Twocubdad

Hopefully the leaders have enough insight to pick up on what is and isn't appropriate with each Scout. Generally speaking, anything which is passes off as "boys will be boys" probably isn't. But I think folks have to realize this is just how guys interact. There is a fine line which can be crossed. I would want to know who's doing the complaining? If it's the Scout who is the target of the teasing, there's an issue. If not, it may be someone who doesn't have the understanding of the relationship between the principals do. I have a few boys with very self-deprecating senses of humor. They're the first to point out their own foilbles. Others, including adults, tend to pick up on it. I have one kid in particular who is always making jokes at his own expense. I sat in on a Philmont planning session recently where this scout and the crew advisor -- who has worked with the Scout since Tigers -- were dishing it back and forth pretty well. I happened to notice everyone in the room was having fun with it -- except the Scout's mom. I mentioned this to the advisor and said he and he Scout have picked at each other like this for years. Knowing the two of them and watching the situation, I think he's right. But he's smart enough to understand the danger of a mad mamma bear. I think you have to listen and pay attenti on when someone mentions this. In both the OP and the situation with my guys, it's good to reassess your perception and even talk it out amongst y'alls. But I also think it is incumbent upon the person who is offended to let the other guys know when the line is crossed.

Even better -- make it a Troop activity. Have a mom come in and use instruction time for a week or two to talk about grocery shopping, then take the whole troop to the store. Before the first campout with the new Scout, the Troop Guides meet them at the grocery store and runs the whole patrol through the process.

Handled by each patrol. The boys take turns serving as patrol grubmaster. The PL works together during their patrol meetings to come up with a menu then expand that into a shopping list. We have a menu planning worksheet the patrols can use which also includes a column for the gear they will need, but the more experienced patrols/Scouts often forgo the form. Best practice is for everyone ot give th GM $20 BEFORE he goes to the store. The GM does the shopping and any repackaging or prep work needed. He is also responsible for food safety, so he packs perishables in a cooler or freezing and wrapping them, etc., depending on the type of campout. If the patrol all kicked in the $20 to the GM before hand, he will have correct change for everyone based on the actual cost of food. Depending on the number of meals, campout food actually runs in the $12-$15 range. Contributiing $20 ensures the GM has enough money and makes making change easier. If the GM failed to collect the money in advance, it is his responsibility to collect his money on the backend. In which case, his parents probably fronted the money and are out if someone doesn't pay their share. And yes, we rely on the parents to help their son with this -- taking him shopping, etc.

Probably a next week after things settle out issue, but I'd like to see a rundown of the new features. Like the comment button, messaging and customizing my settings. I don't quite understand the descriptions of items in the privacy settings, so I've left them at default for now. The new "active topics" link is a big help and I think is how many of the regulars interface the site. Thanks. I've already made it one of my home pages. Moose- I've worked around the pagination thing temporarily by resetting my posts per page to the max (40, I think). That gives me all but the longest threads and would be my preference anyway.

But the real question is, is there a square knot for it?

Since much of our southern border is in arid areas, I'm thinkiing the moat unpractical, but I'm okay with the fence. And don't forget the economic means of stemming illegal immigration WHICH WE HAVE YET TO TRY like stiff fines to US employers who hire illegals and cutting off their benefits to those who come here breaking our laws. I have a good friend who works for the state unemployment office here. She is FORBIDDEN to do report obvious illegals applying for unemployment. She once had 10 individuals come in together and try to apply for unemployment using 10 IDENTICAL Social Security cards. Her boss told her all she could do was to decline their claim because they lacked a proper SSN, but could do nothing about the attempted fraud or immigration violations. It wasn't her job. I absolutely agree part of our immigration problem is we make it impossible to immigrate here legally. We have two different friends -- well educated, productive, tax-paying folks -- one married to a US citizen -- who came here legally decades ago who have been put through the ringer paying tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees just because some ICE regulation changed. My brother-in-law, who works at a very level in the tech industry, frequently has PhD-level engineers who hold US patents being deported because their student visas expire. Absolutely stupid. We have to fix that. And if there are areas of the economy which would benefit from unskilled labor, fine. And I agree a 20-year-old kid who was brought here illegally at age two needs to be given the means to gain citizenship. But the cutoff for being here needs to be 2010, not 2015. Fixing the pump doesn't help without plugging the holes too.

