Hal_Crawford

OOPS! Momentary sexist cluelessness! Forgot that we have women leaders in the in Boy Scouts. Apologies if I have offended any of the fine women scouters who post on this site. That said I can't remember the last time I saw a woman leader in a skirt around here they seem to prefer the pants. I wonder how many of the scout skirts they sell? Sheepishly, Hal

If there was an official BSA skirt then there would need to be official BSA boxers... unless you meant kilt.

Our troop goes to a patrol cooking summer camp which means the scouts get fewer merit badges but it really serves as boot camp for patrol cooking. It is sometimes ugly but I think the scouts end up learning more from the experience. A patrol leader who can get his smoothly patrol through a week of patrol cooking has truly proven his abilities. To stay on schedule the scouts really need to be able to cook, eat and clean-up in 90 minutes or less. Cold lunches take under an hour unless the scouts are still cleaning breakfast pots and pans. As I said it is sometimes ugly. Also note that most interpersonal breakdowns occur during meal prep. I suggest to Patrol Leaders that they either exclude themselves from the duty roster (if the patrol is large enough) or take a non-cooking position on days when the food is difficult. This is so he can step back and lead during meal prep; keep scouts on task etc. Learning to not do it all himself seems to be one of the hardest lessons for a young (or even older) PL. Truth be told it is sometimes difficult for adults to grasp that concept. The last day in camp usually has a cold lunch and dinner so that is a good day for the PL to be cook. We run a patrol meal competition at summer camp where adults score the patrols on speed, quality of food, manners, cleanup, scout spirit, even originality if the scouts alter the recipe in an interesting way. It seems to help. Hal

One you might try is the knot relay challenge from page 51 of the Troop Resource Guide: http://www.scouting.org/FILESTORE/pdf/33588.pdf The Resource Guide has tons of other games that can be used as skill challenges. We've done some good First Aid challenges at our district Klondike Derby In one the scenario was that the patrol of scouts was fleeing a forest fire. One scout has fallen and in doing so he has suffered a minor cut to his head, broken his collar bone and his ankle and impaled himself on a root that is causing blood to spirt from his thigh. And oh yeah, the forrest fire is still moving so you can't stay here. Scouts were scored on various elements: 1. Some one immediately takes charge and someone is sent for help. 2. Immediately controlled the bleeding through direct pressure. 3. Treated for shock. 4. Immobilized the leg and shoulder (I think we considered the shoulder optional) 5. Improvised a stretcher and transported the victim. I believe this one was a bit much. Of 15 patrols I believe we had 14 dead victims because they spent too much time treating the less life threatening injuries while the victim "bled out". The 15th might have lived but the patrol did not consider shock so he may have also gone to meet the Great Master of All Scouts. While this one was not ideal but it should give your scouts an idea for a starting point If you can meet outdoors then a no match or two match (depending on skill level) fire can be a good one. First patrol to get it lit wins.

With cubs family camping it is a tough call, with scouts I would say scouts sleep together in their tents and adults sleep separately. Since I say that to all parents I wouldn't have to worry about family relationships. One exception, we had a special needs scout. At camp he needed to tent with an adult, usually his father. One time the Dad couldn't make it so his uncle (father's brother) was there instead. No problem as far as any our leadership was concerned; we were just glad that the boy could be there. Hal

At times I've found it hard to convince our scouts that their is any difference at all. They had to learn the hard way that it is hard to eat tacos with gloves on. Hal

Ed: So you snoop around until you get the dirt. Still doesn't sound like a place a scout leader should be going. I realize that sometimes we need to know the family dirt... dad under a restraining order etc... but I think that is up to parents to reveal as they deem necessary. I think the leader needs to worry first about the example he or she sets and less about the example that the scouts parent sets. Personally, I might draw the line if the mom or dad showed up with a weekend date... not someone who is part of the family unit. If mom/dad and significant other are living together with scout then I would see it as a family unit and if mom/dad and other want to share a tent I don't think that I would say anything. It has been a while since I've done the Cub Scout family camping thing but I didn't check marriage licenses and couldn't honestly say if all the parents were married. My main concern would be if parents behavior was disruptive to the event. I have had that happen more than once but it never had anything to do with sex or tenting arrangement. Hal

Packsaddle: Are you sure its going to be a different plane? Remember, if the carpet is squishy the plane might be fishy. Hal

EV: So how far do you go? A new boy George Spelvin joins, parents introduce themselves as John Doe and Joan Spelvin. Do you ask mom, "are you and John married?" Perhaps she answers "yes", perhaps "no", perhaps "why do you ask?". In the latter case how do you answer? "So I can judge whether you two can share a tent"? I suspect the next thing you might hear is the sound of the application being snatched out of your hand and parents (one or both of whom may be offended whether or not they are married) and boy heading out the door. I don't think that is the example I would want to set. Hal

Packsaddle: I appreciated that Merlyn's post was fluent Absurdity in the past ironic tense. Much like an number of a I know that the Jonestown folks drank Flavor Aid but "drank the Kool-Aid" is what made it into the pop culture lexicon. I guess given the forum I could have said drank the bug juice but hey, what the heck? And there is no proof that Jim Jones' last words were "Hey, I could've had a V-8". Hal

