johndaigler

Fgoodwin, didn't mean to personalize it - sorry if I came on too strong. Ed, can you take me a step further? I don't know enough about Buddhism to split this hair - I'm betting I'm not the only reader who's curious. jd

Ed, You're comfortable with atheist group A because BSA says They're OK (BTW, what's the story behind Buddhism being acceptably atheist??), but adamantly refuse to allow Atheist groups B, C and D because . . . ??? I don't understand. Fgoodwin, For the most part I'll stand by FScouter's words. Throwing your stats around like that confuses the issue. We can't begin to attribute the changes in Scout populations to any particular cause. I believe you want this particular topic to BE the cause, but there's no way to know that. For all we know, without their changes, the SA's numbers might be as poor as our own - though it's getting more difficult to even know the reality of our numbers. jd

Tigers, Wolves and Bear Dens are only worthy of numbers - perhaps because they have built in animal totems. Webelos get to name their Den as if it were a Boy Scout patrol. Any reason not to choose a "patrol emblem" earlier in the game and use it on Den Flags, Doodles, etc.??? ********************************************************** Just practicing some moderation!! I've closed my own thread because the other "Den Flag" thread is well established and This poster (ME) could certainly partipate in that thread. I'm just practicing the tools available to the moderators. The moderators take this ability VERY seriously - so I don't want to appear lighthearted about closing a thread - only about doing it to myself Thinking back there have been a couple of earlier threads when I could have used such a self-management tool!!! jd (This message has been edited by a staff member.) (This message has been edited by a staff member.) (This message has been edited by a staff member.) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Can't climb the mountain without getting dirty. I believe there's a better way than what we (BSA) see these days. I don't know how to find it though, so I fear for the Brits. I'm proud of their Bravery for striking out into the unknown, but I fear their path will not be safe, or simple. Since we have no control and can only watch the outcome, perhaps, we can just be supportive and optimistically neutral. I'm sure most of us have predetermined thoughts, but here's an opportunity to learn what might happen if we were to step beyond our prejudices and grow in a new direction. GSTQ, jd

OGE, don't forget, Dean ISN'T an elected part of our govt. He's just Grand Poobah of some club. He has no right to speak for the public - just the people who hired him. Obama in '08! His campaign signs will all be PURPLE! IMHO, the vast majority of voters are way past tired of this blue vs. red stuff. jd

sorry, double post jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

I wasn't being glib. I think we all have Howard Dean's number at this point. He's the loosest of cannons with the poorest of aims. What he says is loud, but impotent. Dean is merely the Clown Act. The DNC, IMHO, chose a blustering war chief because it's movie star aged out and it's psuedo-intellectuals couldn't complete a truthful, sincere sentence. I don't think Dean get's taken seriously because people know why he's there. He's just a hockey goon out on the ice while the real skaters are taking a blow. The Dems are looking around for a contenda'. Hilary? Obama? I'm sure there's a Kennedy relative somewhere - a real one, not a Californian. Lott and Thurmond are supposed to be serious gentlemen. I think the double standard is more about public perception than the conspiracy of the liberal media. Politicos are entertaining - and usually fairly easy targets. It doesn't matter which color tie they wear. WADR, "liberal media" comments crack me up. There are plenty of examples of the media dissing liberals and Dems and other silly people. I don't think it takes a great liberal media conspiracy to see the ease with which it's possible to take potshots at GWB, Dick Cheney, et al. And I believe, if you take an actual count of media outlets and their listener base, you'll find that the "liberal media" and its base audience are numerically outgunned by the "other side's" media conspiracies. Dean's not worth worrying about - unless, of course, you're a Democrat. He represents the seriousness of that party's chaos. jd

short version . . . scorpion needs a ride across the river, convinces the frog with promises of good behavior, gets half way across, stings the frog, they both drown. Can your really be surprised by, or angry at, the scorpion? jd

LOL!! FOTFLOL!!! It's going . . . going . . . gone!!!!

R7, What about THIS boy??? What do you want to do with him? I know what you think about homosexuality. The question about this particular boy remains. You can't wish him away. He's there. He's troubled. Do we want him to see his SM as a Trustworthy life-guide who might at least listen? Or maybe, we want every boy to understand that SMs are not the kind of people with whom you can safely discuss these things? jd

Thanks, Lynda for starting the ball rolling for FScouter. Very nice. jd

There are good curricula and bad. The boys' is pretty good (I can only speak informedly about the Cub's Program - pretty good, not great). At present the adults' has shown itself to be ineffective - if only, based upon it's intrinsic inability to motivate participation and promote success. Trainers struggle to make it worthwhile to adult students. IMHO, we need to improve the Curricula, AND the Peeps. CO's and CC's are charged with the "hiring" of volunteer leaders. Perhaps, they need more (better) training with this skill. More likely, I think the reality is that most scouters are drafted through coffee-clotches and friendly wrangling - without much real emphasis given to the "quality" of the service; and without all that much participation on the part of the CO or CC. Sure, we like "nice" people, but I'm not sure many volunteers are asked if they're willing to read the Leader Book and the boys' handbooks. Maybe the screening process should be that simple. . . "We'd like you to be a leader for our boys. Are you willing to read these two books within the next week, then come back to me and agree to lead according to them?" jd

