scoutingagain

Rooster, I know you asked Packsaddle for this information but I thought I'd oblige. The following are excerpts from speeches made by President Bush on the website Bushcountry.org. This is a good conservative website so I have no doubt you'll trust the source. National Press Conference, March 5, 2003 "Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases, these materials have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours, or placed in vehicles that are in residential neighborhoods. We know from multiple intelligence sources that Iraqi weapons scientists continue to be threatened with harm should they cooperate with U.N. inspectors. Scientists are required by Iraqi intelligence to wear concealed recording devices during interviews, and hotels where interviews take place are bugged by the regime. These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world. If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it, because we would see it. Iraq's weapons would be presented to inspectors, and the world would witness their destruction. Instead, with the world demanding disarmament, and more than 200,000 troops positioned near his country, Saddam Hussein's response is to produce a few weapons for show, while he hides the rest and builds even more. Inspection teams do not need more time, or more personnel. All they need is what they have never received -- the full cooperation of the Iraqi regime. Token gestures are not acceptable. The only acceptable outcome is the one already defined by a unanimous vote of the Security Council -- total disarmament. Great Britain, Spain, and the United States have introduced a new resolution stating that Iraq has failed to meet the requirements of Resolution 1441. Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied. Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists -- terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people. If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction." From speech to the UN Sept 12, 2002 "Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials, and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons." The above statements sound pretty certain to me. Now the President's own inspection team has pretty much refuted the so called facts related to WMD. I don't know if these statements were made deliberately or not. I will agree the war is the result of a serious intelligence failure. The question is whose intelligence failed? My appologies for taking the thread off track guys. However the issue of religious tolerance seems to creep into politics way too often these days. SA

All have posted good suggestions. However if what he really wants to do is hike & camp once in a while, and occaisionally mentor younger scouts, I'd suggest the MB counselor route. He could do some of the outdoor skills MBs and do those while on camping trips. SA

Great story. SA

"But that is precisely why it us used as an excuse for war - it gets the population fired up so quickly. " I kind of agree with Trevorum here. It's kind of like saying, "Hey there are terrorists in that country and they have nuclear and biological weapons. We need to get them before they get us!" As opposed to "Hey that country has a lot of oil and it would sure be neat if they had a government willing to sell it to us cheap instead of doing business with those French guys. Lets invade and take over the government." Sorry, couldn't resist. SA

I believe this discussion has been held in earlier threads. But, my 2 cents anyway. The way I read the sentence, "Adult leaders should support the attitude that young adults are better off without tobacco and may not allow the use of tobacco products at any BSA activity involving youth participants.", It is clear the BSA does not put tobacco use in the same category as alcohol. What the sentence does, is put the issue of banning the use of tobacco at scout functions in the hands of the adult leaders present. Adult leaders "may", as in "are allowed to" ban the use of tobacco, however they are not required to, as in the case of alcohol. If the powers that be, wanted to ban the use of tobacco, they would have used the same language that was used to ban the use of alcohol, which in my opinion, they should have done. This is somewhat ironic, since it is pretty well documented that limited consumption of alcohol has some health benefits, whereas there is little or no evidence there is any health benefit derived from smoking. However, given the potential for abuse and youth transportation concerns, I support the ban on alcohol use. SA

Interesting idea. I'll have to say I don't have an opinion yet. I'm just wondering if any thought was given to baseball and scouting given the numbers and interest in baseball in the hispanic community and the fact that Hank Aaron is listed as an Eagle Scout. One of our scouts actually came up with a great idea for a campout I think we'll try in the spring sometime. During a BOR he mentioned there were many of the boys that like to play sports, but didn't like demands and commitment required to play in the organized youth sports leages in town and that we should have a sports campout where we just played pick up softball, touch football, soccer, etc. Just for fun. What a concept! Gee, it's amazing what some of these kids come up with when you ask them a question and really give them a chance to respond. SA

Very good questions Scoutldr. I certainly don't have the answer for you. Other than some national requirements for membership are apparently more important than others. It appears there is a certain degree of local option granted to some units in the case of religion. SA

