than even the Establishment Clause, but I'm sure some of you won't see it that way. So let's take religion out of the equation. What if Moore place a three-ton advertisement for his brother-in-law's barbecue joint in the lobby of the Supreme Court building? What right does he have to use a public facility for any personal purpose? Ed you really never commented on the reason behind Moore's removal from office. Do you disagree with the decision to remove him from office? Do you think it's okay to ignore a lawful court order? What if Moore refused to enforce Federal court decision in the Dale v. BSA case?

le V -- do you ever have any contact with the 71st NC regiment? They are based out of Moore's Creek Bridge NMP near Wilmington. I had a chance to meet some of them at an encampment and chatted with them for a while. I have an ancestor who was in the militia, although not necessarily the 71st. Interesting guys. We're working on a Lewis & Clark theme for day camp next summer and I was talking to them about the possibility of some of their local guys doing some demonstrations for us.

Moore violated an order of the Federal court which required him to remove the monument from the courthouse. He refused to do so and the monument (and Moore) were ultimately removed by order of the other justices. I don't know the precise verbage, but he was charged with six different violations. Richard Prior is the Alabama Attorney General who prosecutied Moore. He is also one of Bush's conservative judicial nominees the Senate Republicans "philabustered" over yesterday -- fairly high-level conservative credentials. He believes Moore should have been removed from office for refusing the Federal court order. If the Chief Justice of the state supreme court can ignore a court order, what chance is there that anyone else will? You can debate the merits of the Moore's position, but if we can't count on a supreme court judge to follow the rules, then who?

In the old book, the first requirement for the Compass Emblem is to earn the Webelos Award. I'm not sure if that changed for boys using the new requriements.

Our guys usually just get one thong, wearing it longer with only the Wolf beads, but doubling it over to add the red bear beads. A couple hints that will apply to Tiger totems, too: Keeping a knot in the plastic thong is impossible. We attach the single thong by poking it through the totem then tying a slip knot on the back side. To keep the slip knot from slipping, tape the thong and the knot to the back of the Totem. On the other end, don't try to tie a knot to hold the beads on. In stead lock the bottom bead in place with the thong. To do this, push the thong through the hole in the bead top to bottom, then loop the thong back through the bead going back through the bead in the same direction, top to bottom. You will end up with the thong going through the bead, wrapping half-way around it, then passing back through the bead again. Not quite fool-proof, but holds much better than a knot.

Well I'm just dang happy to know this fine American has his priorities right. I mean who the heck do these people think they are, trying to teach kids to do a flag ceremony on Veterans' Day with the flag on the wrong sleeve?!?

I center the embossed BSA emblem in the front but depending on the size, that throws the buckle off center a bit.

Eamonn, thanks for picking up the rational part of this thread. I'm enjoying the debate. As to your post, is it not possible that those things which come naturally to you now, doffing you hat, saying please and thank you, holding your tounge, were not presented to you as rule to be obeyed at some point in your life? I think I understand your and Acco's point (and maybe Bob White's, to a lesser degree.) What I'm hearing from you is not rules that are bad at face value, but rules which were handed down by Scoutmaster fiat, poorly applied, or poorly enforced. Troop rules are not a problem in and of themselves. Troop rules which are badly constructed and applied are bad. A troop whose Scoutmaster throws his hat to the ground and announces "That's it! I'm sick of trying to talk to boys who are wandering around in a fog listening to Walkmen and playing Gameboys. From now on, no more electronics on campouts!" has more problems than just a new rule which must be obeyed. We have a couple troops in our district, both thought to be the best of the best, who hand new boys troop handbooks when they join. The handbooks contain pages of troop rules, standards of behavior, punishments for violations and in one case, a list of "additional" requirements boys must meet for each rank. My sons won't be joining either of those troops. On the other hand, Hunt's hypothetical on which I expanded about the use of the church hymnal closet for troop equipment is an example of a boy-led troop developing a good and useful rule fully in tune with the Scout Law. The way BW's troop developed, explains and enforces it's rule against running in camp is also appropriate, even though you guys don't seem to think it's a rule. I agree with you that too many troops have rules which are capricious and misapplied. If you've gotten to the point that you need a handbook to keep up with all the rules, I think that's a good clue you have too many.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I wouldn't describe that as a "major error" in my thinking. More accurately I'd say I'm not willing to stretch the semantics as far as you are. My dictionary defines a rule as a "usual, customary or generalized description of expected behavior." That precisely defines your No Running in Camp rule. Because you choose to call it otherwise makes it no less of a rule. Because it isn't written down, voted upon or formally enacted makes it no less of a rule. And because your Scouts can choose to abide by the rule or not makes it no less of a rule. That, by the way, is true of all rules. If your purpose is to allow the Scout to make his own ethical choices, why do you have another Scout shout "No running in the house!"? By his actions, hasn't the Scout made his decision? Shouldn't you accept his choice?

