Stosh

I have been dealing with volunteer groups for over 40 years and they all basically function the same. They all have their 10% that do the work while 90% sit on their hands and reap the benefits. Sometimes this 10% is the Old Guard that circle the wagons rather tightly and won't let in any new blood. But on the other hand the 10% can be those dedicated few that will always step up to keep the program going. It varies from one group to the next which one applies. However, I have always promoted the: "If-the-program-is-important,-here's-what-needs-to-be-done." approach. It's not all that difficult to introduce into any group. For example, the Roundtable has a flyer for the up-coming fall camporee. No problem. I would after opening flags, hold up the sheet and say, "There's the fall camporee flyer, who wants to take charge?" If no one did, I would crumple it up and toss into the trash. I never had to cajole, beg, plead, guilt, people into doing something they didn't think all that important. There were times that the boys "changed their minds" and stepped up after pulling the paper back out of the trash. Too often we promote programs the people aren't all that interested in and then can't figure out why anyone doesn't want to work on putting them on. Just because we did it last year is not sufficient justification to doing it again this year. Stosh

Cots? We don't need no steenking cots! Like I said, 3 tents end to end and 8 boys, but not cots. I remember there were even bigger wall tents used by my scout troop as a kid that a couple of patrols used them to house the whole patrol - 8 boys one tent. It was kinda fun, but not all the time..

Generally speaking, swimming and first aid are expected in the first summer camp along with another fun MB. Being around a lot of water, there aren't many activities that don't have some kind of water basis, swimming, sailing, canoeing, kayaking, fishing, etc. without swimming ability, the boys quickly drop out of the program. No one wants to sit on the dock and watch all the other boys having fun.

So where are all the damsels to be rescued or dragons to be slain? Damsels have made it quite clear they don't need rescuing and it's too dangerous to go after dragons. Might as well stay home in the basement and fight them in the virtual worlds. It's probably the closest thing they will ever get to in their lifetime.

If one were to read carefully my post, I find no mention of shooting roadsigns, destructive use of an ATV, etc. As a matter of fact, if one were to read carefully, they would see that no where do the word redneck referenced or alluded to anywhere. If the reference to "holding doors for certain people" means yelling at one's woman "that we'za gonna ta town, so hop in the pickup." then I guess I'm guilty and one has cause not to buy into the term chivalry. If not, it would be interesting to know what agenda the reader is filtering the comment through. The introductory few paragraphs of Scouting for Boys First Edition might be of assistance in understanding where I'm coming from.

I normally don't start threads, but this news article intrigued me. How does one reconcile the issue of Biblical tenets and scientific evidence in light of scientific testimony from a major scientific contributor? Le's look at how Albert Einstein might have felt about how strictly removed each side is on the issue. NEW YORK – A Bible with an inscription from Albert Einstein has sold for $68,500 at an auction in New York City. The Bible was part of a fine books and manuscripts auction at Bonhams on Tuesday. The German-born physicist and his wife signed it in 1932 and gifted it to an American friend named Harriett Hamilton. The auction house says Einstein writes in the German inscription the Bible "is a great source of wisdom and consolation and should be read frequently." The Bible's final price far exceeds its pre-sale estimate of between $1,500 and $2,500. The final price includes the auction house's commission. The auction house hasn't said who bought the Bible. Einstein formulated the theory of relativity and won a Nobel Prize in physics. He died in 1955. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/06/27/bible-signed-by-albert-einstein-sells-for-68500/?intcmp=features#ixzz2XW76CMpY

No one is forced to purchase an employer's health insurance benefit. It's an option if they so chose. This has been around since day one. What happens though is people find that non-employer options are more expensive than the benefit offered by the employer. Naturally they all want the cheaper option. To remove employer provided subsidized insurance is something people really don't want and I'm thinking there's going to be an uproar if this happens. Oh, pardon me, this is what is happening with Obama care. But now ones only gets a single "option", take it or leave it. Could employers get out of the insurance business? Sure, in a heartbeat, increase the salaries/wages of the employee the amount they subsidize and it won't cost the businesses anything. Businesses all over the place are doing this right now. But to take that partial payment and match with own funds and then go out and get the one option out there and everyone is happy. However, people are beginning to realize that the premiums have been skyrocketing. Sure, with a single payer program, existing conditions don't come into play, but the government needs to recoup those extra costs that insurance companies are avoiding and of course the premiums go up. So, John goes out gets an interview for a job with no health benefits and an interview for a job that pays less with health benefits. Hmmmm. If all things are equal, how much of a pay difference would it take to offset the extra cost of public health care? and what about if the cost was the same? Government health care vs. private health care? Lots of things to consider most of which probably don't bode well for the Obama plan.