Ok my 2 cents. Q 1. Sounds a little rude the way it's worded. I would re-word it to something like, "What do you think you have learned from scouting, that does not involve advancement? or "over and above earning Eagle Scout?" I regard the line of inquiry legit. Q 2. Have to agree, it does not seem appropriate as worded. There are other questions that could lead into a discussion of how the scout is reverent. Q 3. Legitimate question. SA

First I must compliment everyone for maintaining a civil tone on a subject that sometimes creates a degree of tension on the board. I agree with the definition of tolerance Trevorum posted. However, I thought it would be good to re-state the Religious Prinicples of the BSA in this thread. The following is from the BSA National website under the manual for Chaplains and Chaplain's Aids. Declaration of Religious Principle The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which a member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to this Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of membership. I think this statment makes it clear that the BSA does not want it's adult leaders promoting a specific religion within a scouting setting. Read the last sentence. To do so puts an individual in the same catagory as others the BSA does not allow to be members. At least that's the way I interpret it. As adult leaders we should encourage scouts to explore the spiritual side of their lives, withing the context of their family and their own religious institutions. Those that feel a need to promote a specific religion over others are free to do so,... outside of scouting. SA

Sounds like a neat idea. I'm curious about the shoebox thing though. Do you have to use a box from your own shoe size, or could I like find a box that was for a size 14? Or do the adults get a different arrangement altogether? I'm rather certain this would limit the participation of some of the adults in the unit I serve, which frankly wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, as long as we could come up with at least two, and I think we could. SA

SemperPar, I have no doubt that in the past, and there may be some lodges and/or individual members that currently engage in what I would consider hazing as a part of their Ordeal. I do not condone any activity intended to embarrass, injure or humiliate a fellow scout, youth or adult. Consequently, I do not like the type of skits Eamonn described earlier in this thread, although I confess to having participated in such skits many years ago as both a victim and one who knew the outcome. More often than not however, our intended "victim" was usually an adult not other youth. Not that, that condones the activity. However, I do distinguish between an initiation that involves voluntary participation in a personal challenge that is explained and that is not intended to embarrass the participant versus an activity based on intended deception. If run properly, there is no reason for the OA initiation Ordeal to degenerate to hazing, or at least what I would consider hazing. Granted, an individual participant may feel differently, but if explained properly before the activity, I don't think most people would consider the event hazing. SA

Ed, With all due respect, One set of activities involves voluntary participation in a challenge with all parameters of the activity explained to scouts in advance. The other set of activities is based upon deception and untruths and is therefore not completely voluntary. Which one do you think enhances the values of the scout law, which one doesn't? SA

Beav, I agree the Emergency Preparedness MB has value and exposes scouts to potential interesting career choices. However many of the requirements are in the mode of Discuss, Make a chart, Meet with.., Write a plan..., Tell..., Make a Checklist... . Even the requirements that require Show are not that physically challenging. Compare these to some of the Lifesaving MB requirements, Swim 400 yards, Perform a non-equipment rescue on a victim. Escape from a victims' grasp in deep water. There is no comparison in the physical challenge in the requirement. At least in the alternatives to Swimming MB, like Hiking or Cycling, there is a degree of a comparable challenge. There is no such comparabilty between the Emergency Preparedness MB and Lifesaving MB. I see this as just more of the lessening of requirements. Frankly, not all kids would ever be able to earn a properly conducted Lifesaving MB. So, rather than have some scouts be discouraged about the possibility of earning Eagle, we provide an easier, and in my opinion a much easier alternative. Maybe for me this is a pet peeve because Lifesaving was a particular challenge for me. When I first tried to earn the MB at summer camp I new it was a hard one, and was a little intimidated at the prospect of trying to perform a non-equipment rescue on a 180 lbs lifeguard. One who clearly seemed to enjoy making this requirement a particular challenge. The first time I tried this as a 100 lbs 8th grader, I thought he was going to drown me. I failed that summer and was definately dissappointed. I wasn't sure if I could ever meet the requirement. But that Lifeguard wanted to make sure that I or anyone else earning that MB could successfully rescue a drowning victim in the water, as required. To have let me pass, letting me think I could physically do that, could have put me in danger. It took me at least two more attempts to perform that rescue and it wasn't until I had grown another year or more and put on another 20-30 lbs in addition to quite a bit of coaching from the lifequard that I was able to earn that MB and I felt like I had conquered the world. The point is, I don't see that in many of today's MB requirements. I know this sounds like the, "in my day we...." and I suppose it is. There used to be some real tough descriminators in the advancement process, both physical and mental. However, it seems now, instead of challenging scouts, and giving some real meaning to advancement, we tend to want to advance everyone, so advancement seems like it's earned for showing up. But that's my pet peeve on Lifesaving. SA

