sherminator505

I had an interesting conversation with one of the employees at out neighborhood Scout Shop. Actually we were talking about the new Venturing shirt, but I think it applies here as well. It seems that lately the changes in uniforms arise from changing suppliers and not from any real need to change the style or satisfy functional requirements (or at least that's what I got out of the conversation). Have any of you encountered similar observations?

In terms of numbers, we're not all that big. We serve 9000+ youth. However, in terms of land area we are HUGE as these youth are spread out over parts of 22 counties in 4 states with a total area of over 60,000 square miles. One end of the council to the other is a six hour drive.

I don't get why you are presenting this as some new idea that Obama just dreamed up as part of his continuing socialist plot. I work in the transportation sector, and I can tell you that this idea has been floating around for at least a decade. It doesn't seem to make sense in a time when most cars are still burning gasoline, but as more electric cars hit the road it'll make a lot more sense.

I think that much of the problem stems from the fact that you are dealing with volunteers. It is easy to require training for personnel under your employ as a condition of employment. It is another matter to place similar requirements on folks who are already donating their time to the movement and occasionally having to take leave from their real jobs to do so. If you want to have trained volunteers, you must first convince them that it is a worthwhile exercise. Then you need go back that up by providing training that is clearly relevant to their Scouting jobs. Finally, you must deliver the training efficiently so that the time requirements are minimized. (Read: why separate leader specific and IOLS?)

BadenP's right. We might have cut off the head, but we still have thousands of radicalized terrorists who would still like to see US dead. This is no time for complacency.

Hey, now! I know I'm not perfect, but I'd like to think I deserve a better end than the armageddon we'd see at the hands of "President Trump!"

I can honestly say that I have not seen a President in my lifetime that I would call an excellent role model. I was born in 1970.

I understand Old_Ox's misgivings about girls in OA, but I hardly see it as the deal-breaker that he does. I will admit that I have misgivings of my own as to how things are now. I do not like seeing 11-12-year-old boys in OA. I wonder if they truly understand the meaning of the Order, the importance of decorum in carrying out ceremonies, and the proper spirit of cheerful service. I also wonder how many of the "sash-and-dash" Arrowmen we often talk about belong in this group. I'd like to see a minimum age for OA comparable to the enterance requirements for Venturing.

JoeBob, Please provide a link to your birth certificate. I have my doubts that you are a real American.

At least you got an e-mail. Hope you didn't drive too far.

Un-American? Here's a question. Why do some of us seem so willing to ascribe this moniker to a sitting President we disagree with politically, when we seem so unwilling to apply the same to "American" corporations that do their very best to ship jobs overseas and offshore their incomes to avoid paying taxes? After all, wasn't Citizens United about these "American" corporations' First Amendment rights?

Patches... uniforms...

Was YP protocol broken in this instance? Yes. Did the SM do something wrong? Probably not, outside of the failure of the SM to realize that "no one-on-one contact" applies to vehicles as well as other situations. Must the SE be notified? Yes. Reason: The SE must do what he does to determine if anything bad has happened here. The answer is probably no and most of us realize that, but it's the SE's job to make that determination. Should this be treated as a major incident? No. The SE can do a low-key investigation, make his conclusions, and most likely everybody involved will walk away, hopefully wiser and more informed about the YP guidelines.

Ah, yes! American Exceptionalism! Too bad we forgot about what created that in the first place and let it get it shipped off piece by piece, leaving us to cling to what is now little more than mythology.

Adults can be a piece of work, no? Sometimes troops have train wrecks. And while it may be a troop that we feel connected to, and we may not care to see the train wreck happen, there are times when we must watch it happen and assist in the recovery efforts. Watching the train wreck means stepping back so as not to become part of the unfolding carnage. My first stint as Scoutmaster arose from a train wreck of sorts. At the time I was a 22 year old ASM when the SM moved on, and although I was interested in the job I was passed over in favor of a slightly older Eagle Scout who came over from another troop. Fine. Whatever. I stayed on as an ASM to help this guy grow into the position and back him up as best I could. Problem was, this guy wasn't growing, and in fact he wasn't nearly as grown up as the committee and COR were led to believe. Several of the boys sensed this and left in what could best be described as a mass exodus. While this was going on, I was fortunate enough to go to Wood Badge on a campership. I tried to convince him that Scoutmaster Fundamentals would be a good idea, but he was so confident in his skills and abilities that he didn't see the need. After a few months of this, the SM was asked to leave. At about the same time, the Methodist church that sponsored the troop got a new pastor with a Scout-age boy! All of a sudden, we had ten boys who were interested in Scouting, and the troop was reborn. Does this mean that I became the Scoutmaster right away? Nope. I worked with one of the troop committee members as "interim co-Scoutmasters" (yes, I realize that is not an "official" troop leadership structure) while the SM search began anew. We almost had one of the new mothers talked into the job. She was gung-ho, she was interested, but she worried that she didn't have the training and she had doubts that the boys would respect a female SM. Still, I honestly thought she'd be our new SM, and I believed that up until the CC walked up to me as the Scouts cleaned up after the meeting and told me the committee wished to speak with me. Thus began my first stint as SM, which lasted for three years until I finished my MS and moved. Forgive my rambling, but my point is that these things do eventually sort themselves out. Don't try to force it.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

IS it a legitimate debate?! If so, explain away the birth notice!

One could also argue that the rebranding of OA as "Scouting's National Honor Society" also contributes to the problem, for similar reasons. Hmm... did I just hijack my own thread?(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Easy! They contribute to the problem by helping to redefine the outdoor program as something "optional" or "in addition to" the "regular" Scouting program. Next...

Did you notice that the states that protested this had not been readmitted to the Union, or would you pay attention to some historical facts and ignore others to make a political point?

In truth, Barack Obama will be born on "the island" about 30 years from now. Everyone knows that!

Her patrol?!

One question that I would have for the birthers is: If Barack Obama were not born in Hawaii, how did the grandparents have the bizarre foresight to run a fake birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper when he was six days old? Were they part of the vast communist-socialist-secret-Muslim-radical-black-Christian cabal that put him into the Presidency?

So would you say that National's apparent indifference to the outdoor program, or training oriented toward citizenship, has no impact on local programs one way or the other?

Does it need to be reformulated? Of course not! It didn't need to be rebranded either, but that's another thread. Now the Order of the Arrow, as well as Scouting as a whole, does need a reminder of why it's here. The order was intended to be a society of honor campers, not some "National Honor Society." It was intended to promote Scout camping, not to provide more bling for uniforms. And its members were to put their units first, not to be "all OA, all the time." Now when the lodge gets together, it really needs to remember the "cheerful" part of cheerful service! It shouldn't simply be "go to the camp, work our tails off, put on Indian costumes and dance around, and then leave." There should be some fun too, and just maybe the advisers need to remind the chiefs of this.

"Why not just go on the site and register someone? If you have someone who wants to participate in OA, make them the OA rep. Am I missing something? Why would this be hard?" I wouldn't be any harder than imposing the original rule the OP is commenting on. In both cases the question is, are you willing to make up new rules as you go along?