I've been mulling this thread for a couple of days before jumping in. I'm a little hung up on the "extra" part of this. I see it as more of a difference between doing a job and doing a job well. I don't see doing a job well as being an extra. The SE cooking steaks, the camping chairman walking through camp, even Dancin's committee springing dinner for the new DE are all examples of folks doing their job well. My DE (technically, he's a DD) does his job well. He earned by ever-lasting admiration this summer at day camp by staying late after dinner Friday night and helping mop and haul out trash. Did he take comp time for the four hours the following week? I couldn't care less. But when he calls and asks me to help go classroom-to-classroom making Roundup presentations or to help follow up with some FOS cards, I'm happy to pitch in. It is about building relationships and trust among you co-workers and customers. My SE, on the other hand, does a lousy job, in my opinion. And I make that statement with the full understanding that I can't list more than two items on his official job description (one of which he does poorly, the other I have no clue). But in four years I've laid eyes on the man maybe three times (other than just passing him in the hall at the office) and have spoken to him twice. One of the "conversations" related to the afore-mentioned performance and the other a quick handshake at a FOS patron's lunch. I don't understand how you run a business without talking to your customers now and again.

DING! Thank you, Mr. Hunt! No more calls please, we have a winner! But I wish to offer a friendly amendment of point #5 which is that some rules may appropriately relate to local customs and traditions. Example 1: it is the tradition at our council camps that hats are doffed when entering the dining hall. It is acknowledged to new scouts and leaders that those in full uniform have the option of wearing a hat indoors, but that the custom of our council is to remove your hat in the dining hall. Over time the custom has been rendered to a rule posted outside the dining hall doors and enforced as such. Personally, I don't like the rule (due largely to the fact that after a day of wearing a hat in the summer heat my hair looks like something the cat hocked up), but being obedient and supportive of the tradition, I obey the rule. Example 2: Is the previously-discussed ban on electronics. This is a matter of communicating the unit's expectation of how it perceives courtesy. One unit may believe that a courteous Scout refrains from using electronics on outings to avoid disturbing others. Another teched-up unit's expectation of courtesy may mean bringing spare batteries to share. Adding "Remember electronic aren't allowed" or "Don't forget to pack double-As" is simply communicating the unit's expectations. I'd also like to comment on Bob's position, which I generally support. To me, the practical application of Bob's ethical decision making process is that occasionally the decisions made by the troop become rules of the troop. This is really a process of institutional memory than legislative, law making. Your "no running in the campsite/house" story is a good example of this. As a unit, your troop has made the decision that running in camp is a bad idea. Rather than allowing new Scouts to hurt themselves or destroy a tent on the way to discovering this truth for themselves, your troop communicates this bit of group judgement to the new boys in the form of the campsite/house story. But just because this "rule" was derrived from a ethical/moral judgement doesn't make it any less of a rule. If it's violated, boys are reminded of the rule ("No running in the house!") and I dare say that if someone or something were injured due to a violation of the rule they would be held responsible. (And just because you don't want to call this a "rule" doesn't mean it isn't one. You can dress a pig in high heels and an evening gown, but that don't make her the prom queen.) Hunt's hymnal closet is another good example. Instead of being a church rule, let's say it came about this way: The minister had given permision for the troop to store equipment in the closet, but one Scout -- a member of the church who helps distribute hymnals on Sunday morning -- realizes this is a bad plan. He suggests to the PLC that if they better organized their primary storage space that they wouldn't have to inconvenience the church, thereby being both helpful and courteous. The PLC makes a very moral and responsible decision to do this and backs it up with a troop rule reminding Scouts that in the future they are not to store troop supplies in the hymnal closet. How is this anything but Scouting at its best? (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Dead on correct, Bob. Exactly the point I was trying to make.

I'm not really following all the age calculations, so I'll assume you're right. But I have to ask, what's the hurry? There's plenty left for these boys to do as Webelos. There are 11 more activity pins. There are plenty of sports and academics pins available, most of which are on a par with the WAPs. You can step up your outdoor program and do more camping.

Rather than create artificial rules, the Unit Leader could fulfill their role as teacher and guide by seeing that scouts have the proper instruction in the use and safe handling of knives and other camp tools. So I see a Scout using his knife in an unsafe manner. Seeing this as a teaching opportunity, we open his handbook to page 78 and read the following: DO keep the blade closed except when you are using them DO cut away from yourself. DO close the blades before you pass a knife to someone else. DO keep your knife sharp and clean. DO obey and school regulations... DON'T carry a knife with the blade open. DON'T throw a knife. DON't cut toward yourself. DON'T strike a knife with another tool... Sounds like rules to me. And yes, there are consequences to violating them (aside from a sliced finger.) On the Cub Scout Whittling Chip, the side of the card the Scout signs says, "In return for the privilege of carrying a pocketknife at Cub Scout functions, I agree to the following:..." There is a clear implication that failure to follow the rules will result in the revocation of the privilege. I don't have a copy of the Boy Scout Totin' Chip, but the Handbook similarly refers to Totin' "rights." At Webelos camp this summer I taught Citizen activity pin. One of the requirements is for the boys to explain why we have laws. They keep us safe and provide structure and organization to society. That's all rules are. I agree that many units have a lot of unecessary rules. But my objection is more that they tend to be adult-inspired than boy-led. If the boys decide to prohibit electronic from campouts or require attendance at a planning meeting in order to participate in a specific event, I see no problem.

