Twocubdad

Oh boy, this is a mess. They're not leaving you much wiggle room, are they? Ultimately, you've got to do what's best for the boys. Given the seriousness of the violations, the status quo isn't an option. It sounds like you have the ear of the new COR. I would want to make sure you both have the support of the Institutional Head. If he/she isn't involved in Scouting, it may take some education to get him/her to understand the problems. You and the COR need to sit down and figure out a plan and see what all the options are. Work with your DE and commissioner. One option may be you becoming CM. One may be moving to or forming another unit. Hang in there, a lot of boys are counting on you.

That's a wonderful thought, but I would certainly give the family some time. The troop could quietly begin the process (DS--please post the basics here, I'm interested to know what they are), but you obviously want to follow the family's wishes.

SS -- I'm sure you'll get a lot of good advice for dealing with the committee (I'll give you a few thoughts later), but I think it is important for you to keep in mind that you have an excellent opportunity to provide a quality Scouting program to.... ... your Webelos den. You can encourage your Webelos to earn their Religions emblems and even help set up a program if there is enough interest. You can encourage your Webelos to wear their uniform and set a good example by wearing your own. Meet with your den as often as you like. If you're meeting in your regular location I don't see how they can prevent you from meeting. Teach knife safety at a den meeting and give your boys their Whittlin' Chips. The cards are readily available at the Scout Shop and only have to be signed by you. I'm not suggesting that you do all this stuff at your next den meeting for the purpose of thumbing you nose at the committee -- go at it with a positive attitude -- but I'm only suggesting that an out-of-control committee can't prevent you from running your den the way it should be run. As to the problems with the committee: with or without your COR (preferably with) you need to place a call to your DE. Several of the problems you cite -- lack of two-deep leadership, failing to register boys to save money -- raise serious liability issues. If the DE doesn't step in (or have your Unit Commissioner do so) go to your Scout Executive. The rest of the issues relate to quality of program. The committee either wants to follow the aims and methods of Scouting or not. If they want to offer a quality program, training will help. Perhaps the district training committee will offer a group course for the entire committee. But if they insist on running the progra as they are now, it's really up to the COR to make the leadership changes necessary to bring the program up to par. Good luck to you and your boys.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

The leaders' book hasn't been updated and still includes the old requirements. If your boys are new Webelos Is and are using the new books, you should go by the requirement in their handbooks. If you're Scouts are returning Webelos IIs and using the old books, they can finish the year using the old requirements. You can still use the leaders' book to plan den meetings. The changes to the requirements aren't that big.

Generally, eBay prices are higher than what you will pay going through a reputable dealer. Most of the people selling stuff on eBay knows what the stuff is worth and the opening price is close to the fair market price. If you're looking to find things at below-market prices, eBay is the wrong place to look. Actually, it's more likely that buyers who don't know the market bid prices up. I'm somewhat guilty of that. Most of what I have bought on eBay are inexpensive CSPs. If a CSP I really want is worth $3 or $4, I may bid double that just to make sure I get the item. Yes, I've paid double the value or the item, but for only a couple bucks, I don't really care. There is something genetic about collectors that makes them want to "complete" a collection. If something comes in a set of four, having three just isn't good enough. And if you're a non-collector, you just don't understand it. It's like any hobby, just something to do. Why do people hunt if they don't need the meat? I tried to collect presidential autographs a few years back, until the market went crazy and beyond the reach of normal folks. Collecting Scout stuff has a double interest for me. I have two collections. One is of national jamboree stuff. I've tried to get a patch, neckerchief and back patch and leather patch for every jamboree. I've got a fairly complete set for all except the first three or four jambos. I could probably fill out the collection for a couple grand, but that ain't happening any time soon. The other is a collection of CSPs from all the councils in my home state which I started when I was a Scout. Like FOG, I like this collection because of the history and heritage behind it. I've got probably 75% of all the CSPs issued by the councils, including some fairly expensive early CSPs. It's a broad-enough collection that there are several rare CSPs that are hard to come by and make the hunt fun.