So then it seems, TRUTH is really only the sum of personal truths. An individual "choices" all aspects of his/her life, thereby defining TRUTH as those truths they believe to be unchallengable (by themselves). I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with this. Once I agree with it - I think I turn it into a TRUTH. Hmmmmmmmm, am I ready to do that? Down at one possible end of this path (through many dark and dangerous ways) I think there's a place that says I've defined, if not created a god for myself . . . Or perhaps, I've just seen more clearly a Face of God. Then again, of course, being human I might well change my mind about any one of the Truths I've found along the way . . . Hmmmmmmm . . . Who started this thread??????? Fuzzy Bear? Fuzzy Logic? Fuzzy Thinking? -- no, that would be me . . . jd

Kristi, Sorry to hear about the chaos. I'll ask around here - NEIC and SWSC (North and West Chicagoland). jd

FScouter, Why do you doubt Trevorum's purpose? He told us exactly why he wears this optional patch. I understand questioning his choice. I'm not sure you need to impune his character. Perhaps you see Trevorum's act as a rebellious statement because you see the patch as a "gay knot"? jd

I think I can play by Unc's rules. Rooster, with all due respect, I believe you are way off base; and your post, though not surprising, is less than your best. As usual, you have painted with too wide a brush and summed up all people who fit into a category as being defined by your understanding of that category. It would be like me negatively describing all right-wing Christian fundamentalists based on the behavior of the few with whom I have interacted. My comment would be childishly inaccurate because membership in any group cannot wholey define a thing as complicated as a human. There are many kinds of Christians, even many kinds of right-wing Christian fundamentalists. Certainly, sexual orientation is no more/less defining than a person's Faith system. Acco's scenario is a about a person. Acco has defined him. You don't get to re-define him to suit your beliefs. I'm sure you're welcome to start your own thread and develop your own scenario and define its characters as you see fit. For this thread, can you please try to address the question as asked by Acco? I have read posts in which you have stated your personal requirement to share your ideology. Given the appropriate cicumstances, I would defend your right to do that. In this instance, instead of addressing the question you've tried to redefine it. That doesn't help the questioner and hijacks the thread down a different path. Again, if you'd like to do that, please just start a new thread. jd

WELL PLAYED, FB, WELL PLAYED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! jd

John, IIRC? btps, there's lot's to consider: tax status, charity status, local presence, meeting space, storage space, volunteer base, future, organizational goals, fundraising potential, etc., etc.; but I think Semper has the right focus. In the end it's always about people. Cover your bases, good people don't always come with the right equipment - but good people will make up for one or two deficiencies. For more background info, check out #AV-02DVD17 "Training the Charter Organization Representative". jd

INLB, wouldn't it be the COs role to track down and recover THEIR money? Why would District suggest you pursue small claims court?? I don't think the Pack would have standing to effectively file such a claim. . . ?????? BTW, there are COR training materials available (DVD entitled "Training the Charter Organization Representative" - #AV-02DVD17) that will help COs and CORs better understand their roles and responsibilities. That material is pretty clear about how the COR is selected and approved by the CO and its IH. jd

I agree everyone's better off following the program than being ignorant of it, but I think its a mistake to confuse "training" with an ability to follow the program. Given the present state of CSLS and NLE, new Cub Scouters do not walk away with enough practical knowledge, or an appreciation of further training. Most of us have suffered through the 3 or more hours it takes for NLE and CSLS. I agree, a "Cliff's Notes" approach would be better than what we presently use. However, in order to be concise with information context, we'll need to be concise with content. So, what are we going to chop out? IMHO (and professional educator experience), its painfully ineffective to skim a thinner slice from each topic and keep it valuable to adult students. So rather than do less with each topic, I'd suggest focusing on the needs (real and preceived) of the students. I'd suggest redefining each course to be specific for a smaller subset of students. We'd be better off if DLs knew more about Cub Scouting and weren't troubled with Boy Scout and Venturing info. So I'd focus on the CS Promise and never bring up the BS or Venturing Oath, Salute, etc. Take out the sections on recruiting adults, FOS, etc. New DLs need, and want, info to help them run a good Den Program. We should focus on quality use of: the Handbooks, the Leader Book, Program Helps, Boy's Life, The How-To Book, etc. Too often we're concerned that our Cub Leaders don't get, or value, training; but our training shows we don't get, or value, new DLs. Committee members, CMs, CCs, would need some of the "expanded" knowledge now included in CSLS and NLE, but when it's time to train them we should slice out the details of Den Program Leadership and deepen the info pertaining to their role needs. Duck! Single paragraph rant coming . . . Additionally, a key improvement would be for District staff to answer questions with, "On page XX of your CS Leader Book, you'll find answers to your question.", as opposed to the ever-popular, "Well, that's really a Pack decision." jd

