desertrat77

Two things I always bring: bacon stretcher and raisin peeler. The raisin peeler is like a potato peeler, just smaller.

Eagle, I have had several pairs issued over the years. They are great. There are commercial products for stain removal but I haven't seen any that really work. Most stains fade over time and repeated scuffing from walking in rough terrain helps. In the AF, aircraft maintenance and fuels folks have very stained boots; many folks keep an extra pair for inspections and such. There are stain resistant boots around but I don't know how good they are. As Own said, enjoy the stains, they show you've been around!

Time for National to unveil the Knitting Merit Badge.

SP, I understand but just a thought: isn't there another scouter that can serve as "sergeant at arms" while you handle the strategic level stuff?(This message has been edited by desertrat77)

I read most of BP's works when I was a teen. There were moments, particularly in his later books, when I would read a particular sentence or para and go "wow, that's kind of odd." Just an uneducated opinion but when I read the link, I wonder if BP's reasoning may have slipped a bit in his later years.(This message has been edited by desertrat77)

Beavah, that's a tough one. Near as I can tell from debating my oldest when she was in college, elites are people who love all the bennies of of being an American citizen and living in a capitalist society, yet pride themselves on denigrating America and big business. Oh yes, and people that work with their hands are inferior--I think that is another "elitist" viewpoint. Hard to say. All I know is that I'm definitely not elite, either by my own reckoning or anyone else's.

Twoeagles, can you lend any insight as to why 1920s?

Calico, sorry your board was like that. Stories on the forum aside, I don't think a bad board happens that often. I say this a military guy who travels quite a bit. If the SM knows a candidate is predisposed politically or religiously to a certain viewpoint that may ruffle some feathers, he/she has the responsibility to coach the candidate to articulate his position in a manner that is courageous, yet poised and courteous. And yes, SM may stay in the back if need be. But for the vast majority of scouts, this isn't an issue. Particularly when we are talking about current events. My main objection is the trend of Tiger Cub-like over protectiveness that I see in the BSA today. I'm all for safety. But if we are afraid an Eagle board is going to go south because someone asks a loaded question, or asks a question that wasn't on the "preapproved" list then we obviously don't hold the Eagle candidate in very high esteem. The vast majority of them have much life experience, and will do just fine. And we don't think much of the board members either if we persist with having "advocates" screening questions, then stopping boards to ascertain intent. Just an awful tone. I recall my Eagle board prep 30+ years ago. I was coached well--eye contact, physical presence, how to articulate my answers and the like. As far as questioning, the SM said "Be prepared for anything--they are going to ask you tough questions that may have no right or wrong answer. They are going to see how well you can think on your feet and if you can handle the pressure." Boy was he right. I left an hour later with my head hurting. These gents asked some indepth questions. But my SM's advice was spot on. This experience has since helped me with meeting military awards boards, and job interviews for nominative military jobs. Haven't always succeeded but that's life. After 25 years in the military, I see bright young men and women who join and flounder a bit at first. Sure, it can be challenging to transition from civilian to military life. But more often than not, for the first time in their life they don't have anyone to sweep their path 24/7. So they have some lessons to learn that could have been learned in their pre-teen and teen years. But were prevented from doing so by over protective parents, coaches, teachers, and scout leaders. Scouting has been described as a safe environment to fail. I sure did my fair share of failing prior to that board. But that's how we learn, and we shouldn't sweep paths so clean that scouts are deprived of the benefit of safe failure.(This message has been edited by desertrat77)

Calico, are you serious? You make this sound like waterboarding! Or an interrogation by a terror group! It's an Eagle board of review, conducted by distinguished men and women, not those donkeys on Jay Walking. A young man who hopes to be congratulated as the BSA's newest Eagle afterwards is meeting the board--not some dolt. You propose to hang around the back like his Den Mom, to rush in and protect him? Good grief. And you are worried that the discussion might turn political? Concerned because a question may not have been preapproved ahead of time? Any scout worth his salt meeting an Eagle board can handle a current events discussion. Even one that turns partisan. May as well wear a purple dinosaur suit and accompany him to his first job interview too.

Thanks Lisa, needed that! I think my original comment is more directed at education overall, rather than a direct jab at unions. Even in the good/fair to middlin schools, there is little academic rigor, and the students' intellect is rarely challenged. Strategy seems to be keep it simple/flip a switch/get a banana. Kids are bored and think that school isn't important. They desire more from their education but don't quite know what want--but they do know something is missing.

Lisa: MS, NJ, CA, KS Best: NJ (at least the district we were in) Worst: CA--hands down

Eagle92, good memories about the knee socks! Wore them as a cub while living in the Panama Canal Zone...really liked them. Moved to AZ three weeks after crossing over, didn't wear them there. Certainly didn't wear them when we moved to AK--cold winter, mosquitos in the summer......

Basement, the parents have grown to believe that you will keep doing it all, year after year. The lack of help after the event is a sure sign. I'd recommend setting a firm date of resignation, and sticking to it. Your sanity and your family's well being aren't worth the abuse. You've been thru thick and thin...time for someone else to carry the ball down the field.

Here's what I know. My youngest has gone to elementary school now in four different states because we're a military family. If the goal of our education system is to train our kids for minimum wage jobs their whole life, America's schools are doing an outstanding job.

Exactly! Just like a football game. League publishes the rules. Players and coaches know the rules ahead of time. Violators get penalized. The donkeys that can't/won't abide by the rules are sent to the showers. Then the fans and players can enjoy a spirited game!