Neither would I, but if he asks the proper way to wear it, I'll give him the above answer.

Scous wear the palms pinned to the ribbon of their Eagle medal. There is no provision for Scouts to wear the palm other than on the medal, say, pinned to the eagle patch. Adults pin the palms in the center of their Eagle square knot.

I believe that's were the award used to go on the Cub Scout uniform. The current Insignia Guide shows it as a temporary patch, however. I think above the pocket was a better location for all the reasons you listed, expecially for Cubs as they also wear the Progress Toward Ranks totem or the Webelos Compass emblem on the right pocket. Even without the WCA, it's not uncommon to see a Cub (incorrectly) wearing several things hanging from the right pocket.

So, Ron, how do you propose that National and/or the councils tighten up on "paper Eagles"? What, specificaly, would you like to see done? (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

ME?

One of the ASMs in our brother troop has a red Woolrich chamois shirt he wears covered with patches. If you're familiar with the shirt, they're similar to the red wool BSA jackets (also made by Woolrich), but are cotton and cut more like a shirt. It's unofficial, but so is 90% of all winter outerwear that Scouts wear.

Nixon didn't make it to the '73 Jambo that I attended. Seem to recall that he was busy that summer.

I think this is facinating. Let me also say, Rooster, that your earlier post was a good one and explained youself very well. I absolutely agree with Rooster that one of the basic differences between people is whether or not you view humanity as inheritly good or inheritly bad. As Rooster would predict, I personally believe that most people are basically good and strive to do what is right and the best they can for themselves, their families and communities. I also believe that a minority of people are inheritly evil, no question about that either. But ultimately people behave the way they are taught and that much ill in the world can be overcome. But what I find particularly interesting is Rooster's point that one's opinion of humanity's goodness is the basis for his and other's political philosophy. Do the rest of you believe that conservatives see humanity as basically evil and liberals see it as basically good?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

That should read, "I'm only pointing out the falacy of that premise AND that your "facts" aren't."

I am a registered Democrat, mostly because I have always been one. I am probably more precisely an independent, but around here that precludes you from voting in primaries which, because of the ding-a-ling way districts are set up, is when many races are decided. You guys would obviously consider me a liberal, but I really dislike that label, mostly because of all the baggage everyone else has hung on it over the last 30 years. In the other thread I chose to call myself a liberal, primarily from a rhetorical standpoint. I'm glad to be able to put a sharper focus on the definition. Like packsaddle, I am a strong beliver in personal liberties. That drives my political thinking more than anything else. I think the direction our country is taking with the mis-named "Patriot Acts" is far more dangerous than the terrorists. Interestingly, the personal choices I make when excersizing my liberties are fairly conservative. That, by the way, is my explaination for being able to hold both liberal philosophies and the ideals of Scouting. However I will defend to the last the right of everyone else to make their own decisions free of interference from the government or others, even if those are not the decision I would have made. Everyone says they are fiscally conservative. Sure, I'd like to keep more of my money come April 15, but I think we as a country have gotten what we asked for. Re-election rates to Congress are something like 85 or 90 percent, because we all like that our guys can bring home the bacon. I don't see anyone, left or right, sending their bacon back to DC. Wasteful government spending is always what the other guy is getting. Social programs. Hmmmm. I agree with the conservative philosophy regarding personal responsibility. That works well for the vast majority of Americans. I think we as a country have the resources and the compassion such that we don't want to see anyone starve -- even if they are starving due to their own poor choices. That's a good thing -- even listed in the Constitution right after "provide for the common defense". The problem is knowing how to separate folks who are in need due to their own poor choices or due to simple circumstance. Let me torture the fishing analogy a bit more. Waiting in line at the lake are people who want to learn to fish. Wether or not we teach them to fish or simply hand them a fish is up to us, not them. There are some folks who are willing and able to fish, they just need a pole. And there are others whe legitimately cannot fish for themselvea and truely need our help. And of course there are some who will to sit in the shade and take fish from the rest of us. But we don't shut down the fishing program because of them. (Another time we can explore the role of the corporation that owns the lake.) Of course the welfare system has it's problems. The greatest has been the creation of a permanent welfare class. Does is bother me that some people are content to sit on their butts and wait for a handout? You bet. Are some people going to abuse the system? Sure. But I have to believe that they are a small minority of the population of needy people. While we fix the problems with the system, I'm willing to tolerate them for the greater good.

