eisely

I don't know what Webelos cub scouts and parents really look for, but I know what I would look for. Number one on the list is the reputation of the unit and its leaders. Is it known as a successful unit with a good program and low turnover? Are the adults respected in the community? While attending a troop meeting, I would visually survey the age of the scouts present. In particular I would observe, and even ask about, the ages of the senior scout leadership. A young SPL who seems to behave immaturely or cannot control the meeting is not a good sign. In the troops of which I have been a part, we have made it a practice to pull the parents aside and discuss our policies and programs with them. If a troop doesn't have anybody available to talk to, or that person is uninformed, that is not a good sign. In this session I would ask about the planning process, the outdoor program, the advancement program, and the training status of the adult leaders. One sleeper question is to ask about the committee. How often does it meet, who attends, and what does it deal with? I have visited troops that seemed to have a good program, but did not have a functioning committee. Such units are less likely to be boy run and more likely to be autocratically run by a few senior adults. As an adult leader trying to sell our troop to prospective parents, I ask what other units they have visited. I also encourage them to visit other units before making up their minds. As one of the other posters has noted, it is more important that boys continue with scouting, than that they come into one's own unit. If parents and Webelos boys make more informed choices, those are likely to be better choices. While visiting the troop I would also look at the uniforms of the boys. The more complete the uniforms, the better the unit. A slovenly approach to uniforms suggests that other aspects of the overall program probably aren't all they may be represented to be. There is nothing wrong with splashy presentations per se. The use of a splashy presentation suggests a serious approach to recruiting. It also gets the potential new scouts excited. But it is important to get past the presentation along the lines I have mentioned above. The major red flag for me would be harsh disciplinary practices. Also, keep in mind that no unit is going to have everything you are looking for, or think you should be looking for. Some units may have great outdoor programs to die for, but graduate few eagles. Or vice versa. As a parent, guiding your son's choices, you need to define for yourself your own priorities and evaluate the unit against those priorities.