Humanity has undergone more change in the last 100 years than it's first 10,000 years of existence. That rate of change has also increased during that time. The basic problem arises when that speed of change occurs without opportunity to assimilate the changes and what that may mean for the future. I'm thinking the eventual problem lies in the fact that humanity will collapse due to being overwhelmed by this problem. One cannot wake up every morning not knowing how to function in a world that is far different than yesterday. Critical mass is a good way of describing the process. I have no idea where we are in the process, but there is an increasing tempo of life that was never part of the human experience in the past. How long the species can tolerate that is anybody's guess. Evidence of this is already being experienced in the stress that seems so prevalent in the more "advanced" societies of the world. Ask anyone today whether they like the way things are and are going or would they want, if possible, return to a more simpler life.

There is a provision called COBRA which allows a former employee the opportunity to purchase the previous company's health benefits. The only difference is that they need to pay both the employee and employer shares of the premium, which is pretty much what one would have to do if the companies didn't subsidize their employee's benefits. Most employees prefer the lower company subsidized premiums. If companies were to go with the no benefit option, then this option would be off the table. Then there's the company option that are self-insured in their medical benefits for employees. Of course this begs the question of: why should a company pay medical expenses out of their own funds for a former employee? Hardly seems fair. The reason they are called benefits is because it is a financial subsidy for their employees. Of course they don't have to offer that, but then they don't have to offer uniforms, expense reimbursements, and fleet cars/mileage for business travel. One can process all that finance through their income tax benefits and the company is out of the picture and doesn't need to be in the business of being tax assistants to their employees. Benefits are employee perks, not employee entitlements. After all no one is forced to sign up for employer's health benefits, and can like the Canadian/European model, purchase on their own. That option has always been there! It's just one that not many people want. Using the Canadian/European model only is in fact forcing most people to settle for something that the vast majority don't want. That doesn't hardly seem fair either.

Instant communication is for those whose myopic planning routine doesn't allow for anything else. Scouts going to local events should be planning months in advance. Summer camp at least a year in advance and high adventure minimum of two years out to get reservations in on time. Last minute, throw together events are facilitated by social media, but it only proves how inefficient the unit is operating on a daily basis.

I'm heading to Gettysburg's 150 Anniversary this weekend and next. The 10 day forecast calls for rain every day except maybe Saturday. I'm planning on using that day to dry out. I'm hoping to beat my old record 9 days in BWCA with 8 days of rain.

Once upon a time there was chivalry. Even the old BSA books talked about it. Well, one day the evil sorceress declared chivalry dead. The End. Over the past 50 years I have repeatedly taken flack for my chivalry, more notably referenced as chauvinism. I hold doors for certain people of which I will not divulge due to political correctness and a more genteel respect for our now more fair societal norms. We need to create heroes because they are so difficult to find anyone who will still do manly/heroic things that certain others can do just as well and made repeated note to all. That of course makes manliness a bit more, how do you say it in French, girle`. One's left only to wonder how long our society must endure the manly art of sports as well. It will be a sad day for all he manly sports fans out there when they finally realize that there are no more balls out there anymore.

Render under Caesar that which belongs to Caesar....

Even if an employee offers medical benefits, one does not have to accept it, nor pay for it. Just don't sign up for it and then go and get it elsewhere. This option has been around for a long time. If both spouses work, they just pick the one with the best benefits that they want and the other doesn't sign up for the benefit.

There's a lot to be said about letting the boys decide what they want to do. As long as there are resources to handle it, go for it.

Anyone who wants to go out for football only to sit on the bench because he won't wear a uniform is probably missing out on much of what that program has to offer. Of course all teams need waterboys. Not a problem, not everyone's aspirations are the same. Holds true for scouts. There are those that never want to be Eagle or even TF, but if they want to get the most of what the program has to offer and they want to get their money's worth out of the program, they are probably going to need to do more than just show up.

