acco40

Except for possibly the last item in BW's list, "Nudist" Scouts would fit the bill! (and maybe the pocket and formal requirements) (Yes everyone, that was said in jest.)

Except for his sister.

I apologize. Sarcasm is my weakness.

I'm confused. I'm not 100% sure what the state and federal anti-discrimination laws dictate but I do know that the US military does receive taxpayer money (federal to be exact) and they discriminate on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

Our troop meetings are on Monday evenings. During the school year, I recently instituted holding a PLC meeting on the Monday evening right after our monthly outing in place of the troop meeting. This gave some of the boys (non-PLC) a rest (after a Friday-Saturday-Sunday camp outing, attendance on the next day troop meeting was usually lower than other troop meetings.) The boys are awful young (SPL is 12) and are struggling somewhat right now (the troop meetings are too much like a school classroom session) but that is what they have seen in the past and that is what they keep coming up with. I'm trying to gently persuade them to add more hands-on, games, patrol competition type stuff. THis obviously takes a little more work on their part to plan but I believe is worth it in the long run.

But wasn't the reference to "the people" supporting Saddam Hussein? Being at war with Iran for over eight years probably did not edure him tothe Iranian people. Looking at the text of the speech, you are correct, he may have meant Iranian (Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.) But my recollection, however fuzzy, thought he made a reference to "Iranian" more than once althought it only shows up once in the released text. Overall, I thought the speech/address went well. I just wish the childish applause, stand up/sit down right side of the aisle, left side of the aisle silliness would stop.

Does he have a funny walk, small mustache and wear a derby? That's chaplain, not chaplin and ditto to Bob White. Chaplain => adult, Chaplain's Aide => youth

Am I the only one who noticed in the State of the Union speech last night that several times Bush made reference to the IRANIAN people when he meant to say Iraqi?

Ed, Thanks for keeping us posted. Mr. Lahoff is still in my thoughts. It is nice to know that he is in good spirits. He sounds like a wonderful person (like so many Scouters are).

Getting of topic again ... Ah, yes the 60s! Den Mothers galore and do you know why the Cubmasters were always men? Because the BSA did not allow female Cubmasters until the early 70s! (1972?) So much for the "if you don't like the rules, go start another program" crowd. The reason we had den mothers were because den meetings were after school at one of the boys houses and dad was at work and mom was at home. Only Pack meetings were held after the sacred dinner hour (ALWAYS 5:30 PM at my house). That is why a snack was often served at den meetings. Now with den meetings right after dinner, why have a snack? Now who the heck knows when dinner will be, families rarely eat together at a sit down meal and does anyone hold den meetings after school and before dinner anymore? And yes, we didn't have to buy new hats and neckerchiefs every year. The old Cub Scout hats were great! Cubs should be in the traditional uniform (similar to present day Wolf) throughout the program! No Tigers either! If I remember correctly (50/50 chance of being correct) the Lion rank was a full year and then wasn't Webelos like a three month or half year transition period to prepare for Boy Scouts? So after earning the Bobcat (easily done) the boys were traditionaly Wolf (1 yr), Bear (1 yr), Lion (1 yr) and then Webelos, who worked on AOL for a few months.

Some just don't "get it." "And it has been long standing troop policy that BoR's are done only in full uniform as defined and required by the troop." I sincerely hope the poster did not mean that the troop defines what the full uniform is. That definition has already been made.

I am in violent agreement with a few of the posters. I've have two sons and a daughter. The oldest boy started Scouts as a Wolf (second grade) and the second boy as a Tiger, i.e. first grader. (could not wait two years to join his brother in scouting). My daughter, joined Girl Scouts in Kindergarten. She (and I believe most girls at this age) was better at sitting still and doing things than the boys in the same age group. I have my suspicions that the BSA has lowered the program one year in an attempt to remedy the big drop-off in enrollment that occurs between Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. The Tiger program (once more of an option and out on a limb) has been fully integrated into the Pack. The Webelos program with more emphasis on the tan shirt, singular Webelos Badge (no longer will wear Wolf, Bear, arrow points, etc.) has become "junior" Boy Scouts in my estimation. Society, not just the BSA, seems to push our children to grow up and do things earlier and earlier. We (USA) have fallen into the trap of believing that introducing children to formal education (pre-school programs, head start, etc.) at an earlier age will improve academic performance. Statistics show otherwise. Kindergarten used to be optional in this country forty years ago and now it seems that almost 100% of the children have some sort of preschool. Countries that don't start children with formal education until 6 or 7 perform much better in language and math skills at the high school level than the children of the USA. While cause and effect are difficult to prove, I believe we are pushing our kids to "perform" way to early. I also believe we tell ourselves we are doing it for our children but we are really doing it for ourselves. As a society, we seem to be pushing raising our children to others more and more. Sorry for my rambling, but I hope the BSA does NOT lower age requirements or institute a new lower age program.(This message has been edited by acco40)

With the risk of going way off topic (BSA is dying?) ... Some of the best music that I enjoy was made by drug addled, misogynistic, egotists. But I did enjoy the music! Now, there is a difficult or fine line between enjoying something someone produces (i.e. Pablo Picasso was not what I would hold out to my sons as a role model but he was a great artist) and supporting or endorsing them. In the Detroit area, the Arianna Huffington The Detroit Project TV ads have generated a lot of controversy. Does buying gas guzzling SUVs support terrorism? Some will not listen to Richard Wagner for political reasons. To each his own I guess but I can easily separate the accomplishments of individuals and the individuals themselves. William Schockley, Edward Teller, Peter Townsend and Freddie Mercury all come to mind.

