Lisabob

What is your relationship to this boy? And what is a "red and green?"

Well Kudu, I certainly advocated for stuff like that. I admit it was not all that effective - mine was the lone voice, and as a woman and outsider to their little clique, few were interested in hearing it. But yes, I tried. Probably, without the benefit of WB, I wouldn't have done even that. I simply wouldn't have known enough about the boy scout program and I wouldn't have spent much (if any) time talking scouting with other scouters who actually care about this stuff. In large part because of WB, I knew that there were other ideas "out there" about what a boy scout troop could look like. Huh. Wood Badge, paving the way for people to think more deeply about what the patrol method really means. Go figure.

John "Breck Boy" Edwards was annoying and sort of fake, I'll grant you. But I don't think he was a total idiot. Biden is prone to saying the occasional dumb thing. But he knows where Russia is on a map and spent 36 years in the Senate, doing smart things like helping to secure loose nuclear material left over in the former USSR after the Cold War. His record is not comparable to Perry's. In comparison, Sarah Palin's claim to fame was that she could see Russia from her porch. Herman Cain didn't know that China has had nukes since the 1960s and he couldn't understand why anyone should care about "Uz beki beki beki stan stan" (did I miss a "stan" in there?) Perry couldn't remember or explain his own policies. Newt thinks we should have a state on the moon. Santorum is making unfavorable comparisons to the French Revolution and trying to build up his repertoire of scare tactics about the guillotine. Everybody gets an occasional gaffe "mulligan," but these are on-going issues that make me wonder whether there is something in their water glasses at the debates. Surely, there must be better examples of the Republican species out there?

~rolls eyes~ LeCastor - have a great time, and keep an open mind! As for the rest: Funny enough, as the only Woodbadge trained person on the adult leadership roster in a former troop, and as someone who came through the ranks of cub scouting, and *gasp* as a woman, I was the one consistently advocating *for* a real patrol method and *for* actual boy leadership of a sort that even Kudu might have recognized (though grudgingly and with snarky comments, I'm sure), and *against* overwhelmingly adult-led garbage that killed the fun of scouting. Maybe it is just me - but I rather think, people who go into WB with a good attitude and an open mind can learn a lot, or at the very least, have a good experience and meet others who are passionate about scouting.

PS: one great thing about Gravel in the last cycle was that he provided excellent examples to engage students in a conversation about social media and campaigning. What he did was so totally wacky and different, in comparison to any of the other candidates' online presences. This time around, everything is so much more slick and produced - aw shucks, I kind of miss Gravel's ripple in the pond.

So, Beaver, you want to compare Sarah Palin and Herman Cain and Rick Perry to Richardson, Bayh, and Vilsack?? party affiliations aside, Richardson, Bayh, and Vilsack are serious people with serious ideas (though I don't care much for a couple of them). They lacked enough money or organization to launch a stronger bid and we could argue about whether they needed more experience, but they weren't total goofballs. Obama, of course, ended up as President and Biden as Veep. So they must have had something serious going for them. And while I preferred Obama, I do think H. Clinton would have been a strong candidate had she gotten the nomination. Polarizing, perhaps, (thanks, Bill) but not a total joke. Granted, Kucinich is kind of our equivalent of your Ron Paul. Both are on the fringes of their own party. Neither of them have a real chance at being President (and that's fine with me on both counts), but I do admire their consistency over the years. And I'll give you Gravel, he was definitely marching to his own drum.

Seriously, it would be cool if the Sec of Interior were a Scouter. I'm working on my own Herman Cain-esque memoir now, ending, of course, with me sitting at the desk in the Oval Office. When I'm president, Calico, I'll call you! Meantime, taking bids for other cabinet-level positions. Thinking a Scouter could be a good Sec of State (helpful, friendly, courteous, kind all seem like they might be good traits for a diplomat)...maybe a qualification will include having earned or counseled the Cit in World badge...would certainly provide a bit more background knowledge than some recent candidates appear to have of the world! Sec of Energy should be a scouter too - know something about conservation and LNT.

Don't let me stop you from casting aspersions or anything, but I would like to point out that the "front runners" in the 2008 Democratic primary had a heck of a lot more of a serious chance of winning, than most of the flavor of the month so-called Republican candidates have had. (OK we'll leave Gravel out of that group, thanks. He came to speak on my campus and answered one earnest student's question about his view on women's rights by making a lewd gesture and guffawing about how he liiiiiikes women. Uh. Yeah. At least he was memorable.) Meanwhile, I've got blueberry pie in the oven over here...will shamelessly trade pie for pack's promise of a vote.

If, in 16 days, there's a spectacular astral lights display seen far and wide, I think I'll know that your 3 gals got their notice and went kablooey on the pack! (seriously, keep your cool, be somewhat unavailable for the next 3 weeks, and expect fireworks in 16 days)

Yeah, nothing wrong with it, just strikes me as patch-mania, one of those things that matters more to adults than to kids. Especially the ones who have been out of cub scouts and in a troop for 2 years. But agreed, there's nothing necessarily "wrong" with doing it.

And we think that someone who is barred from being a member would send in an FOS donation...why? Well I don't want to get too side-tracked here. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Romney did, indeed, choose the word "participate" so as to try to have his cake (he's inclusive!) and eat it, too (he won't let "them" join!). But I'd be saddened by such pandering, if that is what he was doing. As for me, and in case I ever run for president: I believe sexual orientation should have nothing to do with membership requirements in the BSA.

I have no idea why your DE is an idiot. I know that mine (2 or 3 DEs ago) was as transparent as he could reasonably be.