While we're on the subject of political correctness, the following article by Mark Steyn, a Canadian commentator, also deserves note. _______________________ Imagine -- it may be you who's wrong Mark Steyn National Post At my daughter's school this year, the holiday concert concluded with John Lennon's Imagine. The school had thoughtfully printed the lyric on the program, and the teacher, inviting the parents to sing along, declared the number summed up what we were all "praying" for. Indeed. The droning vamp began, and John's anthem for cotton-candy nihilists rent the air: "Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today ..." Ah, that's the message of the season, isn't it? Back in the Sixties, John opined that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus Christ, which was a wee bit controversial in those unenlightened times but which appears to be no more than a prosaic statement of fact as far as the music department's priorities are concerned. These days, Imagine has achieved the status of secular hymn, no doubt because of its inclusive message: "Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion, too ... " Hey, happy holidays! You may say he's a dreamer, but he's not. A couple of years ago, it emerged that Lennon was a very generous contributor not just to organizations that support and fund the IRA, but to the IRA itself. He could imagine there's no countries, nothing to kill or die for and no religion, too, but until that blessed day he was quite happy to support a religiously discriminatory organization that blows up grannies at shopping centres. How heartening to know that, though he grew rich peddling illusory pap to the masses, he didn't fall for it himself. Imagine didn't go over wild with the parents, who mumbled along unenthusiastically. To be honest, I'd prefer John and Yoko's peacenik dirge, (Happy Xmas) War Is Over, though that might be a little premature and anyway that song suffers from the disadvantage of mentioning Xmas. On the radio you can hear Frosty and Rudolph and James Taylor's new post-9/11 version of Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas, but anyone with young children finds themselves exposed to a strange alternative repertoire of unseasonal favourites. My friend Tammy emerged from her daughter's kindergarten concert in a rage: not just no Christmas carols, but no Jingle Bells. The only song she recognized was Lionel Bart's spectacular melisma pile-up from Oliver!, Whe-e-e-e-ere Is Love?, which is not designed to be sung en masse. "They sounded like they were dying," she fumed, before going off to beard the school board, who explained that Jingle Bells had been given the heave-ho on the grounds that it might be insensitive to those of a non-jingly persuasion. On balance, I prefer the approach of the London Borough of Brent, one of Britain's sternest loony-left councils but far more sporting than the Scrooge-packed school boards across the Atlantic. Back in the Eighties, Brent decreed that it would permit municipal performances of I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus as long as they were accompanied by a couple of non-heterosexist choruses of I Saw Daddy Kissing Santa Claus. That's a lot less vicious than replacing the entire seasonal repertoire with obscurantist dirges for solstice-worshippers. Anyone can St-Nix Santa Claus Is Coming To Town, the hard part is finding something to put in its place. There are very few good Hannukah songs, never mind Kwanza or the Islamic festivals of Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. The reason for the dearth of Hanukkah songs is that for most of the last century the Jews were too busy cranking out Christmas songs -- Irving Berlin wrote White Christmas, Mel Torme wrote The Christmas Song (Chestnuts roasting on an open fire), Jerry Herman We Need A Little Christmas, Jule Styne and Sammy Cahn Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow! and The Christmas Waltz, Johnny Marks Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer, Have A Holly Jolly Christmas, Rockin' Around The Christmas Tree and a zillion others. As far as I know, the only Christian to offer to return the compliment was stiff-necked Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah (whose Come To The Manger has been recorded by Donny Osmond). Senator Hatch confirmed to me during his short-lived presidential campaign in 1999 that he was working on a Hanukkah song. I don't know whether he's finished it, but I would have to say on balance that, musically speaking, the Christians got the better end of this deal. The Jews -- the Ellis Island/Lower East Side generation -- were merely the latest contributors to the American Christmas. For their first two centuries on this continent, the Anglo-Celtic settlers attached no significance to Christmas: it was another working day, unless it fell on a Sunday, in which case one went to church. It was later waves of immigrants -- the Dutch, Germans and Scandinavians -- who introduced most of the standard features we know today -- trees, cards, Santa. Nothing embodies the American idea -- e pluribus unum -- better than the American Christmas. This is genuine multiculturalism: If the worry is separation of church and state, the North American Christmas is surely the most successful separation you could devise -- Jesus, Mary and Joseph are for home and church; the great secular trinity of Santa, Rudolph and Frosty are for school and mall. But the new "multiculturalism" prefers to celebrate our differences, no matter the effort required to manufacture them, and so somehow Santa, despite a Taliban-sized beard, and Frosty, the ultimate white male, have become suspect, too. It's no longer about the separation of church and state so much as the separation of neighbour from neighbour, the denial of the very possibility of a shared culture, except, of course for the traditional Santa suit filed by the ACLU over the entirely theoretical offence the holly wreath on the town offices gives to Buddhists or Wiccans. I see in Ramsey County, Minnesota that red poinsettias have been banned from the courthouse in St. Paul because they're symbolic of ... well, something or other. The flower itself is Mexican and named for James Poinsett, an American diplomat south of the border who discovered it in 1828 and popularized it back home. Nonetheless, it's now apparently the thin wedge of a WASP theocracy, so it has to go. Not poinsettias as a whole, you understand, just the red ones. The flowers were replaced by ribbons, representing "flags from around the world." The ribbons in turn have now been replaced by white poinsettias, representing, er, a flower similar to the traditional poinsettia but in a less insensitive and provocative hue. Discrimination on grounds of creed has now moved on to discrimination on grounds of colour: two Minnesotan middle-schoolers were disciplined because they appeared on stage in their holiday show wearing red and green scarves. And that's the point: in the age of what John O'Sullivan calls "counter-tribalism," you can celebrate anything as long as it's counter to tradition. Jingle Bells' only sin is that it's old and American and popular. We don't have popular popular culture any more but those old-time seasonal songs crossed all boundaries. The Mariah Carey, Placido Domingo, Phil Spector, Reba McEntire, Motown, Bruce Springsteen, and Jessye Norman Christmas CDs all draw from the same limited repertoire -- from Winter Wonderland to Silver Bells. In a time when radio stations are ever more narrowly programmed, these are the last songs we all share, and so they naturally run afoul of the hyphen-crazed segregationalists who insist that the only thing we have in common is our lack of anything in common. Even the PC schoolmarms understand that's insufficient -- hence the need to elevate Imagine to anthemic status in the communal songbook. I don't want to live in John Lennon's world without countries and religions -- neither did he, in his more honest moments. But this Christmas especially is a time to think about what binds us: If you feel "offended" by songs about snowmen and sleighs and donning one's gay apparel, then maybe you're the one with the problem. Imagine that.