So there are my facts Twocub. What can you offer in their defense? I have nothing to prove, nothing to defend. You and CJ (and I'm not sure why you're hitching on to his wagon) are the ones who saw something on TV and are trying to extrapolate that onto the hearts and minds of 50 million people. I'm only pointing out the falacy of that premise that your "facts" aren't. For about third time in this thread, I'll note that I don't defend the the people who booed the Scouts. What they did was indefensible and reprehensible. But since that "fact" doesn't support your pre-conceived ideas about liberals, you just ignore it.

Can't answer that one since I'm not in that area of the program, but I would suggest you post it to the Venturing form. You'll probably get a better response there. With all due respect to AC and Davej, let's keep in mind that SPL is 14. What ever personality disorders this woman may or may not have really isn't up to him to deal with. SPL, I hope you've made that appointment with your SM to discuss this with him. I hope he understands this is his cross to bear. If the woman continues to cause you problems, your first and last recourse needs to be to get your SM and just walk away from the situation.

Here are the facts 1 At the DNC's National presidential convention which was televised on network TV the assemly BOO'd the Boy Scout Honor Guard as they presented the Flag of the United States of America. The assembly? You've polled all those in attendance and know that all -- or even a majority of those in attendence booed the Scouts. Of course, you could just rely on the TV networks to show a balanced picture of those respectfully standing with their hand over their hearts, not just the trouble makers. 2 No effort was made to regain decorum And you have knowledge of what was or wasn't done behind the scenes because......? 3 No reprimand was given for what was a cowardly and distasteful act not only to the children involved but in respect to our country's flag. Again, you know this how? You're privy to all the communication between the DNC and the various state committes, right? Do you really expect a political party, in the middle of a presidential campaign to rub salt in the wound and ensure that an embarrassing episode remains in the spotlight by publicly repremanding it's own delegates? Of course if the Republicans made a similar gaff -- say, denying a black delegate admittance to the convention because he looked "suspicious" -- the RNC would fall on it's sword and give the error top play for the next few weeks. 4 No apology was given to the scouts involved, their leaders, or the BSA. My recollection was that an apology was issued, but frankly it wasn't something I felt a need to collect documentation on at the time. I'm sure you have a copy of the apology that wasn't issued. Those are the facts. Facts? There's not a fact anywhere near here. Those are simply your opinions based on 90-seconds of TV and a lot of conjecture. Neither of has any hard information one way or the other. But you and CJ are the ones making the accusations. Where is your proof? Where are the document showing that the DNC orchestrated the event as you claim? Don't get me wrong. The behavior of those who booed the Scouts was reprehensible. And the DNC handlers who didn't predict to outcome were morons. But to try and paint all Democrats or liberals with that same brush is offensive to the million of patriotic American who consider themselves to be members of those two groups. It's just as offensive as claiming all Republicans are racists because Trent Lott can't keep his foot out of his mouth or because a handful of kooks manage to get David Duke's name on a ballot. (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Maybe that works for a San Francisco precinct meet during primary season, but you're nuts if you think that's the image a national party wants protrayed during one of their few prime-time national broadcasts. In your neck of the woods, it is apparently common for folks to rush the stage and stop the proceedings and/or contradict the opinions of the scheduled speaker. But it doesn't happen much around here. I don't know if I would attribute it to a lack of conviction or maybe just courtesy. Then again it could just be tight security.