Let me get this straight: Mom and Boyfriend might be able to share a tent as parents/guardians (perhaps defined by both names being on the scout's application?). Mom and/or Boyfriend can become leaders but then they can't share a tent. Mom and Girlfriend can share a tent. Mom and/or Girlfriend can't become leaders. BSA is living in the 1950's; the rest of us are in the 21st century. Life isn't Ward and June, Wally and the Beaver. Life is complicated and it will only get more so as domestic partnerships of all stripes become more accepted, socially and legally. Should the example that Mom is setting for her son should not be our concern? Is it ours to judge? Just in everyday life I know several gay or lesbian couples who have a child or one on the way. What happens when they want to sign their kids up for Cub Scouts and have the audacity to want to become leaders or join the pack committee? Or maybe just come on a campout? "I'm sorry Billy, your Mom can't come along because we think she is bad." Not really a conversation any of us wants to have, is it? I do not mean to hijack this thread by introducing the gay/lesbian issue but it is all related when scouting tries to sit in judgement of parents' lifestyles, gender preferences etc. We are skating on thin ice! Are there simple answers? No, there aren't. Some things would clearly cross the line but the line gets more blurry every day. What's a scouter to do? Maybe we should borrow a phrase from the medical profession, "First, do no harm". Good luck.

All it would take is one conservative Christian coin collector with a blog and a day later the whole world would notice. At that point the televangelists and the conservative talk radio types would treat it like it was the end of civilization.

Yes, and it was the boyhood home of Ronald Reagan (the town, not the prison).

Interesting but more kool-aid than I am willing to drink. I'd love to see how you interpret merit badge requirements or the G2SS. Hal

Trevorum: I agree about the penny obverse. I like the message in the unfinished dome. BTW: I wonder if creationists in the UK refuse to use the 10 note with Charles Darwin on the obverse? Hal

Merlyn: Interesting point. But why stop at Washington? Jefferson, Madison and Monroe are thumbed out by this logic. Did I miss any? In fact, Ohio has now taken the title for the birthplace of presidents (not necessarily good ones but the largest number). Thank God (yes I do believe in Him) that I don't agree with Scalia's strict constructionism or I'd have to get rid of all the dollar bills, quarters and nickels in my pocket. Oops, that's a different thread. Hal

Merlyn: GW not eligible to be prez? How so? Hal

TheScout: So the SCOTUS decided that some of FDR's programs were unconstitutional and then FDR decided that the SCOTUS was not limited to 9 members by the constitution so he attempted to appoint more justices (court packing). The SCOTUS said that was unconstitutional. Historically that was the end of it but you are saying that if FDR believed that he was right and SCOTUS was wrong then he should have continued to appoint more justices? No! The three branches cannot interpret the constitution independently. I realize that judicial review is not in the constitution but it has been accepted for over 150 years. Do you want to throw that away? Question: If Obama (or any president) decided that he didn't agree with the Dale decision, could he decree that BSA cannot exclude gays? No! If congress feels that way they could pass a law. If the president disagrees with congress then he could veto it and if the SCOTUS disagrees they can rule it unconstitutional at which point congress can attempt to amend the constitution which might or might not work. That's how it works. Hal

The belly button question was debated in congress, I believe it was in the 1920's. Don't think they resolved the issue.

WHAT? The other branches are free to ignore SCOTUS decision if it is not in keeping with the Constitution. Is that how checks and balances works? Gimme a break! Hal

TheScout: So you oppose: No Child Left Behind? Medicare (including prescription benefits instituted by Bush)? I'm guessing you also agree that the federal government can't overrule state legislatures on such issues as medical marijuana? I suppose you would also oppose any federal law limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman? I'm sure that if congress had passed that law that Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas would have voted it down. Or do these strict constructionist constraints apply when the issues are liberal "good ideas" rather than conservative ones. No matter, as I write the Bush appointees throughout our nation's capital are grabbing their personal belongings, turning out their office lights and heading to the elevators one last time. The last business day of the Bush administration has drawn to a close and they can move on to their new lives as lobbyists and consultants. The circle of life is complete. Hal

I would agree with you if that happened today but not within the context of the 1950's. Even in the early 60's we started each (public school) day with the Lord's Prayer in addition to the Pledge and singing America ("...God shed his grace on thee"). This wasn't all Eisenhower's influence. To many Americans freedom of religion pretty much meant that you were free to be any type of Christian (or maybe any type of Protestant). In that context Eisenhower's words strike me as those of a main-stream politician reading talking points (that someone else probably wrote) while signing a bill (passed by congress) that probably didn't seem very important or controversial at the time. Ike had his flaws but I don't think that being a religious fanatic was one of them. Hal

To be clear, my last post was addressing post by TheScout. Packsaddle, I agree with you.

Preamble: "...promote the general welfare..." Welfare at the time meaning health and well being. Same word used again in Article I, section 8. BTW: I think Bush even failed as a conservative. A fiscal conservative would never have cut taxes without cuts in spending.

Hoover? Try Harding. In fact, you might have to go back to Buchanan to find someone this bad.