One of the advantages of living in California is the number of opportunities for major outings within a day's drive. The main thing we lack is good canoeing water for extended canoe outings. To respond to some of the points raised. The major cost is more often the cost of getting to and from a destination. $300 for a week long outing is a bargain. Fortunately we live in an affluent area and cost is seldom an obstacle for anybody. If cost is an object, fund raisers need to be incorporated into the plan. How do we determine who gets to go? We do not normally limit participation, but do require participation in training events. This results in some self selection. My experience has been that those who have the most difficulty with major outings are the ones who avoided training. Yes we do sometimes have difficulty getting sufficient adult participation. This remains a problem for which there is no easy solution.

I became active as an adult scouter at the cub level in 1988. I went through cub training and later Scoutmaster Fundamentals when my sons moved up. Just this last fall I sat through the first session of the new "position specific training." I did learn a few new things, and gained additional insight into things that I already knew well. Subsequently I was on staff for the outdoor skills session. Those skills don't change much. You will benefit from this and others will benefit from your presence. It is a much more productive way to spend a day than watching a football or basketball game on the tube. By all means go.

I have been out of this loop for some time now, but a merit badge on etiquette generally would not be a bad idea. Several years ago we enrolled our two older sons in cotillion to civilize them a bit. Since we provided two boys, we got a break on the price. The last night of cotillion one obnoxious kid tried to pick a fight with my oldest son who then decked the other kid. Somehow cotillion just didn't take. I think etiquette classes run jointly with girls would be the most effective way to do this. Thoughts?

Not to give offense, but the ultimate merit badge would be a merit badge in female psychology. Of course Freud couldn't figure this out so who would we call on to put such a merit badge together?

OGE, The only thing that I noticed upon becoming the first recorded Senior Member was ... now what was it that I noticed?

You can also use velcro.

