johndaigler

We start summer with participation in a Memorial Day Parade (counting this as a June Pack activity for the purposes of Summertime Pack Award) and end summer with participation in a Labor Day Parade (counting for August). If a Cub attends Day Camp (planned in July, naturally) that covers it. Then, to offer additional opportunities for the boys, we also plan at least one other activity per month (June - campfire/cookout; July - AA Baseball game; and August - Pack Overnighter). In Greg's case - attending one event each month covers the individual Cub. jd

So, HYPOTHETICALLY, you're moving cross-country. You're going to find a new home, school district, neighborhood and Scout Unit for your son. You've got an advantage though, you're a Scouter. You know what to look for. . . . Don't you? What would you look for in a Unit for your son (and, probably, yourself)? Would that answer be different for Cub and Scout Units? Would District or Council be of any help, or too politically correct to be useful? (I guess, one way to consider this is to decide what about your present Unit you would "sell" to a prospective Scouter .) Thanks, jd

Friend4U, WELCOME! Nothing official, just fun. Your Pack may have turned this into a local custom - giving it more value, as a tradition, than an actual "rule". It may be near and dear to some hearts so ask around within the Leadership that has been there for a couple of years. jd

Champ, I do take it seriously. But, it's not the work, or the requirements, or the award that is worth taking seriously. What's worth taking seriously is our Purpose. By allowing any adult within 20 feet to be the adult partner, we distance Family from the boy and the activity. I don't care what the activity is, I don't care what the badge is -- it's not about the soocer game, the soccer skill, the soccer belt loop ----- it's about the Family and Cub together more, rather than less. Kids can get all the fun they want without Scouting, so what makes this Fun better? The Purpose(s)! We have a family based program with Core Values and Purposes. When rules are grey, as they often are, shouldn't we fall back on our basic Principles to help us find clarification? I'm trying to convince my Committee to make this decision for the right reasons. I know we can read into this rule whatever flexibility we want, our council and District have said so specifically, but WHY would we want more flexibility in the definition of "adult partner"? Aside from the stated definition of "adult partner" (CS Leader Book)and the requirement (on the Cub app) that if the adult partner is not a family member, then there needs to be an adult app on file, by widening the definition of "adult partner" we're saying that earning the little shiny thing is more important than having the Tiger and his family together. I don't buy that. Even if we argue that it's not about the shiny thing but about the Fun, I still don't think we should prioritize that over Family. jd ps> WELCOME!!

Our Wolves used electrical tape to "whip" rope and then duct tape to tape together the two "whipped" ends to make the rings for ring toss. Kittle, your at the end of the wolf year - what you do these next two weeks should depend on what they've done for the last 40. But here are some ideas: do a quick check for some fun, simple electives they haven't hit yet - or consider(parts of) Leave No Trace. As Bears they'll need the LNT to work on the World Conservation Award and the CS Outdoor Activity Award. Is thee an area that the usual DL wasn't all that excited about? Maybe he/she stayed away from Native Americans, or from the "building things" electives. We all have favored areas - what do you like that the other DL doesn't? Good Luck KISMIF jd

Scoutnut, according to the Sports and Academics books, the Tiger may earn belt loops in a school setting, but working with the Adult partner. That's where my present problem exists. The "adult partner" is clearly defined in the Leader book as the adult who co-registers with the Tiger. Obviously that again leaves the school teacher out of the picture as an "adult partner". However, it would be counter-productive to disallow another parent, grandparent, or even a babysitter/nanny if the family is comfortable with the arrangement. Though we, obviously, can't be that flexible with the definition for overnighters. Wondering what the rest of you do? jd

How does your Pack define "adult Partner" for Tiger Cubs? How strictly do you stick to that definition? Can any parent-selected adult serve that role on any given day? For example, can the music teacher be the adult partner in music class, thus allowing the Tiger to earn his Music Belt Loop in school? Can another Tiger's parent be the "adult partner" for a cub acticity like a pack campout? Some questions have come up for us and I'm looking for infor to help resolve an issue or two. Thanks for your help. jd

Thanks, BW! You should feel great about that -- and by sharing it with us, you make all of us feel great, too! jd

Unc, not sure what exactly ruffled your feathers, but I hope that flight has put them back smooth. Eagles are Eagles -- only non-Eagles would ever think to disparage them. And today's Eagles are every bit as Eagley as the ones who first flew back in the day! As an "oh-so-close, but just a Lifer" Scout, yet me say, You da man! - And so is every 13 - 18 year old with his freshly minted wings! jd

BW, please, go look at your first "future" comment. You paralleled my description of a hypothetical future to the LFL program begun 14 years ago. You used my words, making them your own. Your comment made me curious and I started finding out about LFL. In this thread, you haven't been helpful. Please, stop going round the word carousel. LFL is not BSA for "others" - it's different content and intent. It's not different because of it's target audience - it's different because of its messages and methodology. The differences go well beyond necessary changes due to open membership The program I described as potentally coming down the road would look more like a Scout Unit that had local option control over membership. Again, there would obviously be differences, but what I described would NOT look like LFL. jd

so then it's not intended to be what you suggested in the "future" thread?

