packsaddle

Dreaded double-post, sorry.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Good story, pinkflame. You are obviously one of those people who find it difficult to say 'no'. Especially when children are involved, and I appreciate that. I guess it's interesting to speculate about the reasons primates do what they do. In the end, we're left with a simple decision to volunteer or not. If no volunteer can be found among the parents of a group of boys, I am saddened by the fact that those boys are being left to fate by their parents. But that is their decision, for whatever reason, not mine...or yours....or Amy's. As Cubmaster I greatly valued the volunteer leaders and tried to give them recognition. It is a contagious thing, I observed, to give that recognition at pack meetings, because sometimes one of those reluctant or shy parents would come up and mention that they would kind of be interested in helping out. I always had an application in my pocket.

"The parents and the committee are volunteers as well - so you're effectively placing blame on other volunteers." I disagree strongly. Amy is defending herself from a claim that SHE is to blame and YOUR spin puts it on her as well. The blame game is destructive. Taking responsibility is what is needed and Amy is taking responsibility RIGHT NOW for the den she has decided she can manage. That is HER rational decision. The responsibility for those leaderless boys rightly falls to someone else who can take on that responsibility. If no one volunteers, the blame is not on other volunteers but rather on people who DON'T volunteer. They can take responsibility or they can take blame. But if Amy decides she can't take the boys on, she has decided what the bounds of her responsibility are and her decision should be respected. The CM can meet with the parents of the stranded boys and offer them the opportunity to revive the den. It should be clear to them what the implications are for refusing to volunteer. I did this on several occasions and each time we managed to resolve the problem. Those parents are caring people and they usually can make a good decision if they really understand the costs and benefits to their boys.

Former CM here. I confronted this in the pack and I agree that you cannot be forced to take additional boys, nor should this kind of pressure fall on you. I would ask if you could take them on and if you say 'no' I would respect that. I also agree that after being den leader for every level, 8 boys is a comfortable maximum for a den size. I might push it to 10 or 12 for the right group but that isn't for me, as CM, to decide. That decision is for the den or the DL to decide. I also agree with the sentiment that den parents should be prepared to step up to the plate if needed as leaders. The program is not designed to be a free babysitting service and I fear that some parents view it that way. I am unsympathetic to external criticism that places the responsibility on the Den Leader for excluding boys if the DL decides not to take them in. The DL is already doing a great service for 8 boys and often does not get sufficient recognition for this. To condemn them for turning away boys who have been stranded by OTHER adults is, in my mind, obscene. The OTHER adults are the ones who need to step up to this plate and take responsibility. Yes, as CM I also had to take on a den temporarily several times. If the pack has a strong committee and a supportive CO, new leaders will be found. Otherwise, if those boys cannot be placed in another or a new den, the parents of those boys are the ones who have made the ultimate decision by not getting involved as leaders themselves.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Gwd, I sympathize, although I don't like the term 'misfit'. I'd be more likely to apply that term to college faculty. Sorry, couldn't resist. This unit was like that years ago. I note that in a leadership position, a person can be tempted to see the 'warts' as much larger than they really are. Try to keep that sense of humor and perspective.

Welcome to the forums, ranman 256. Yes, that is the way we count summer camp. Keep in mind that not all summer camps are the same. A tent for a week is quite different from a cabin (not camping at all for most of us). But I agree. This unit has at least 20 nights of real camping each year, sometimes a lot more (I'm not sure how you count nights in a cave). Where we are, 'winter' camping is hard to come by unless you count cold rain as winter. For us, June is still cool. Summer hits in late July and August.

Gwd-scouter, I have to tell you that I was there for that wonderful event. I love the smell of vomit in the morning, it smells like.....scout camp. Yep, I guess you were there too but that was a study in behavior, watching the people near ground zero. Thankfully, none of that fallout landed on this unit, figuratively or literally. I agree that the H1N1 threat is probably not going to seriously affect summer camp. The measures we take to protect ourselves in this pandemic are probably some of the same measures we should take during normal times. I read a nice encapsulation of this virus's history in a Newsweek article recently. It was written by Laurie Garrett who is not a scientist but she IS a pretty good science writer. She wrote a very engaging (and well-referenced) book called "The Coming Plague" and she did a nice job of outlining why this virus is different AND very important. The link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/195692/page/1 THIS version of H1N1 is a mosaic of three viruses and its story demonstrates the way our social, economic, transportation, and our food systems interact to support the creation and propagation of these things. Nice.