It most certainly does. People donated money with the ethical, moral, and just purpose that it goes to helping out the unit, not the individuals within that group. I don't contribute dime one to any telephone solicited charities no matter how honorable it is, the telephone solicitors take up to 90% of those funds for doing the phone solicitations. Just look at the South Carolina official web page. The Top Ten Scams are listed there. They are ALL phone solicitation companies. When someone donates to a cause, they all assume it will be ethically used in the manner in which it was given. If Mom and Dad want their child to have $$ for summer camp, they do not buy popcorn, they write a check to the camp. They know where their $$ are going. If they buy popcorn it is assumed that the funds are going to the unit. Actually, technically it is going to the CO which in turn is supposed to be financial guardians for the unit. It is under their exempt status the money is received, not the unit's. The unit does not have an exempt number of its own.

I know of no rule that says a boy can't have his own quarters/tent. I have always used the formula there are X number of tents and X number of boys going on the trip. I let them do the math, it's really not my problem. Every trip I've ever taken over the many years of scouting, I have never had a problem with it. Usually what I find is the boys double up on backpacking so they both don't need to carry a tent, and other activities they buddy up so that they have only one tent to dry out if it rains, etc. If left alone, they seem to figure it out on their own terms. At summer camp where they used wall tents they had to set up on their own, one patrol put up 3 wall tents end-to-end and all 8 boys slept in it. It was kinda cool.

You don't need to wear a uniform in scouting, but at the same time, you don't have to even be a scout and that solves the first issue at the same time. Gotta go with the flow of the logic. Looking at it from the reverse, if you don't like to wear uniforms, why join scouts, why go out for football, why join a gang, why take up dance class, etc.? I don't care how good the quarterback is, if he doesn't put on a uniform, he doesn't get on the field.

Just because I donate money to a program doesn't mean it can't be allocated fairly. If I give $$ to a program that buys blankets for needy people somewhere in the world, does that mean the half dozen people that helped unload the truck get to take an extra blanket or two just because they helped? Just because someone made up some rule some place doesn't make it ethical, just or moral. It just means someone made up a rule so that some can have something more/less than the next guy. Doesn't sound very Scout-like to me. But then that's just me.

Allowing homosexual marriages privileges is not the same as granting them marriage recognition. It's a law-of-the-land legal term, and that never was and never will be any sort of ethical/moral determination. A marriage by law is nothing more than a partnership contract in which certain economic/financial benefits can be acquired. People can call it anything they want but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Yeah, it's pretty easy to see through the double-speak. People can have all sorts of legal partnership contracts and they do so for a myriad of reasons, none of which are determined by any moral or ethical considerations. So my buddy and I in Colorado are going to open up a strip-club where we serve booze and pot and then expand into Nevada and add prostitution. We're gonna make a ton of money. For the first 88 years of US existence the country allowed slavery, even at the onset it's ethical and moral stance was questioned. But for expedience sake, the founding fathers allowed it so that the southern states would join in the revolution. History is a never ending litany of such practices, why would the future be any different? The more politicized the process becomes, the less any sort of ethics/morality come into play. As far as the US government stepping on religious toes? There's nothing new here, just ask the residents of Utah, who had to give up their religious freedoms to become a state in the Union. Originally in the founding documents the government was to stay out of a person's religion, now it seems perfectly normal to persecute certain religions. This is why people left Europe hundreds of years ago, the world has come full circle and we're right back where we started. Aren't the citizens of this nation as upset with the political world of Washington as they were with the political world of King George III? Those who don't learn from history are destined to relive it.

Just because everyone is doing it, doesn't make it ethically correct.

When does the reality in which kids supposed to live begin? Real life does not have a reset button.

Working with volunteers is a little bit like the saying, "We love all our volunteers, some when the come and some when they go!"