Unless we're willing to get serious about border security, entitlement benefits for illegals, penalties for hiring them, and a more reasonable process for legal immigration whatever we do now will mean nothing. Ten years from now we'll have a new crop of 11 million illegals here demanding Dream Act II.

I like the fact we have the quirky thing with silver and gold. Makes people stop and think and the reasoning is a good point of conversation. Silver represents service and Scouting honors service to other. And besides, we need to quit tinkering with stuff for the sake of tinkering. It's like a dog wizzin' on a bush. The dog really doesn't have to go, he just wants everyone to know he's been there.

Write your thoughts on a piece of paper, put it in a bottle and throw it overboard. Same effect.

"No, really, we're like family. It will be like sleeping with my sister." I can totally hear my guys trying to sell that. I only have one brother and two sons, so I have no idea what it's like to grow up with a sister. Sharing a room may be acceptable, but sharing a tent is more like sleeping together in a twin bed. That may work when you're 6 or 8, but at 16 or 17 I'd say it's pretty creepy. How about communal showers? But maybe you're right, Beav, and that's sorta my point. If sleeping and getting nekkid in front of folks who may be sexually attracted to each other is okay, then there's no problem. But then we should see a dumping of the YP rules for co-ed crews. If it's not okay, then we need to figure out how these rules and assumptions apply in a troop with gay Scouts. Units at either extreme of the membership options -- either a total ban on gays or total acceptance with no reservations -- have it relatively easy. Units which want to try to be accommodating but still maintain reasonable standards for what is proper have a whole lot of grey area to figure out.

My son in college shares a four-bedroom apartment with two girls and a gay guy. But at age 21 he can A) take care of himself, and B) do what he dang well pleases anyway. I don't have an issue with his living arrangement. But trust me, if he were 14 he would not be sharing living space with those three people, even for a weekend campout. One element which seems to be absent from this conversation is the huge spread in maturity levels of Scouts between age 11 and 18. If it became known that one of my 17-y.o. Eagle Scout son's regular tent mates is gay, I probably wouldn't be too concerned about him continuing to share a tent with that fellow. Like his brother, I trust his judgement and his ability th handle himself. And if he's been sharing a tent with the same guys since Cub Scouts, I hardly see the point. But if the my son were 13, and he a 17-y.o. gay kid joins his patrol, the two of them is going to be a BIG problem. Likewise, if I have an 11-year old in the troop and found out there was an older gay Scout in the troop, I would be greatly concerned. Not because of I fear the gay Scout seducing or abusing my son, but because I would not want my child in that sort of environment. I would feel exactly the same way if Scouting suddently accepted girls and the older boys and girls were allowed to share tents. That is not the sort of influences I would want my son exposed to. I'm having a difficult time getting past the comparison of how we handle the logistics of mixed-sex groups with how we will potentially handle the logistics of having a gay Scout in the troop. We keep boys and girls separate for a lot of reasons -- to avoid temptations, to avoid the appearance of impropriety, to protect the privacy of the individuals. We don't make exceptions for boy-girl couples because we don't think they're actually having sex. Neither do we make exceptions if the boy and girl have grown up together and are long-time friends. Hell, we don't even allow adults in long-term committee relationship share a tent unless they are legally married. Maybe I'm just a dinosaur here and don't understand how things work these days. I'd love some to explain it to me.

I understand, I just think it's being handled poorly. They thought through 80% or the the process. Obviously, the 800 pound gorilla are the kids who are close to Eagle and will have to go back and earn cooking. Clearly, plenty of lead time is appropriate for them. But how stupid is this for my Scout or Tampa's son?

