Engineer61

"Stripes should be quoted far more often in national policy discussions." That and John Belushi's pep talk in Animal House!

I would call an acceptable prank one that does not injure (or have the potential to injure) the potential victim. Pranks are based in humor, not humiliation. But hey, that's just me....I'm hyper anti-hazing...(This message has been edited by Engineer61)

My Grandfather told me once, that my family was American. We don't know when we became Americans, other that it was whatever day my ancestors arrived in this country from whatever country they came from. I really don't care where my ancestors game from...as an American, it is unimportant....so I don't have to hyphenate.

"This past weekend at a campout he physically, once again, tried to go after another scout. " Q: Did he succeed? Did he physically assault another Scout? If so, he's gone from the the Troop in my book...period.

"Engineer61, I think that a meeting of your group #3 could probably be held in a phone booth -- and you can't even find a phone booth anymore." "Anyone who is not voting for Romney specifically because he is LDS is not likely to be voting for Obama either. They are much more likely either stay home on election to to vote for some third-party fringe candidate." "I suspect, however, that most of those who are prejudiced against LDS'ers will probably put that issue aside for the moment and vote for Romney anyway. " I suspect it's a bigger issue that you think....especially in the South and the Midwest.

Neither the Troop nor the CO can "enforce" the restraining order, even if the Troop or CO obtained the order. Enforcement of the order is for local law enforcement (and Courts) to do. I suspect that even if you ask the SM to leave, it is unlikely that the boys will be back until this blows over some.

"So, Engineer61, what you are saying is that announcing that he is in favor of gay marriage could help the President win re-election? " Well, not exactly, I think the election is for Romney to lose. My thought is that while the gay marriage issue won't help Obama win the election, it can help Romney lose the election. It's like the abortion issue...an extreme polarizer. I think that Obama voters fall into camps ... 1) Those that will vote for the Democrat, no matter what. 2) Those that will vote for Obama because they agree with him. 3) Those that will vote for Obama because Romney is Mormon. 4) Those that are looking for a reason not to vote Romney. I think the gay marriage issue targets camp 4. Mostly moderate Independents and Republicans.

Well done for Obama, a very well calculated political move. 1) Obama waited for the field of Republicans to narrow to Romney. 2) Then, knowing full well that Romney cannot waffle on homosexuality at all, Obama takes his stand. 3) So, Romney is stuck between moderates that he has to have to win the election, and the hyper-right (including his primary backer, the LDS). If Romney waffles at all, Ging-the-rich and Sani-tor-ium, will scream bloody murder and the LDS will be breathing down his neck. Well played....indeed....Romney is screwed no matter what he does.

No one. Oddly, when I read the thread title, it rang of Bill Cosby's "Noah" skit, where Noah asks, "Who is this really? ... Am I on Candid Camera?"

Yeah, the disruptions irritate my Scout. He referred to the offending Scouts as "those jerks who won't behave". Our CoH is about as short as it can be I think... Colors ... Welcome ... Awards ... Announcements ... Colors. Having both and ADD (Scout) and an ADHD (non-Scout) in my household, I know the gambit of the medications/behaviors/limitations. I've always enforced on both of them that the ADD/ADHD isn't an excuse to behave badly. That even without the meds being active, you have to make the effort to control your behavior. I know that some parents use that as a "get-out-jail-free" card for setting any kind of limits.

"The advancement culture is different today. "Get that Eagle or you will not be driving until you are 18" or something similar. I've heard that directly from the parents mouths more than I can count. I have deep trouble with that type of motivation to earn Eagle." There's a bunch of those types of motivations out there. "Help you get into college." "Help you get a better job." "Dad, Uncle, Grandpa was an Eagle/OA/SM/Grand Pu-ba." My Scout is caught into all three of those...but that's not my fault.

Well, there is the legitimate possibility that some of your Scouts don't want to be Scouts. You may have more parents pushing than you think. Sometimes, it's a good thing to ask yourself, "Why am *I* doing this?" Maybe some of your Scouts are doing that...in spite of their parents.

Eh, I just view it as kids with no boundaries or limits, with parents who've disconnected too early and use Scouts as a free sitting service.