BW, I hope you're not purposefully missing the point. But since I've seen how informed you can be, it does appear that way in this thread. Obviously, there would need to be programmatic differences; but to imply that the LFL is designed to bring the BSA Scout Program to "ineligible youth", but because of their needs cannot resemble the traditional Scout program is corp-speak at it's best. We know there are active Scouts and Scouters who keep their sexual orientation and faith private. The Program seems to work fine for them. LFL is certainly not a "tweaked" version of their BSA. You can't be saying that the Methods only work for God-fearin' heterosexuals. Cooking lessons aside, can we get at the 'meat' of the question? jd Has anyone out there 'round the campfire participated in LFL programs?

Greg, the pre-BnG day would have been before the early 40's not the early 70's! You need a little vacation - you seem to be feeling your age! Actually, you seem to be feeling your parents' age!! jd

BW, as far as you've gone, that all makes sense. In fact, that part you needn't have broken out for me - and I understand your comments regarding the words "welcome" and "eligible". My question is about the program. It doesn't seem to resemble the BSA National Programs for kids of the same age. It isn't delivered, structured or "methoded" in any way that I can see, as yet, similar to the Cub and Boy Scout program. As I've said before, given my limited research it most resembles a "PeaceBuilders" type curriculum for schools. That's a fine program to deliver in and of itself - I'm not being critical of the program (again, I've just begun to learn about it). What I'm trying to learn is, if LFL is, indeed, BSA Scouting for All. At this point, I'm thinking it isn't. jd

Temporary patch on the right pocket (pg 14 - Insignia Guide) jd

Can anyone tell me more about "Learning for Life"? I've been to the website and read some resource material. Has anyone worked directly with the program? Since, in another thread, it has been described as fitting this description, ". . . BSA will split off a program organization that has a more "open" membership policy. The BSA would remain what it is, but a BSA2 will come into existence (with program support from the "real" BSA - perhaps, less than publicly), which will accept Scouts whom aren't welcome into the present BSA. ", and I am uncomfortably unfamiliar with the program, I'm quite curious. IMHO, it doesn't really mesh with that description. It seems more like a "PeaceBuilders" curriculum for school classrooms. I know it's roots are in the Explorer program, but ... jd (This message has been edited by johndaigler)

It's not a future I'd necessarily appreciate, but I see a Great Schism. I believe at some point BSA will split off a program organization that has a more "open" membership policy. The BSA would remain what it is, but a BSA2 will come into existence (with program support from the "real" BSA - perhaps, less than publicly), which will accept Scouts whom aren't welcome into the present BSA. No crystal ball here... jd

Doesn't "Young At Heart" count? jd I may be an old man, but I'm a young Scouter. Thomas Jefferson (sorta)(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

meckanic, WELCOME! Units don't create other units. There may be a willing CO in the next town, but that Troop/Pack would be a totally separate unit from your own. Just go over there and recruit. Bringing in another CO would take those boys out of your hands as they develop a Unit or two of their own. I think one concern you need to address is why boys choose other troops. You're definitely at a disadvantage without a school, but develop a great program with the boys you have and other boys will learn about it and start joining your unit. If you already think you have a great unit, then examine how you're marketing it. Selling your program is as important as maintaining it - if you're disatisfied with membership numbers. Bigger isn't always better. Good Luck jd

Pack, I'd stay away from food prizes if you can. The simple worry would be allergies, but the real problem is children equating food with "winning" and "feeling good". jd