The following piece by Bill O'Reilly summarizes recent attempts to abolish various aspects of Christmas across the United States. Whatever you may think of O'Reilly, these reports are worth noting. O'Reilly reports on on the USA here. I hear things are worse in Manitoba. Just thought I'd share. Oh, and by the way, MERRY CHRISTMAS to you, whether you want it or not. ______________ Santa is appalled 2001 WorldNetDaily.com 'Tis the season to be dopey. I was hoping the annual assault on Christmas would be shelved this year because the national mood was more sober after 9-11, but no such luck. Grinches are running wild and it's my job to chase them down and put snow down their backs. In Seattle, a King County executive named Ron Sims sent out a memo to county employees asking them not to say "Merry Christmas" and to be "religion neutral." Sims was mocked and scorned even in that permissive city. The memo was filed under "stunningly foolish." The Wisconsin Municipal Clerks Association ordered religious ornaments banned for the state "holiday" tree. A Frederick County, Pa., school employee was prohibited from handing out Christmas cards on a public-school campus. Santa Claus was banned by the Kensington, Md., town council because of two complaints that ol' Saint Nick would offend some citizens at a tree-lighting ceremony. Santa showed up anyway, presumably with his lawyer an elf named "Swifty." Red poinsettas were banned from the Ramsey Court House in St. Paul, Minn., because they offended one person who believes the flowers to be a symbol of Christianity. Elementary school principal Sandy Niemiera announced to startled Plainfield, Ill., students that all holiday celebrations would be banned because of "diversity" concerns. And in Maine, one school district has banned Christmas trees because some cultures don't believe in them. Of course, all of these things are completely insane but they are definitely symptomatic of what America is facing: A well-organized campaign to destroy tradition and replace it with the bland philosophy that nothing is any good unless it includes everybody. Let's walk through this. Christmas is a federal holiday. That means that the word Christmas is legal in every way and can be used as a greeting or a description or whatever you want. Christmas exists because of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, a man who changed the course of Western civilization. A man who's philosophy became the cornerstone of democratic thinking. All men were created equal in the eyes of Jesus and in the eyes of America's founding fathers. You don't have to be a Christian to understand the importance of the central theme of Jesus' philosophy that a person love God and love his or her neighbor as himself. Now, this might offend some atheists out there, but so what? The arrogance of a person who dismisses the thought of a higher power offends me. But in our free society, thought is protected. And so is Christmas. The secularists who would destroy this joyous tradition are destructive fascists who seek to control the free flow of expression. Hey, if I work for King County, Wash., you're telling me I can't say Merry Christmas? What is this, Berlin in the '30s? Beijing in 1949? A Stalin fan club convention? What amazes me is that many Americans ignore this intrusion on our civil rights. The thought police are allowed to issue their memos and orders and they are getting away with it. Where's the ACLU in all this? They are real busy telling school boards they can't post God Bless America signs, but the ACLU is Missing In Action when it comes to some pinhead bureaucrat ordering someone not to distribute Christmas cards. Excuse me, but I believe it is in my right to give any greeting I want as long as it isn't obscene. And that's what this anti-Christmas campaign is obscene. It is a blight upon our country. It is un-American, and offensive to those of us who cherish liberty. It also mightily tees off Santa Claus. Right now, Kris Kringle really is making his list and checking it twice. And he's gonna find out who's naughty and nice. Don't mess with Santa, people. He may be a jovial fellow with the "ho, ho, ho" and all. But underneath the white beard and red suit, he's getting real impatient with Americans who would deny him the right to bring happiness to the children of the world. There is a point where political correctness becomes an acid that erodes freedom. We have reached that point with these assaults on Christmas.

Patrol outings are to be encouraged for a variety of reasons. The difficulty is rounding up enough qualified adult participation.

An easy way to do this is to NOT inspect the entire uniform. At least once a month do an inspection. Limit the inspection to one part of the uniform. That part is not announced in advance. It might be an item of insignia, or belts, or socks, or whatever. This reduces the time spent on this and can achieve much the same result. Boys should be scored, and patrols should be scored. This should be another element of healthy competition among patrols

Snipe hunts and sending people for cannon reports and keys to oar locks are tricks, not practical jokes. These are tricks intended to humiliate. Kids are human, and humans are complicated with many sides to their nature. The idea of scouting is to help mold young people. Adults should not be setting an example that encourages intentional humiliation. Even so, people survive. I submit that OGE survived the experience he has recounted for us, and is probably better for it. This is not to say that there aren't better ways for youth to acquire these lessons. I like the ideas put forward by Chippewa29 as guidance for what is acceptable and what is not. I strongly agree that harmless humor can build an organization. A troop or a school without laughter is a dreary place to be. But humor does not have to be crude, cruel, or offensive. Now let me bore you with another story on myself. As a teenager I worked on staff at Camp Pa He Tsi on the Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri. As is common at most resident camps, we offered a mid week overnight outing, in our case, an overnight canoe trip ten miles up the arm of the lake. We would leave after lunch on Wednesday and return Thursday morning. One of my normal duties was to act as guide for this. We always went to the same destination. (As an aside, there normally were NO adults along and we did not have any PFDs in camp at all. My how times change.) On one of these trips I left all the food behind. We did not realize this until we got to the destination. The food was discovered and delivered to us by motorboat just in time for dinner. At Thursday lunch, in the dining hall, in front of the entire camp, I was awarded with a string to put around my finger by none other than the camp director. Was I embarrased and humiliated? Yes. Did I quit? No. I also never forgot the food again. What about tall tales? I sometimes spin these for my own entertainment and the entertainment of the scouts. The success of a tall tale depends in part on the gullibility of the listener. Sooner or later the listener catches on. Are tall tales to be construed as hazing?