Since we're talking pet advancement peeves and most abused MBs for one of them would be Emergency Preparedness MB. I have no objection to this MB but to have it equate to Lifesaving MB as an Eagle requirement is, to be blunt a joke. I don't know when this change was made. But for folks that wonder why some old timers wonder about 13 year old Eagle candidates I believe this change in one reason. When Lifesaving was a required MB there would have been few 13 year olds physically capable of earning this badge. SA

Barry, I appreciate your appreciation. I tend to be a bit old school myself. Just maybe a little less ambitious in the amount of change I'm willing to try and initiate. With my son still active in the troop, that's where most of my focus has been. For the most part, I think the program as planned and intended works pretty well. I don't have an issue with some MBs earned at summer camp or at MB days or whatever you want to call them. I would like to see at least some MBs earned individually though. It seems like some adults have interpreted the G2SS requirements as meaning scouts can't earn MBs individually because they can't meet one on one with a Counselor so everyone wants to offer a class of some kind. The scouts go along because no one has ever told them there are other ways to earn MBs and why bother if they're pre-programed classes by well meaning adults. As SemperPar said, why not wait until the next MB University or summer camp? Now getting the program back on track? Baby steps, I keep telling myself. Baby steps in the right direction. Among other things, scouting taught me patience. Baby steps from me, others.... ..What did Arlo say it took to start a movement? SA

Gee Beav, good question. I'll admit I don't think I have an answer, but I'll share my thoughts. I would not have a big problem with the double dipping issue. It sounds like if the scout fulfills 4d of the MB requirement, he would also complete, 9a of the 1st class requirements. If I was asked to sign off on 9a because a scout came to me and said he did this in Canoeing MB, I'd talk to him a little to confirm he was aware of the safe trip afloat precautions and sign it. I do share your concerns with Parental sign offs though. I also make a point not to sign off on my son's advancements. The only time I have ever done so has been a few times when he has been part of a group and I've gone over a particular requirement for a group a scouts. Now if there is a rule, that specifically says parents can't sign off on their son's requirements I'm not aware of it. I wish there was one. I know in the troop I serve, it is not necessarily forbidden, but it is frowned upon. Generally we do not have a problem with parents signing their own son's advancement records. If it's just this one requirement and your fairly certain the scout is aware of the safety afloat plans, I'd let it go. If this starts to become a habit, where it looks like a significant percentage of the requirements are signed off by a parent, I'd have a talk with the scout and politely let him know he's not a Webelos anymore and he should seek out someone other than his parents for advancement signing. Just my thoughts. Good question though. SA

Lone guy. Ok, your list of disasters is impressive, and the point taken. Maybe this isn't the biggest disaster in the last 50 years, just one that's gotten more press. Still doesn't mean the US government shouldn't respond. As I said before, you and I don't have a line item veto on our taxes, whether it's for defense, humanitarian aid, military procurement of toilet seats, promotion of private industries, delivering the mail, AMTRAK, loans to airlines, social security, medicare, star wars missile defense systems, NASA, weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't want, absurd research projects or anything else. Believe me, overall, I'm probably much more dissatisfied the way this current administration is spending our taxes than you are. Aid to this disaster is one thing I can agree with and I think critisism of the President on the issue was unfair to say the least. If you don't like what the President is doing with your tax dollars, vote for someone else or another party next time. He was elected to, among other things, decide how our tax dollars should be spent and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, decide where and how they should be used. As a taxpayer you have every right to complain how your taxes are spent, or how much your taxed. You don't have the right to decide how they are spent. You only get to decide on who to vote for and hope the winner makes the right decisions. I suppose you could start a ballot petition to have a specific question added to an election specifying the government may not fund a specific activity, such as provide aid to Asia. I don't know if that would be legal or not. I'm not sure you'd get very far with such an initiative, but you have every right to give it a go. I hope that's what you'd teach in a citizenship MB. On the other hand I saw this article in Business Week. http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/050103/nf200412305024_db042_1.html It may cheer you up a bit. It indicates the majority of relief costs will likely be paid by private donations, not governments. It also provides some information on what to look for in making donations, and cautions on making donations that may not be as helpful as you might think. SA