Tortdog, your original question is causing the grey. Your definitions (the Sistine Chapel is pornographic?) are such that if anyone answers D, they're lying, yet that's your desired answer. Comparing yours to an SAT question is inaccurate, since SAT questions have correct answers and go through rigorous testing to be sure they are not culturally biased - a test your question would fail. Are we talking about sexually explicit material having a place in Scouting?? That might have a simpler answer, but that's not the question you asked. Are we talking about pornography in a Scouter's private life? It's no one else's business, it's legal, and the Scout Oath and Law are the individual's Scout(er)'s to interpret. Bringing "morally straight" into play is just asking for grey - causing a lot of needless angst for good Scouters. Surprise, surprise, the "morally straight" phrase causes problems, yet again. All these Morality threads are starting to make me crazy. Try this on for mental size. By it's nature, morality is the limit of appropriate personal behavior. It's the definition of what an individual can accept as "doable". Thus, people cannot really be "immoral" - it's a verbal trap. I can't do what I can't do. If I do it, then it must not be what I can't do. MY choices might not be another's choices, but they are mine to make, mine to judge. 'Legal' and 'moral' are different, so I definitely can make illegal choices, but I can't be immoral. I can only be morally wrong as judged by others - others who have no right, no authority, no place in judging me. I'm uncomfortable with human sacrifice, but Christ seemed OK with it. I believe killing other humans is wrong, but then again, I pity the fool who hurts my family. I don't believe abortion is a good choice, but I've never been a teenage girl raped by my Mom's latest boyfriend. Of course, I could go on, but it's all the same, isn't it? Morality? We all would be better off if the word didn't exist. It gets used far too frequently, and never well. I think we can keep ourselves busy, working on our own life paths, rather than spending time on labeling as "immoral" the directions of others' paths. Helping the boys define their life choices is what we do, but judging their choices isn't part of the game. We can only lead by modeling. We can teach them what We see as appropriate, we can teach them what's legal and illegal, we can teach them what breaks our group's rules, but we Cannot define their lifecode. So, ...crazy, ... I contribute, yet again, to a thread that I know I shouldn't even read, let alone respond to! jd Personally, I think Dusty Baker should be fired! Oh, and Barry Bonds is a bum! And, Cubs should not have to wait till the BnG to get their earned rank badges - or feel pressured to complete rank by the BnG! (This message has been edited by johndaigler)

If you put your cell phone on a key chain and then loop that though the hole in your ear . . .

Welcome!!! You must be the only Dolphin Mom in Indiana!!! jd

I'm (CC, DL, and Pack Trainer) trying to convince my Leadership Team that we need to award rank badges (and other awards) as Cubs earn them. It's simple, it's the Program, it's the right thing to do. Unfortunately, by tradition we do this wing-ding of a BnG and everyone in the room gets a Badge or CS Logo coffee cup or a "Thanks" card, etc. I've heard most of the arguments and rationale for doing it this way and other locally unique ways. I'm not interested in debating the issue (again!). But, ... How many Packs out there do it this way? Anyone have a way for determining this? One of the arguments I don't have a response for is, "Everybody else does it this way!" While I know that's incorrect, I don't know what the truth is. My real problem is that District Trainers told our Pack Advancement Chair the BnG Big Event was the way to go. Gee, guys, thanks for that bit o' help!! jd

Kahuna, I'm not a die-hard ACLU fan, but isn't their beef with the govt.? They can't change BSA, they can only impact how the govt. acts toward us in relation to how the govt. acts toward other private clubs. I don't think BSA is as important to the ACLU as we sometimes think. BTW, wouldn't ACLU lawyers argue that they're just freedom fighters standing up for the disenfranchised and those whom are discriminated against? Tortdog, Law is society's statement on "order" - not morality. We lock up bad guys, not because they're immoral, but because they gum up the works, cost money, and make "good" people feel uncomfortable, thus interrupting their day and the blissful "order" of our communities. Nowhere in this country is it taboo to mention God in a public school. You can't just throw out these one-liners and claim the moral high ground. It's like the catchphrase "Compassionate Conservatism" - as if this gives this particular brand of Conservatism a higher level of integrity. God is welcome in every public school in America. He's mandated in most places by the reciting of the Pledge. True, in many places public schools need to be accepting of other cultural beliefs, so the traditional public school monopoly of the Christian God has changed. I'm comfortable being the one responsible for my sons' faith-learning and not leaving it up to his randomly selected teacher. I can only imagine the Buddhist family 2 doors to my right and the Jewish family next door on my left is comfortable with that, too. I understand your disagreement with Judge Ginsburg's legal opinions. You're disrespect seems uneccessary. Do you have any former bosses? Do they own you? Should we define anyone according to any particular previous job they've held? I disagree with your interpretation of a judge's role re: interpreting law. Again, I think your over-generalized summation is disrespectful - and worse. As far as states'(CA or TX) vs. federal govt. rights, I believe that's been decided, - the word we use is "indivisible". Democracy is messy, we can't all get our way all the time. It seems wrong to be more tolerant of one procedural manuever than another. These are the rules of the game. Would you argue that the rules be changed? They've been around for many, many years. I guess if you were a Senator and therefore inside the process, it might be more appropriate for you to want to change the rules. You know, like trying to change ethics rules. Then again, if you think (outsiders or) insiders have the right to work for organizational change, then logically, it would follow that you would be comfortable with the ACLU and/or Scouters working to change BSA policies. FWIW, jd