Pushups by themselves are essentially harmless. Whether or not pushups constitute corporal punishment that is in conflict with BSA policy, I will leave others to debate. However I share sctmom's concern. The use of pushups as a punishment is not appropriate for scouting. This is not boot camp, and the use of this form of punishment to maintain discipline hints at a mindset in the leadership that I would walk away from.

With respect to skits, it is a common practice in planning campfires, for a senior scout, or adult, to screen proposed skits. This is where this line can be drawn. Adults can also set the tone for practical jokes too, and establish boundaries that become part of the culture of the troop. My own personal rule for such humor is to ask the joker how he would feel if he were the jokee. A year and a half ago I had a camp stool buckle under my weight. It was a really cheap item. It buckled, but did not break. I was able to straighten the legs out, and place it by the campfire. When my own son sat on it, it collapsed completely. This was a harmless joke, regardless of who might have sat on it. It would be a dreary day for scouting when we can't do this sort of thing.

As long as we are on the subject of hazing, what is the attitude about camp fire skits? Many skits derive their humor from making an individual, for lack of a better word, a goat for the trick. Having seen a lot of skits over the years, there are many that are mean. But what is the harm in the old "ugliest man in the world skit?"

Hey OGE, I'm agreeing with you. Of course this sort of humor at someone else's expense goes way beyond scouting. Nobody does this sort thing more often or as well as the military. I suspect that green Roman legionairres were sent to the supply room to inquire about hats for the spear heads.

Thank you Scouter.com

Unfortunately OGE is right, and scouting has lost part of its sense of humor. This sort of thing can become hurtful hazing and probably should not be encouraged. Anybody seen the keys to oar locks?

This article from the Sun Sentinel speaks for itself. ____________________- Gay ban garners Scouts $200,000 By Megan O'Matz Staff Writer Posted December 18 2001 A South Florida couple has donated $200,000 to the South Florida Council of the Boy Scouts of America, in a show of support for the Scouts' prohibition against gay leaders and members, according to the Scouts' Web site. The gift is the single largest donation designated for operating expenses in the history of the council, said Scout Executive Jeffrie Herrmann. The couple made the contribution in September, but the council did not widely publicize the information because the donors asked to remain anonymous, Herrmann said. The council's Web site, www.sfcbsa.org, however, describes the pair as longtime admirers of scouting who were "deeply disappointed at the treatment the Boy Scouts received from county and municipal governments, local school districts, the United Way of Broward County, and from some corporate contributors." The Scouts lost funding and resources from a wide array of public agencies and private organizations after the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2000 upheld the Scouts' ban on gays. The Web site notes that the donors are appreciative that the South Florida council "has not backed down on its commitment to the BSA's membership standards and that the council leadership has acted strong and Scout-like in dealing with Scouting's detractors." At the donors' request, the council issued a "challenge" to the community, asking individuals to contribute an additional $200,000 in matching funds. Herrmann said the council has raised about $100,000 in the effort. The Boy Scout council lost thousands of dollars after the Supreme Court decision, as local governments, including Broward County and the city of Fort Lauderdale, withheld grants to the organization, citing nondiscrimination policies. Scouts take an oath to be "morally straight" and do not accept "avowed homosexuals" as members or leaders. The Scouts were not included in this year's Broward County United Way campaign, because the United Way now requires its member agencies to sign agreements pledging to refrain from discriminating against people based on sexual orientation. The council typically received between $128,000 and $175,000 in aid from the United Way. Herrmann said the Scouts, like other nonprofit agencies, have experienced added financial setbacks because of the economic downturn and a decline in local charitable contributions after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. "The fall has been a difficult time for us in fund-raising since the tragedies of Sept. 11," he said. He estimated the reaction to the Scouts' policies and the events of Sept. 11 resulted in a $500,000 loss in operating revenue this fiscal year. "We're trying to avoid a deficit," he said. "We're cutting back. We have vacancies that have not been filled. ... And we've had some programmatic cutbacks." Herrmann said the $200,000 gift will be used for general operating expenses, including camp programs, recruitment and activities designed to help boys advance through the Scouting ranks. The South Florida Council serves 21,000 children in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts in Monroe, Broward and Miami-Dade counties. It has an annual general operating budget of $3.5 million.