Boo, hiss. JBlake, I think in your 40+ years of volunteering, you must have forgotten what it's like to have young kids. Yes, you do sound like a "hard nosed Grinch" to quote your earlier post. Since you are venting about spoiled volunteers who expect to *gasp* bring their young children with them while they volunteer all day with their older children instead of putting them in day care for the week as you suggested (really? In my area, that would cost about $300 for the week) -- I hope you won't mind me responding with my vent from the other side as a burned out volunteer momma. Regardless of what you or anyone thinks is "fair", here are some facts: 1. Scouting can't happen without volunteers. Period. Without volunteer parents, there are no camps, no den meetings, nothing. 2. Good volunteers are hard to find. In our pack, less than 10% of the volunteers do all the work. I live in an area where most families have two working parents. I have grown very, very, very tired of people in our pack and in other kids' activities where I volunteer telling me: "Wow, you volunteer a lot. I wish I could, but I have a job." A. Yes, I am a work at home mom. When my oldest was born, I chose to give up a very good six figure job and start part time writing work from home so I could spend more time with my kids and my family. I did *not* make that choice so a few dozen double income families in our pack, church program, etc. could make twice as much as our family and still have all these volunteer led groups for their children without contributing squat. In fact, I've had to chase some of them down for bounced checks, etc. B. I am a work at home mom. I chose to greatly reduce my paycheck by working at home so I could have the flexibility to do things for *my* kids. Not so all of you could feel entitled to have me run around like a crazy person doing what you should be doing for *your* kids. Yes, I greatly resent the entitled attitude some people have -- to my time and effort. And don't even get me started about the drop and run parents who have the nerve to complain that the volunteer led program isn't up to their expectations. 3. So, if Scouting runs 100% on volunteer effort, and good volunteers are scarce in the best of circumstances, it only makes logical sense to make volunteering as cheap and easy as we can for the people we do get to volunteer. Simple logic, JBlake. For me to volunteer all day every day for a week in my son's Scout day camp, I have to give up my work time and income, and pay for all of my kids to attend the camp. That's more than enough. If you actually expect me to also pay $300 to arrange a week of day care for my daughter, you are out of your mind. 4. I am tired of having my little daughter referred to as a "tag along". Her name is Jennifer. She is very well behaved. She's not a nuisance. Over half of our pack's leaders are moms, all with preschoolers or babies. If you want us to buy the food, wash the dishes, haul the stuff to camp, cook your food, etc. while the very few volunteer dads do the fun stuff with their sons like Pinewood and archery, you had better not give me any, repeat any, flak about bringing my precious well-behaved little girl with me. I already feel like the pack scullery maid. Do not suggest that I pay for that privilege. Here's the deal. Last year, I started out as treasurer. Then, I was asked to be webmaster. Somewhere along the way, our committee chair decided I was his personal assistant and pack recordkeeper, and I started getting calls all the time to look up who paid for this, or who signed up for that. Then, the advancement chair moved out of state, and I was told "well, I guess you're the advancement chair now since you know about computers". Not asked, assumed. Then, no one volunteered to lead camp cards, so I got stuck with that job since I'm the treasurer, and I had to pay for the things. Oh, and the camping chair did squat as well. Since, as treasurer, I'm buying the food, paying for the campsite, and taking payments from parents, he just made himself scarce and let me take care of the rest of it. So, the upshot of all of this is that as of last week, I have quit all my various jobs but one: webmaster. The pack has lost an honest and reliable treasurer. I have no idea where they plan to get an advancement chair, camp card coordinator, etc for next year since I'm told it's against BSA policy to require parents of Scouts to volunteer time. I wish them luck. JBlake, honestly after the spring I've had, your post just ticked me off to no end. I honestly believe that the attitude you display here, and the BSA has displayed to me, is killing Scouting. On behalf of my son, I am very sad for this. If you want to complain, for heaven's sake, say something about the drop and run parents who do nothing to contribute. For you to complain about the people who *are* volunteering is just nuts. GeorgiaMomma Required to volunteer? One needs to rethink the definition of volunteer. As I mentioned in comments to Faith, when it comes to dealing with volunteers, it is imperative to have volunteers lined up well before the event. If not enough people show up, then cancel. The rebound on that issue is a lot of angry parents who are angry because they realize that they are really needed to make things go in the unit. Once they come to that conclusion, they tend to voluntarily volunteer. And to the other issue. What does YPT say about nursing SM who has gone off leaving a gap in 2-deep leadership and where's the baby when she's not nursing. Whole Pandora box here.