It doesn't sound like your SM has done much to solve the problem. Did you ever have the conversation with him about her?

Do you have the capability to generate heats other than with the Perfect N system? I spent several hours studying that system a couple years ago. The limitation was -- and I'm quoting this from two-year-old memory -- 21 cars which generated several hundered heats. With 100 boys in our pack, even if we treated each rank as a separate race and ran them through the heat generator that way, we wound up with something on the order of 4800 heats. Tell me if you can accommodate a bracketing system like this: we have a four-lane track and race four cars at a time. Cars are randomly assigned to flights, usually in the order in which they register. Each flight of four cars races four times, rotating across the track to even out any lane variances. (Even with a new aluminum track, there is a surprising difference between the lanes.) Points are awarded based on finish. The top two cars advance and the bottom two retire. In the subsequent rounds, we repeat the process, with no advantage or disadvantage based on your finish in prior rounds. Our theory is that if the two fastest cars coincidently raced head-to-head in every round, they could both still advance to the finals. By the same theory, if the three fastest cars coincidently raced in the same first-round heat, the third car would be prematurely eliminated. But that's a theoretical error we can live with.

DS and I have debated this before and pretty much agreed to disagree. The 10% fee is all well and good for a one-day training event where the total budget may be a few hundred dollars and the council is providing the services DS lists. But in the case of our day camp, 10% represents several thousand dollars and the council provides none of the services DS list to the camp. If our DE chooses to come to one of our planning meetings or the the council receptionist fields a few questions, it's not as if there is any additional cost to the council. Either way, paying a 10% vig to the council is one of the known requirements of holding the camp, so we'll live with it. But I have a huge problem with the pressure we are getting to squeeze our budgets and leave more than 10% on the table at the end of events. Any money left over after an event is absorbed into the council's general operating budget. If it works out that way, that's fine. But trying to squeeze out of the event money that the Scouts have paid and funneling them to other uses is wrong. If the event budget is fat, then the fees need to be reduced and the savings going to the Scouts

Arrow of Light, Eagle with bronze palm and God & Country. Currently Committee Chairman of our Pack, soon-to-be-retiring Webelos den leader, district day camp director and an at-large member of the district committee.

If you are still registered, you're entitled to wear the uniform. Make sure you update it with a "Troop Committee" position patch and go for it.

Acco -- I don't understand you question. If you are wearing your kilt properly, why would you need official skivvies? While I applaude the concept of the "American" denim kilt, I'll stick with my tartan kilts. Granpa always said going first class just doesn't cost that much more.

So what's the inside scoop on Jamboree staff positions? I've registered #1 son, who will just barely make the age cutoff by then, for the local contingent and I'm considering signing on as staff. (Leadership of the contingent troops has long-since been filled with a waiting list.) So what do I need to know? Is this basic slave labor or is there time to enjoy the event? What are the "good" jobs and which ones are to be avoided? Besides jobs related to my current or past careers, the one that interested me was in Cub Scouts (working with visiting Cubs, I assume.) I figured my background as a day camp director may put me in good stead there. Anyone know what that's about?

Fortunately, Cub Scouts with cell phones hasn't happened yet, but I sure the day will come. We do have a rule against electronics during Scout activities, but with Cubs that just means Gameboys. They're not sophistocated enough to push the rules like I sure the older boys do. Unfortunately, adults with cell phones is a fact of life. We've not banned them, but we do let folks know that we don't want to hear them ringing all the time and that adults' focus needs to be with the Scouts. At day camp we had one den leader who was on his phone constantly -- hours on end. After a day and a half, we told him he either needed to fish or cut bait. It was unfair to his boys and certainly unfair to his co-den leader who was having to carry his load. We gave him the opportunity to "back out of his commitment to the Scouts" (in those words) if necessary, but if he was going to be at camp, we needed him focused on camp.

Apparently this is a bad idea making the rounds through the back channels. It came up around here about this time last year --in my opinion -- as a means of padding the unit recruitment numbers. There was a plan for our chapter to charter as a crew, but then the other districts got wind of it and everyone wanted to do it. Fortunately, someone put a stake in it's heart. The last incarnation was to charter an OA crew to the summer camp. That didn't help anyone's district numbers, so the whole idea was dropped. This is similar to the practice of chartering other pre-existing, non-Scout organizations as Venture crews. What's the point of that? I don't think our district has any crews like that, but it's not for lack of trying. I know there is some marginal benefit to the crews, like DSteele's ROTC crew which gain access to BSA rifle ranges. But if a church youth group charters as a Venture crew only to have free use of Scout facilities but continues its original program, adopting none of the Venture program, where's the benefit to either the group of BSA? Is is just part of the numbers game?