I'd include the KKK in terrorist ranks, not to mention other similar homegrown hate groups. If the British had beat the colonies, I suspect that many of our patriots would be labeled terrorists under today's usage. The practice goes to antiquity. From what I read, the NYC plot was purely homegrown, unconnected to any other group, and the plotters were basically stupid but malicious criminals. They had the inclination but not much else.

Heck, there've been plenty of times when I didn't do something I had planned...because I hadn't had MY nap. I bet that's true for others on this forum. And plenty of times sitting at a restaurant wishing those drunks at another table weren't so loud.

yeah, I was still pondering the ban on Halloween panties. Oops, I guess my glasses are smudged.

SSScout, hence the healthy discussion among scientists on this division of view and opinion. Collins is considered an appeaser by some and Harris, Dawkins, and Dennett are considered fundamentalist extremists in the other direction. All of these guys are outstanding scientists and very bright. These discussions are interesting, even fun, but I consider it an insoluble question. I guess it could be considered the gift that keeps on giving if you enjoy these arguments.

We've figured out that the smaller ones work better for backpacking. Just kidding, we have both brands, 14" and 12". No preference, the food is always great. Stay away from aluminum.

I've had my carryon bag searched by airport security...Duct tape siezed. Explanation: can be used to bind hands in a hostage situation. I offered them my shoelaces and dental floss. They declined. They had to think for a while about my belt. Lesson: don't carryon duct tape. Especially if one of the security guys has read the previous testimonials in this thread.

Chopsticks are incredibly versatile and easy to make. They do take some practice but my daughter often eats individual grains of rice or blueberries using them. I know of an instance at one of those teen wilderness camps in which a new arrival with opposition/defiance behavior was told they had to make a wooden spoon to use for eating. They rebelled and used a couple of sticks as chopsticks. The counselors had to scratch their heads for a while...hadn't considered this possibility before, heh, heh. I had to hand it to the teen on that one. This might be a nice challenge/game for the other boys to learn and for the new guy to 'teach'. Might bring them closer together as a result. I like it.

Yep, the referee's call. Stosh, good example - definitely something that will ONLY be needed in case of a life-threatening emergency. "3) In the real world conceal carry permit holders still are not allowed to take their guns on an airplane." or churches, schools and other places...by law. However, they are also not allowed in ANY establishment that has its own posted prohibition. Personal policy is subordinate to the policy of the establishment. I too am beginning to hear the whump, whump sound. Edited part: I don't wear Birkenstocks so I guess I must be a neo-Luddite.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Gern, yes.

OGE, you have that basically right, "Tell someone who is eligible to join Boy Scouts, or an inactive Boy Scout, about your troop's activities. Invite him to a troop outing, activity, service project or meeting. Tell him how to join, or encourage the inactive Boy Scout to become active." I'd be interested in seeing some statistics on what effect, if any, that requirement has had on bringing in new members of boy scout age. My experience has been that most of the time, those boys who come in after age 11 are not as successful or dedicated as those who start as cubs...and not even close to as numerous. I'm not advocating elimination of recruitment of older boys. I'm advocating greater emphasis and recognition of the cub scouts as the real source of a heartbeat for the entire program. My years as a cubmaster (going to roundtable and being segregated from the 'real' meeting and the 'important' business after the meeting opening) gave me a lasting feeling that BSA's focus is on boys and that cubs are considered as a subordinate function. I argue that the opposite it true. I can tell you with great certainty that if the cubs fail, troops will quickly follow and recruitment at ages 11 or greater will not alter that outcome...at least for the troops around my area.

Considering the news I'm not sure the Tamils are a good analogy. At least I sure don't consider myself as part of a well-armed rebel insurgency that was just vanquished on the battlefield. I hope BSA isn't analogous to any part of that.