A good citizen is informed...after all, the scout earned the Citizenship series of MBs...world, nation, community. Being conversant about the latest news in those three categories of current events, and able to provide some analysis if asked, and the candidate should do just fine.

Like my old first sergeant used to say: What you tolerate, will happen. Acceptable parent behavior should be clearly outlined well ahead of time. I'm talking measurable standards. And there should be swift, visible consequences for crossing the line. Disqualify a cub or two because of their parents, send the cub and mom/dad home, and things will settle down pretty quick. Yes, it's draconian. But what are the alternatives? - Chaos because of poor adult behavior? Just to avoid conflict with the offending adult donkeys? Okay. Then it's a lousy event for every one. - Dumb it down to a non-competitive "rainbow and unicorn" event? Again, just to avoid conflict? Sure. Another lousy, unsatisfying event. We can have enthusiastic, competitive events that are lots of fun...folks just have to know the rules. The most desirable outcome when addressing misbehavior in a group setting is precision bombing, ie, target the offender and punish them. Carpet bombing everyone (dumbing down the event, or cancelling it) punishes everyone. Joe Bob is right. If we can't make a stand for good decorum, and give the cubs a fun event, may as well head to Knitting World and hit that two for one sale before Granny catches all the bargain yarn.(This message has been edited by desertrat77)

Jerome, welcome! I like your gameplan. The cubs have enough lecturing and homework from school--they want to move around and do things!

The red vest was more common in the BSA up until the early 80s (or there abouts) and then it faded for awhile. I wore one as a boy scout in the 70s...and I don't recall there being official guidance on it. It was an official BSA supply item. Just buy it and wear it how and when you pleased. It's easy to overthink scout uniforming. This happens when folks run around imposing policies that don't exist, or are personal preference, or local village lore. I like ScouterAdam's comments: "Like to see someone enforce that. Wear them. The boys earned the awards/patches. It's showing respect."

Definitely go with the old school patch! It's BSA heritage--conversation starter for sure.

Own, great post. Nothing like a handwritten note, given or received.

Eagle92, your experience about waiting for badges brought back a memory. In the '70s, the Scout badge was presented at the end of the meeting, along with skills awards to those who earned them. Immediate recognition. A few words from the SM welcoming Johnny, encouraging him to keep up the good work. Then scout vespers, a brave attempt at taps by the troop bugler, and the SM's benediction. Then, with the end of structure, complete chaos. The other ranks? Pass the board of review and settle in for a good long wait for the badge, perhaps several months till the next court of honor. It was tough, but looking back I gotta admit, the method sure guaranteed great COH attendance!(This message has been edited by desertrat77)

"Maybe I'm just lucky and have a good council with good volunteers. I'd like to think it is that way everywhere, but judging by some of the posts, evidently not. I guess your mileage varies." SR540, that's well said. Not every council is like yours. Quick war story. In the '80s, during the by-invite only era for WB attendance, I received an invite to attend. After the initial shock, I read the letter with great interest. It was the week long course, remember that. I had just come back from a short tour overseas and had some stuff cooking at work, but I thought I could manage the timing. Clean shirts (no knots, etc.)...sure, why not. Then I read the names of the WB staffers. And groaned. Many of these guys were the same self-important, condescending dudes that staffed my basic scout leader training course a few years earlier, comprised of three weekends in the class room, one weekend in the field. After a combined four weekends of their attitude, there was no way I was goin to attend WB. I'd gladly endure it for the mandatory/for-the-good-of-the troop training. But for an entire week WB? No way. (Plus, I had further experiences with these chaps at camporees, roundtables, refresher training...and my impression was further solidified by each experience. So I sent my regrets. My DE never forgave me. Since then, I've served in three other councils. One council was very small, and during WB ramp up/sales pitch, some Very Important WBers came out of the woodwork to tell us UCs why we needed to do WB. Never saw these guys before, I guess they did WB only. Never saw them at a camporee or anything else Next council: more of the same, just less obvious. This council: folks seem to be really squared away. Very impressive. But I don't see the need to attend a course that is essentially a BSA-sanctioned repackaging of Management 101, even if with good cadre. So to all my fellow scouters, if you have a good WB course, and it's your bag, enjoy. But please don't assume your positive experience is universal. Please count your good fortune; however, don't presume that non-attenders are any less dedicated to scouting. (This message has been edited by desertrat77)

Time for pie?

"People who don't want to do it or who don't like the very idea of the course will probably find it not worthwhile & should focus their time, money and energy elsewhere. WB (21stC or otherwise) is not a magic bullet, and it is not a requirement for good service to scouting." Lisa, I think your comments are the most intelligent thus far...if WB adopted the same outlook, I think the course would have more credibility. Scoutfish, criticism and praise for WB has been a constant for decades. If an internet debate is going to dissuade someone from WB attendance, then two things are afoot. One, the person is too easily persuaded. Two, some of the criticism may be justified and it hits home. "Positivity" is a good quality. But it needs to applied at appropriate times. Universal application can get folks into the wrong car, wrong relationship, wrong church, or wrong training course. Analysis is important. And just listening to rave reviews isn't balanced. As for the tone of this debate, and others where things have gotten a bit "spirited": while there may have been a few comments that have tread close to the edge, I don't see any problem with things overall. Sometimes, niceness can stifle an unpleasant discussion that needs to happen. And just because something has the official BSA stamp on it doesn't make it immune from mistakes or criticism. Healthy, frank debate is missing from many aspects of our society today. We shouldn't be so thin skinned. I put this in the category of being "brave."