Yes, we count working at the Pinewood Derby as service hours. We don't do this as a troop activity. The Cubmaster usually comes to a troop meeting and asks for volunteers to help out. The scouts that do volunteer give up a Saturday to help out others, that happen to be Cub Scouts. It is not their unit, and they and the troop derive no direct benefit from their work, other than the service hours awarded and the good will they generate with the Cub Pack. SA

Just some thoughts. The situation in SE Asia right now is unprecedented in our life time. About the only other time the world has seen such suffering on such a massive scale in the last 50-60 years was probably WWII, and the US stepped up to the plate and provided massive relief to countries that had previously been our enemies. Personally, I will give this administration the benefit of the doubt. I think the initial criticism was directed at a quoted figure of aid of $15 million. I also believe this figure was determined before the full enormity of what had happened was fully understood. This figure happened to hit the news just as casualty figures seemed to be rising exponentially and from a Public Relations standpoint the timing was horrible and provided some fodder for those looking to critisize the US and the current administration on anything they could get a hold of. Not that I believe that aid should be given based on PR. Since then the administration has fully commited to doing what it can do to help those in need and is doing so. Just as importantly the American public has been donating privately to relief efforts in record numbers. I havn't heard much critism about the level of relief effort in the last few days. As far as tax dollars go, well the government spends billions of dollars on programs I don't necessarily believe the government should be spending money on either. I vote for those legislators and leaders that I hope will make the best decisions on how to tax me and spend my tax money. I recognize that once elected, those leaders have the lawful authority to make those decisions. Those that complain about the commitment the US government has made should complain to President Bush. He is the one that has made these decisions. If they don't like it, try and find a candidate that will commit to not providing international aid in a time of crisis or one that will demand concessions for humanitarian aid and vote for them. I felt no sympathy for anti-war protestors that refused to pay taxes because some of their tax money went to the military and I don't have sympathy for those that feel current tax dollars are being spent inappropriately in the current relief effort. We don't get to individually decide which programs our tax dollars go to and which ones they don't. We do get to elect those that make those decisions. The US has taken on the role of being the world's lone super power, militarily and economically. Our military has unique capabilties to move material and provide aid on a scale and time frame no one else can. I certainly don't agree with every decision President Bush has made, darn few in fact. However in this instance I agree with his decision to provide the kind of aid he has committed to, both militarily and financially. If he decides to commit more, I'll understand as well,... over and above any private donations I make. SA

I'll admit I'm not familiar with the award, but if the award is given for "volunteer service by the military for service members." as NWscouter says I don't see how the change in status of DOD units would effect the award. In fact, one of the issues with the DOD acting as a charter organization was the claim that some commanding officers were ordering subordinates to support or participate in scouting activities. This would hardly be "volunteer" service in such cases. SA