Welcome to the forums. This has been discussed previously but since you asked: This unit has a 'no cell phone' rule for regular meetings and outings. The boys may have one in their possession but the phone must be 'off'. Leaders may have theirs 'on'. If one rings during a meeting and it is not in the hands of a leader, it goes to the hands of a leader until the meeting is over. The parents know about this and support it. The problem is that the phones are a needless distraction. The boys try to sneak and play games or send text messages instead of doing what they're supposed to be doing. The emergency thing does not apply to regular troop meetings and there is no need for a cell phone at all as long as G2SS is being followed and one of the adults has one that the boy can use if needed. I have no idea where you're located but our outings are frequently in locations where a signal is absent so the cell phones are worthless. No, worse than that they are dead weight that still causes a distraction because the boys go ahead and try repeatedly to 'get' a signal or to play games. So we basically ban all electronics. Leaders carry whatever emergency communications gear is needed, including their cell phone if there is a signal. Lastly, back when we did allow them and on those occasions when boys sneaked them onto an outing, we have had to delay, interrupt, etc. activities while everyone tries to 'find' the lost phone or to try to retrieve it from the river into which it fell. Edited part: "...contradict my rules as a parent" I forgot to respond to this. There are individual needs that ARE addressed individually. Medication is an example of one of these and if you will go through the training you will understand that this sort of thing is addressed. But cell phones? Really? Let's suppose that parents DID get to apply family rules to troop activities. How do you propose that the scoutmaster will keep up with a unique set of rules that apply to each individual boy? If your rules are more restrictive than those of another parent, do YOUR rules take priority? I think your approach would require an impossible juggling exercise.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I can't speak for Merlyn. I do remember vividly, a 'speech' by our DE given to the families at our Blue and Gold. The stuff that he spewed was hateful toward gays and atheists and that was obvious enough to families that several left BSA permanently. It may not have anything to do with the DRP. But it existed then and I suspect it exists now. I KNOW he didn't collect much for FOS.

Eamonn, my version of that story involves a former part of the Commonwealth. My sister and I had spent weeks of anxiety and red tape and bureaucracy in China while she adopted a child. On the return trip we stopped in Hong Kong and that night we were simply worn out. As a treat I decided to bring my sister a Big Mac. So I left the hotel and found a very convenient McDonalds. We ate something that night. But whatever it was...was NOT a Big Mac.

I went through TSA security this week. They stopped me because I had a pack of Lance crackers in my shirt pocket. Made me go back through again and put that single pack of crackers through the x-ray machine. All by itself. Yep, very easily mistaken for National.

From the quoted article, "Putnam and University of Notre Dame scholar David Campbell argue in their book, "American Grace: How Religion is Reshaping our Civic and Political Lives," which is scheduled to be released next year." Fgoodwin, I can cite other similar characterizations. When authors and researchers make such arguments, they become advocates and advocacy is almost always biased to some extent (almost by definition). The statistics that they use may similarly be biased, depending on the ways they constructed the statistics. And while I may actually agree with some of their arguments, I remain aware of the bias and the possibility that they might be in error. I agree with you that their bias is not necessarily in favor of religion. As the article states, their arguments also conclude that civic engagement "...has nothing to do with ideas of divine judgment..." To my mind, the bias is revealed because they think they have identified a causal relationship based on statistics. They may have constructed a good hypothesis - but until that is tested rigorously, as I said before, I remain skeptical.

Maybe the name, "Innocent", went to his head. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Eamonn, To agree with some of what you wrote and expand on my post, I add that I think the key to BSA future is in cub scouts. The focus, if any by National, should be on the cubs as the primary entry into the program. BSA has allowed itself to be sidetracked by the legal morass of exclusionary membership when the real challenge is to get boys to come in and then to keep them. And the best way to expand into demographics where there is little presence is to start with the base, the little guys in cub scouts. Families are involved, there is nothing more visible than a pack of cubs in a parade, and once they have the 'tradition' established at that age, they're more likely to stick with it. And if the family latches onto the program as part of the family it will be a solid relationship. I think that the idea that adolescents are going to be attracted to the BSA program in their teens is engaging in irrational exuberance at best, delusional at worst. I think the best 'bang for the buck' is to be found in those early years when a block of wood with wheels can kindle the imagination, when a camping trip is still fun with family along, and when the spirit of adventure is alive in everything and not in need of rediscovery.