One problem I've noticed with my Scout is the "BTDT" (Been There Done That) status of the outings. Not that many different (and approved) places to go that are reasonably close and tolerable, especially in the summer months.

"What happens if the Scout misses that COH, does he have to wait for the next one?" No... they get the awards at the next meeting they attend after the CoH.

We only do two CoH's a year anyway. Unlike most, the MB's and awards are handed out at the CoH's, not ASAP, so the CoH's are "significant"...just filled with a bunch of boys who can't/won't behave in an assembly/presentation setting.

Went to another CoH this week. Could have been a great commercial for any number of ADHD medications. At least the SPL caught on that he had to bark out the orders for the Color Guard. Had to down three Motrin and tough it out until my Scout got his award, then I went outside. (This message has been edited by Engineer61)

Fabs, Well, you've perhaps learned more "real life stuff" from not getting your Eagle than you did by doing all the work to get it. 1) Always question those in authority, at least in your own mind...openly if appropriate. 2) Do all of your own work. Even if it is a duplication of another person's efforts. The moment you depend on someone else to handle it all for you, you're at risk. 3) Accolades feel good, but they don't put food on the table. Are you any less of a person because you don't have that Eagle on a uniform that you'll likely not be wearing much anymore? Probably not. Congratulations on getting into college....you've learned one trail, now it's time to move on to the next.

The "3 G's" that's a hoot! I always find the "3 B's" to be fun to sift through...actually, I'm told there are more than 3. Beans Bacon Blankets Bullets Boats Beer ... any others?

"... 'zero tolerance' is not good." ...oh never mind.(This message has been edited by Engineer61)

"I already live in fear of my kids being expelled for leaving a pocket knife in their jacket or backpack." This isn't a "now-a-days" thing ... When I was in high school in the mid-70's pocket knives were not allowed in school...and I lived in a quiet rural community.(This message has been edited by Engineer61)

"I have no idea what the feelings of the great majority of American Scouter's might be." I do ... the boys don't care and while most of the adults and CO's are terrified.

Ironically, if my Scout wants to get his Eagle, he'll *have* to do the Hiking MB. The alternatives, Cycling and Swimming are non-starters for him. He never learned how to ride a bike, too phobic about crashing. He's really a non-swimmer, in spite of being passed by the YMCA Lifeguard. So, if he want's his Eagle, he'll have to hike his way there!

I'm fairly certain that going into your local hospital and performing a peanut challenge test on a child would considered child endangerment or child abuse. It issue with skin testing has been improper testing methods and subjective interpretation of results. Skin tests are based on a visual analysis of comparative results. There are many variables. 1) Presence of histamine or leukotriene inhibitors in the patients system. 2) Other allergies that may be causing a histamine response. 3) Accuracy of the control and test serums. The determination of a positive result is a comparison of the skin response of the two control serums vs. the test serum. If the test serum response is greater than the control, then the patient is considered allergic...the size of the response indicates the level of sensitivity. In my daughters case, the negative control produced a 1 mm response, the positive control produced a 3 mm response and the peanut serum produced a 34 mm response. Even today, at age 20, skin contact with peanut products produces hives on her hands. There is also now a blood test for peanut allergy that is 97% accurate... http://www.emaxhealth.com/1024/59/35077/new-blood-test-peanut-allergy-more-accurate.html Doctors, being fearful of malpractice suits, are more likely to suggest positive results on marginal interpretations. Also, the Epi-pen is not a 100% solution. Even with Epi-pen's a severely allergic patient can die anyway. If you have anyone who demands a challenge test for Scouting....do not walk, run.

For me the path to follow on this depends on where you sit in the equation. If this were an SM with this issue, and the Scout were and ASM's (for example), then the action to take comes from the standpoint of "What do I do for the Troop that teaches what is right and wrong with this situation?" If, as stated in the post, the parent is just a Committee Member, which means zero power; then the solution comes from the standpoint of, "How to I teach my son what to do in this situation?" Why the difference? Because the SM is responsible for the Troop...a committee member is not. Since the OP is dealing with open cronyism, going outside to the anyone but the COR will probably result in negative repercussions on both the parent and the Scout. Simply moving to another Troop would teach the Scout not to stand up and fix what's not right. So, as a parent, which bridge do you burn? The answer is: It depends on the will of the parent and Scout.