Eagledad, as one of my favorite announcers would say, Whoa Nelly! "You're saying titles have nothing to do with role modeling." Uh, where did I say that? I am concerned with actions (behavoir), not titles. "If you are willing to be forced ..." Isn't this a contradiction in terms? How can one be willing AND forced? I don't understand this. I just don't think being a homosexual alone, in and of itself, should be grounds for non-participation in Scouting. Love (in the emotional sense, not physical sense alone) for a fellow human being is a "scout like" behavior in my book. As for your worry about exposing your son(s) to homosexuals, ("Every parent needs to assume that their son may accept and develop any lifestyle of your adults because that is what they will see.") I don't believe sexual orientation is #1) a lifestyle or 2) something that is "chosen". Do you let your son help the homeless? Feed the hungry? Help the sick? Are you afraid that they will pick up their "lifestyle?" Pornographers, spouse abusers, drinkers, smokers, strippers - those are all behaviors that many debate as acceptable or non-acceptable. I agree with you whole heartedly (and so does the Supreme Court) that it is about a private organization, of which I am a member, setting its own membership qualifications. But I am amused by the knee-jerk response of some individuals who act as the moral police. Take pornography for example. Say you are a sports reporter for a newspaper. Everywhere that I've lived, the local paper's sports section has a myriad of advertisements for "gentlemens" clubs, massage parlors, etc. Is the reporter supporting pornography? The answer is not so black and white. I don't believe in using sexual orientation as a litmus test for Scouting. I do agree with the BSA policy that sexual orientation should not be "avowed" regardless of what it is. It has nothing to do with the aims of Scouting in my book.

Ditto the golden dog. The address: www.troop5bsa.cjb.net/ worked fine for me too.

Not to beat a dead horse (no reference to the Bob White dying nag analogy) but if membership is to be used as a barometer, the real statistic to be used for BSA is the percentage of boys eligible for the program. If the population of baby boom children is decreasing (the baby boomers are graying rapidly), one would expect BSA membership to decline too. If the male age group is increasing, membership should increase too. I agree with Bob White that the BSA should not stick its finger to the wind to decide policy as so many current politicians do today. However, I do no view homosexuality as a sin or immoral and therefore do not agree with the BSA stance 100%. The term avowed is somewhat vague. I agree with GSA (GSUSA?) that the sexuality of the leaders (whether heterosexual or homosexual, members and leaders may not promote a particular sexual orientation or display any sexual behavior.) in and of itself should not determine if a leader if fit for leadership. There is a differnece, in my eyes, to not hiding a relationship to flaunting a relationship. Good role models for the BSA should be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. And no, I don't view "clean" as having a sexual connotation.

Thanks Rooster and NJ. I'm aware of the Webelos and AOL requirements. Here in Michigan, a student does not need to turn the "proper age" until Dec. 1st (i.e. can be four years old to start kindergarten as long as they turn 5 by 12/1). The particular boy in question did remain active this summer (crossover camping trip in June, den meeting in July, Webelos residence camp (5D/4N) in August, weekly meetings again in Sept) and so met the "active" requirement in December. I'm not that concerned with the possibility of delaying Tenderfoot or 2nd class for a few months but it was my impression that the lady at the council office was voiding Eagle applications if ranks were earned prior to the youth turning 10.5. There must be a remedy for that.

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. I feel that you can effect change easier from within than from without. That said, I bet your decision was made after much contemplation. When corresponding with your council, please keep the tone civil because I feel it will make a better impact. My main saving grace is that the boys don't really give a hoot about this controversy and rightly so. It should really not be a concern of theirs.

Recently, I went to my local BSA Council office to inquire about registration issues (Webelos to Boy Scouts & Units with different recharter dates). The lady that handled registration also handles overseeing the Eagle applications. She told me that boys can't earn any rank advancement in Boy Scouts until they are 10.5 years of age. Does anyone know if this is correct and if so where I may find this requirement? She is currently scanning applications for Eagle and says she comes across the "problem" of boys earning Tenderfoot before 10.5 years of age. This is new to me. I have a boy in my Webelos den (fifth grader, soon to earn his Arrow of Light who just turned 10 in November). He will crossover in mid-February. If the 10.5 rule is true, he would not be able to earn Tenderfoot until June. I know the Boy Scout joining requirements (completed 5th grade OR 11 years old OR earned the Arrow of Light AND is under 18 years of age) with respect to age. No problem for this boy.

The new requirements book is out I believe.

You may want to look into the Lone Scout program. Usually it is set up for geographically isolated families; one who do not live close to any established troops. However, if you find no troop that you are comfortable with in your area ... Personally, I would not go that route. I would join the best fitting troop I could in the area, become involved, and make changes from within.(This message has been edited by acco40)

A troop should provide some type of worship opportunity on ANY activity of 24 hours or more. We regularly get requests from parents that "Johnny has to leave early for a basketball game" or whatever. News flash everyone - It should not be the SMs call. Let the PLC decide if the boy should be able to leave early. They are the ones who will be picking up the slack. The adults should not be burdened with anymore tasks. The boys should be breaking down camp, not the adults. P.S. The subject should have been titled "Johnny Go-EARLY.(This message has been edited by acco40)

What is perfectly clear is that the BSA does not want any monetary or political backlash from accepting homosexuals into their organization. Therefore, homosexuals can join but if it becomes an issue (i.e. the individual is now "avowed") out he/she goes. However, the BSA frames the issue in one of morality and character.

Check out the latest Scouting brochure (forgot the actual name) mail order catalog. It had a special on equipment from last years Jamboree (shorts for $12 for example). If you look hard, you can save.

Check out the following: www.hse.gov.uk/research/otopdf/2001/oto01074.pdf From the above: When concrete is exposed to fire, the build-up of internal water pressure under steep temperature gardients generates high local stresses, which may cause spalling, potentially explosively."