Our council contracts with a company that runs criminal background checks. Or at least, we did as of a few years ago (I'm less connected these days and I suppose this might have changed). I know this to be true because we had one guy with a fairly common name, whose application was initially denied on the basis that he was a fugitive from justice with a long rap sheet in another state. Wasn't him (in ways that were demonstrable), but it was evidence that somebody was doing a background check.

Ann, this might be a tangent, but I keep wondering. Why do you want to give badges to people for something they did 2 years ago, and people who have moved on? Do you think it will be meaningful to them, after all this time has elapsed? I'm not convinced. If it were me, I'd hand out this year's patches and say something like "hey! this year they have patches! cool!" and then move on.

Agreed, you need to discuss with parents. Whether they choose to do anything about it at home is beyond your control, but they should know and respect that you will not tolerate this at scout events. It may be worth having a conversation with the boy first, or at the same time, or after, but you definitely need to talk with his parents. I'm thinking about this three ways. 1. What does it tell the kid if he knows you know, and you don't tell his parents? It tells him either you approve, you have no spine, or you want to be his buddy more than you want to be his role model. You'll never succeed at being his buddy (you're an adult...), and this just opens the door for him to manipulate you on that level. 2. If my kid were doing this and you knew but didn't tell me, and I later found out, I'd be livid. I wouldn't put a lot of trust in your judgment after that. What else aren't you telling me? 3. And if I learned from my kid that "Jimmy showed me this at scouts..." I'd be going to the SM & CC to let them know about it, and wanting to know how they would be handling it. I'd expect SM & CC to discuss this with the boy and his parents. (I also might be calling the boy's parents, myself, if he's showing it to my child.) If the SM & CC couldn't, we'd be back to questions about judgment. If you won't put your foot down about this, do you really have the interests of all the boys in mind? Yes this boy "needs scouting," but so do others, and this isn't the kind of thing they should be regularly encountering in scouts - so, time to impose some boundaries, and that includes letting a boy's parents know when something of this sort comes up. And not to overlook - if the boy is under a lot of stress at home/family life and this is one manifestation of it, you might also suggest to parents that he would benefit from having someone he could talk to (counseling), esp. if the family is overwhelmed with the burden of dealing with whatever the medical issue is.

How about: because the Constitution & bill of rights (in particular) are intended to protect us from governmental abuse of power. The notion here is that governments are in a position of tremendous power and authority over individuals, and therefore must be constrained. Limits on gov't power are not necessarily limits on private entities' powers for that very reason.

The only times I've ever heard boys call out adults on uniforming was when adults were relentlessly strict or punitive about imposing uniform rules on the boys - but not on themselves. Example: a troop where we used to live required that all members be fully uniformed down to the socks, belt, necker, and hat, in order to travel with the troop to camp outs. If a person arrived at the meet-up point without something, he would be sent home to retrieve it and either his parent had to drive him to the camp out or he just couldn't attend. To be honest, several adults were just sort of jerky about it - chest pounding, bellowing, carrying on about it. So no surprise, then, that when the same standard wasn't applied to some adults, the boys got a little snarky about it. But - had the adults taken a different approach to begin with, I imagine that the boys also would have behaved differently toward adults who had some uniform imperfection. Point is: model the behavior you want your youth to emulate, not in terms of what you're wearing, but in terms of how you treat others.

Another way to look at it: "it ends well" (perspective makes a difference - just sayin')

"And though I don't know him from Adam's house cat, I would never, ever, try a stunt like buying a retired Marine officer (nor any other adult) a pair of pants, trying to tweak his whiskers. That will no doubt backfire in a quite memorable manner. I'll put money on it. " Totally agree. I'd be furious if someone tried that with me. And after that, come hell or high water, I would never, ever, wear those pants, just on principle.

Offer to buy the pants for him or find some other way to create an adult uniform closet to defray cost for everybody. He might actually be telling you the truth, that his budget doesn't include an extra $40 for scout pants right now. Side question: except for this, is he a good ASM?

I had a very similar experience with the ticket counselor. I remember wanting him to see all that I had done & tell him about it. I expected a bunch of critical questions. I was thinking "thesis defense" or "performance review." Instead, (like you described) he leafed through my documentation, asked if I felt I'd done what I set out to do, and shook my hand (I think). Last I saw of him. The beading was also not terribly important/meaningful ceremony. And I hardly ever wear my beads. What I decided later was that the process of working the ticket is really a self-directed process, and you get out of it what you put into it. So I didn't feel cheated, because I put A LOT into it, and in the end the only way to be cheated would have been if I'd cheated myself.

I suspect that whenever one tries to generalize about an entire religion and their adherents' behaviors or proclivities, one gets into trouble. Even more so, when one generalizes about a religious group other than one's own.

I think it is unlikely that your ticket counselor will do that (but I suppose, possible). My experience is that ticket counselors are supposed to be more like mentors or sounding boards, and less like standard setters. Supposing that your original ticket was approved back when you did the course, and supposing that you can reasonably show you did what you said you would, I doubt you have much to be concerned about. As for your sentiments: it is a testimony to your relationship with your SM that a) he apparently desired to push the matter and b) you are willing to see it through.

Uh, moose, I guess you might live in an area where there aren't that many Catholics and so perhaps have limited personal interaction, but you do seem to be quite negative toward them. Just saying. About this: "Protestants have alway been a more humble, poorer religion so I could never see them diversifing into profit making businesses.. " Really? Mega churches? Televangelists? Don't get me started!

Nope, I've heard plenty of people say the same thing. This is also a reason why my son didn't get scout pants when he was a cub (before the zip offs). I refused to pay a lot of money for pants that did not fit him well.