A few years back a group of parents in Newberry Park (part of Thousand Oaks) California organized a troop dedicated to cycling. They established their own non profit corporation for this sole purpose and got a charter from the Ventura County Council. At that time Newberry Park was in the Conejo Valley District (probably still is) If you want to learn more about this unit call the Ventura County Council in Camarillo, California. Should be area code 805. You'll have to to look it up. I no longer live in that area. I do not know if this unit is still in business.

How to deal with a youth member who comes to you and says that he thinks that he is gay? Good question. BSA policy is not very helpful. First of all, it is my understanding that adult leaders are not suppose to discuss sex with youth members. It seems to me that I have seen that in writing somewhere. Anybody who knows where that is written and can inform the rest of us would be most helpful. Second, the policy on "avowed homosexuals" does not distinguish between adult and youth members. While most scouters would have little difficulty following the policy with respect to adults, I think many scouters would be troubled with the idea of simply expelling a kid who said in private conversation that he thought he was gay. As with most scouters, I would refer that boy to his parents. But what if you know that there is only one parent or that the parents would react inappropriately, possibly even violently? As other posters above have commented, adolescence is a time of great uncertainty and even experimentation, and just because a boy might think something, does not make it so. Our purpose is to be there for the boy, not just to throw them out on a flimsy inference that just because a boy says he thinks he's gay he's got to go. Coming back to some of the original thoughts in this thread, morality has less to do with private thoughts than it does with conduct, or behavior towards others. If a boy had come on to other boys, or attempted inappopriate physical contact, that would be grounds for at least a serious discussion, if not suspension. Such conduct would go against sensible youth protection in addition to not being "morally straight." Even under such a scenario, a first time offender should handled differently than a second time offender. In this regard, one has to treat other youth witnesses or complainants with some skepticism. Kids will accuse each other of incredible things for the pettiest of reasons. As an aside, some readers may be aware of a somewhat troublesome deal that a council in South Florida made with the local homosexual community. This was a political, not a legal settlement. In order for the scouts to retain low cost access to public facilities, the council agreed to refer self identified gay youth members to homosexual support groups. This is something I personally would not do.

As FScouter points out, there is no general prohibition against liquid fuel stoves. I have occasionally encountered local prohibitions for specific events such as camporees. I think you should assume that liquid fuel stoves are permissible unless someone in authority tells you otherwise.

OGE, A thoughtful post. Dedicated dad does make a point however in that the dispute over homosexuality is a dispute over behavior and its place in a youth movement. Dedicated Dad, I understand where you are coming from, and obviously there are very strongly held views. One of the difficulties other participants have with your posts is the vehemence of some of your language. One of the reasons I avoid the use of some the terminology that you use is that it becomes a dialogue of the deaf. Just as promoters of gay rights seek to label scouts as homophobic and shut down all debate by name calling, your choice of words often has the same effect. I know that this is not what you intend but that is the effect. I agree that some specific homosexual acts are perverted, but in using that language I shut down the minds and ears of the people I am trying to convince.

Many troops operate accounts for funds earned by the youth through fund raisers. Personally I think it is a good idea. Four suggestions regarding this. 1. Keep the boy's portion generous. It should be available to the boy for any scout related purpose. 2. Keep it simple. Sliding scales are a complication that don't contribute much to the whole program. 3. Adopt a clear policy that unused funds revert to the unit if and when the boy leaves the unit. 4. Make sure that your treasurer is up to the task.

There is nothing inherently wrong with fund raisers for smaller groups below the unit (pack or troop) level. For example, groups of youth planning to go to Philmont often do their own fund raisers with the full blessing of all interested parties. In fact, scouting encourages youth involvment in fund raising to support specific activities as a vehicle for teaching valuable lessons. I think the key is the objective intended to be served. I for one react negatively to fund raising just for the sake of doing so. This is a very good way to burn out both youth and parents. In this particular case, since the original orders were already turned in, this whole effort could turn out badly. One presumes that the original orders are the results of the boys' best efforts. How many times can they hit up the neighbors for the same product?