Interesting Semper!! But, if OneHour is Programming Director and gets to put on the Brady Bunch, etc. I'm not paying for it!! I liked most of his other ideas, though!! Especially the variety show! (LOL) Instead of "classics", we need "fresh, real" programming about today's boys and how Scouting helps them answer today's questions -- nothing preachy, just real. For example, reenactments of those Boy's Life "Scouts in Action" stories, or how living the Scout Law helps deal with school, friends, family, etc. There are some good shows from OneHour's day, though. Can we bring back "Last of the Mohicans" from the late 50's?? Maybe Wagon Train? Spin and Marty? Lassie? Lot's of good choices - just keep the remote out of OneHour's hands, PLEASE! Technologically speaking we're at a point where the programming could be highly interactive and a great teaching tool for Scouts, Scouters and Parents! One tiny bit of a Catch-22 - we keep telling the kids to put down the remote and go outside. We better be ready with our talking points so we can answer questions about creating CouchPotato Scouts! Programming shouldn't run on the weekends, let's make it mid-week so we can have our guys outside on the weekends. That would resolve our "too much TV" conundrum and show we value our values. I love the idea of seeing local Units in Action, and the historical documentaries! Are we hiring yet? This would be a great project with which to be involved!!! And, PLEASE, let's put some serious effort into all of these ideas as they concern CUBS. We're relying more and more on the Cub Program and, IMHO, we take it a bit for granted. I also think the weekly message from the Exec. would be a deal-breaker. Let's keep it about Scout, Ing; not Scout, Inc. Let me know where and when are the interviews! jd (This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Thanks, OGE! Now you've got more time for to sit around and take a lint brush to that beret collection!!! If I were you I'd leave the lint brush alone and head over to Roadside America for some of that good ol', good ol'!!!!!! jd

For our own Cubs, we let the family purchase the optional vest. It's definitely cheaper to create your own. It's also simple. One of our Wolf Dens made about 25 to give to another Pack as a service project. We let an adult use the scissors (felt can be a bit frustrating for tiny hands) to cut the form, but the boys did everything else: machine sewed shoulder seams, measured and placed graumets and cut and tied leather laces. We use the segments for everything (and now we use the belt loops, too). The boys love them, but all this added bling-bling gets expensive - I'd suggest being confident of your budget before committing to having the Pack pay for everything. jd

Have fun!! For us this is a cross-Council activity sponsored by Great America. Discounted tickets and a patch for the Cub's vest! Six Flags does it at the beginning of their season - I think we might be a good way to get those chilly Spring days busier - but more power to them! For Cubs it's very obviously a family event, for the Scouts, I'd try to keep it that way to -- A bit to much peer pressure to ride those "toss your Cookies" rides if you try to get the patrol to hang out together!!!

madkins, You really threw me off. You seem to have picked an odd wheel to reinvent. . . . So, here are some questions: If the folders are no more responsibly cared for than the handbooks, why use the folders? The weekly record keeping you described wouldn't be altered by using the handbook instead of your folders, would it? We use post-it flags to help the DLs find the requirements that parents have signed during the past week - and send similar messages home about what we've done at Den meetings and activities. Who pays for all this copying? Don't you think the handbook offers more than a list of requirements? There's quite a bit of good learning to be found in there, isn't there? How does a Cub family know the difference between levels of expectation - such as "whipping a rope" for Bears (A22a) and for Wolves (E17g)? Boys are held responsible for library books, lunch money, book bags, homework, etc. What led you to believe they couldn't handle the responsibility of hanging onto the handbook? We have our boys store it in their school bags. Parents are often rummaging around in there, so the Cub Handbook gets a lot of face time and it's usually available when we need it for Den meetings and activities. Seems like a lot of effort to avoid using the tool specifically designed to accomplish what your local process tries to duplicate. There's so much work to be done, I wonder that you find this extra effort to be worth your time and expense. I'm not sure the advantages of your folders visibly outweigh the mixed message you're sending to Cubs, Families and Leaders. One of my first reactions was - Well, what other parts of the Program do they set aside in lieu of locally defined program? Don't get me wrong, I'm not afraid to judge the rules and decide there's a better answer. But, with respect, I don't see what you've found lacking in the handbook, nor what you've developed that's better. Curious, jd