Barry, Your're absolutely right, I agree with everything you've said and you've correctly described what I should do. First, since the corrupt system was so widespread, it took me a while to figure out that the District was doing things differently than other Districts. Second, right after I started to realize how messed up things were, a new District Advancement Chair had been appointed, and I had a discussion with him after one of the Eagle BORs. He recognized the problem, and indicated he would be makeing some changes. I told him if he needed help or support to give me a call. That was 18 months ago. However, while I was willing to help, I confess my first reaction had been, phew! finally someone will do something and I don't have to feel as guilty for just letting things go. We now also have a new DE so I'm hoping things will change. They probably will, but I'm reminded of the term, "Glacial Speed". For my part, I have concentrated my efforts on how the Troop approaches MBs. We no longer have extended MB classes at Troop meetings. Occaisonally there will be a group activity coordinated by and MB counselor such as a visit to a facility or something but there are not classes, per se. I have tried to get the scouts to pursue MBs on their own or in small groups and coodinate with one of the troop counselors. The result has been fewer MBs awarded, but a wider variety. In past years a typical COH might have 20 scouts earning the same one MB, outside summer camp or the MBU . This year we had 4 First Aids, A couple of Citizen MBs, and one or two others, many completion of partials earned at summer camp. And while I recognize the advancement issue, frankly I derive more satisfaction and fun out of helping with the Troop's outdoor program. This year we will be taking a trip to High Knoll and the experience will help the scouts meet the requirements of the Camping and Backpacking MBs. The primary purpose of the trip is to have fun, but we can meet many of the requirements for these MBs along the way. This maybe selfish of me, but it keeps me involved in scouting. I can only slay so many windmills at a time and so far I still try to do a real job and maintain a real life at the same time. But, I appreciate the reminder and promise to bring the issue up again with the District Adv. Chair. And I do love this scouting stuff as well. Hope this hasn't side tracked the thread. For the record, I don't think advacement policies should differ from District to District. Whether its the use of Blue Cards or setting a limit on the number of badges an MBC can counsel. SA

This may come as a small shock to some, but some Districts, like ours, don't use Blue Cards. Nearly all the merit badges earned by scouts in the troop I serve are earned at summer camp, Merit Badge Univerisities, or ocaisonnally offered at the Troop level or sometimes a specific camporee. None use Blue Cards. Like Eagle in KY there is no list of District MBCs for scout to go to beyond the Troop level. There is a Merit Badge Application that is filled out and turned in and signed by the MBC when the MB is complete. These, I keep with the Troop files. The only documentation that is asked for on Eagle Applications, that I've ever been asked for as the Advancement Chair for the Troop I serve is usually a signed copy of the Individual Advancement Report from Troopmaster. It only shows the dates of MB completion. I've sat in on a couple of Eagle BORs and have asked the question if the scout has ever taken the initiative to earn a MB outside of camp, an MBU, Camporee or the troop and usually get a blank stair, like "How else would you earn a MB.?" I don't like this arrangement but it is the way it is at the District Level. It's not a matter of an individual unit "tweaking" the program. To most scouts and scouters in this district this is the way it's been for so long, this is considered the way it's supposed to be. SA

I don't know about over bearing, but I do see they've censored the thread on censorship. I tend to agree though that a certain thread that degenerated into a debate on the pros and cons of a specific member probably was not appropriate. It was kind of like talking behind someone's back, right in front of them while everyone else listened in. (Don't know if that last sentence makes sense, but it does to me.) Instead of outright locking the thread maybe they could have issued a warning? Now it remains to be seen if they will censor this thread discussing the censorship of thread on censorship. SA

We usually do at least one serious winter camp in northern New England in Jan or Feb each year. Serious means we typically encounter sub-zero temperatures on these trips. Heck we've encountered snow on our camping trips in every month between October and May over the years so when one says winter camping to me, that means plenty of snow(> 2 ft) and cold(at least single digits). Otherwise its just regular camping. The real motivation that is needed for us, more often than not, is the parents of the younger scouts. They just don't believe their little one could survive a night outside in the winter. Eventually most come around. But the winter campout is not popular with everyone. Some like it and others don't. We usually rent snowshoes or cross-country skis. Sometimes there will be a hill nearby and the scouts will bring something to slide on. Build igloos, snow sculptures. A must have... a roaring fire with bottomless pots of coffee and hot chocolate. The thing I like about winter camping is it really hits home the need for planning. But there is nothing like looking up at a cloudless, mid-winter sky at night, when the air itself seems like its frozen and seeing the stars. SA

I will simply say a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all and thanks for a great year of scouter education. SA