Sounds like you handled it well. Good ridance to bad trash.

In thinking about it, in the future I'm going to ask everyone for a Class 1, which we will review and keep handy. If Class 2 or 3 forms are required, I'll ask that it be completed in addition to the Class 1 form and placed in a sealed envelope and stapled to the Class 1 form. That sounds to me like a good compromise between providing the unit with a reasonable amount of information and protecting the individuals' privacy.

"It must really feel great to belong to a political party that boos children." That's precisely the kind of garbage I'm talking about. Your and your talk-radio wannabes buddies love to find some straw man to set as an example of all "liberals" so you can knock it over. Then, as soon as someone challenges you on it, you backpedal, saying "oh, I didn't mean ALL Democrats think that way." Well until some challenges it, you sure don't mind leaving that garbage out there. Do you really think the DNC made a conscious decision to invite the Scouts to the convention just so they could be booed? But of course that's a whole lot more fun and makes much better political hay that to acknowledge that most Democrats were embarassed and ashamed of the boorish behavior of a few nuts. But since we're rolling in the mud, answer me this: How does it feel to belong to a political party whose top leadership wishes that an unrepentant segregationist had been elected president? And no it wasnt symbolic, but it did show the current RNCs true colors and hatred towards minorities and everyone with beliefs different from theirs for that matter. How big it was of them to support a segregationist for president? Maybe theyd like to come here to an inner city neightborhood and spout that racist tripe or would they be too afraid? (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Everyone is still ignoring the fact that the policy treats the Class 1 information (completed by a parent, asking for very broad, basic questions) differently from the Class 2 & 3 forms which are completed by a physician and contain the results of the physician's physical exam. Unfortunatly, BSA doesn't provide much guidance in dealing with the Class 2 & 3 froms. My only experience with them has been for the adults attending resident camp who are over 40 and are required to have a Class 3 physical. Frankly, I'm not comfortable having that level of personal information. But it is my responsibility to review the forms. I make it a point to only scan the form for completeness, to make sure it is signed by a physician, and check those items which appear on the Class 1 form without focusing on the personal information. They are then sealed in an envelope which and kept or one of the other leaders while at camp. All the adult leaders know where the forms are kept and can easily access them if needed. However, the policy regarding Class 1 forms is clear that we have a responsibility to review the Class 1 forms and be knowledgeable of our Scout's medical needs. Bob, you may choose to ingnore or gloss over that requirement, but you do so at your own peril. Violating a direct BSA policy could make you, your CO and other leaders in your unit legally liable if something happened to one of your Scouts. In that case you may not be afforded the protection of BSA insurance and legal defense. Violating the policy could also result in the revocation of your BSA membership. But ultimately the decision is yours.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Actually, Bob, that's what the G2SS says specifically in relation to High-Adventure medical form, which are Class 3 and include the results of a physician's exam. What the guide says about Class 1 forms, which cover most routine activities, is that the forms were established to "provide youth members and adult leaders a better understanding of their physical capabilities." And, "Den leaders, Scoutmasters, team coaches, and crew Advisors should review these and become knowledgeable about the medical needs of the youth members in their unit. Forms must be updated annually. They are filled out by participants and kept on file for easy reference." But of course you know that since it has been repeated in this thread about four times and each time you've chosen not to address it. Why?

Oh, Pu-leeeze! What a load. So what's your point, cj, is that Scouting IS, in fact, a right-wing political organizations? Since we "liberals" are so out of step with the principles of Scouting that we should all be drummed out of the program? Why not drop the facade and let uniformed Scouts openly campaign for good, conservative, heterosexual, Christian Republican candidates. What the heck, everyone knows all Democrats are of low moral character. How conceited does one have to be to think that only those who share their political and religious point of view can demonstrate responsibility, integrity, respect, duty to God and country, etc. (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)