I see danger in forcing units to confront an issue which has, until now, been off the table. Rather like the social upheval in eastern Europe when Soviet control ended. We've all been fat, dumb and happy not having to deal with the issue. We've joined units with little regard to what the CO or unit leadership believes about gay membership, because it mattered only to a very few. All of a sudden it does. I don't see much good coming from having this discussion in our unit. Few of our families are members of our CO, a church, but the church has always been very welcoming of community members, that is non-members of the church. I know our COR has fairly conservative views on the matter. Not a member of the church myself, I don't know exactly what their policies are. but I'm fairly sure they trend toward the conservative side. I've got a meeting with the IH and COR nex week to discuss it. I know the families in our unit are all over the board on this. We are in a fairly affluent area and our families tend to be successful and well educated. While many folks are conservative in all matters, many also tend to be more libertarian on social issues. If our CO comes out with a fairly hard-line policy, I can see many folks being very upset. Sure, they can go down the street to a unit more in keeping with their values, but really? Even if we just trade members -- reshuffling registration based on your opinion on sexual orientations -- how much turmoil will the units and programs go through on account of that? How many members will leave and not bother to go to another unit? How many volunteers will we loose? How many friendships will be broken? As a general principle I'm as great an advocate of free-markets as anyone. In the long-term I think it will be healthy for families to have a real choice in selecting troops and programs which match their values. But history and economics tell us that free markets create losers -- the proverbial buggy whip manufactures. I have no doubt there will be units torn apart by this. Look at the contentiousness here in our virtural community. I also fear it will also be a waste. Units go through all this hell and then never have a homosexual seek membership? We destroy programs over a hypothetical? If we know anything about BSA it is their ability to rollout and implement program changes is one of the worst things they do. I have very little hope this massive sea change will be done in any sort of orderly fashion. I predict national will simply throw up its hands and tell the COs "you decide." No guidance, no process, no commissioner help, no suggested unit policy drafts. I have the image from Blazing Saddles of Rev. Johnson, having the Bible shot out of his hand then leaning to Sheriff Bart and saying, "Son, you're on your own."

That's what I thought. But does that not seem illogical? For all intent, it IS required for the boy to earn Eagle. He cannot possibly make Eagle before Jan. 1. So why create this silly back and forth limbo thing?

This just occurs to me: Why does the advancement chair have any say about Scoutmaster Conferences? Does the AC screen Scouts before they talk to the SM?

I think the answer to this question is "NO" but I've not seen this addressed directly anywhere, so I'll throw it out there: I know Cooking is required for Eagle as of Jan. 1, 2014, but how about for Star and Life. I have a Scout now who ALREADY EARNED Cooking and wants to use it as one of his required MBs for Star. Can anyone cite something one way or the other? Fred? Benelon?

Jeeez, it's nice to have an active thread on something beside membership policy! Yeah, that's pretty ticky-tack. I've got four or five uniform shirts and don't have the same quality unit patch on any two -- and I don't think I have a 2012 patch on any of them. I think it is wholly appropriate for a parent to help a Scout figure out what HE wants to do. There a LOTs of great citizenship lessons here: deciding what battles are worth fighting, how to go about raising an appeal in a courteous, respectful way, standing up for yourself and what you think is right. Cue up just about any Kenny Rogers song. Kids in similar situations are either afraid "they'll never make Eagle if they make a fuss" or something equally silly, or go off the deep end tilting at windmills. Work with your son and guide him to an appropriate response. I also think it appropriate for a parent to keep a distant eye on things and make sure you boys is being treated right. If the troop advancement guy is really the jerk you describe (and I've met one or two of them) he may not respond well to being challenged by a whipper-snapper. Then again, a real Scouter will see the boy doing just exactly we ask of them, when they see an un-just law they work for it's change through appropriate means. As a matter of fact, I'd suggest your son re-read and become conversant with the description of "A Scout is Obedient" in the handbook. The section from the Guide to Advancement regarding uniforms and Board of Review is posted above. There is also a section on appeals he should read. The full Guide to Advancement is on line at Scouting.org. Fr Star, I believe appeals are handled by the troop committee. Your son should ask his SM for the procedure. Finally, your conversation needs to include a conversation about end-game. It is possible not everyone in the troop has seen Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. It could get ugly and you need to make you son aware of those possibilities and what the end of that trail looks like to. I know this kinda sucks right now and isn't the program we really envision, but in the big picture of learning citizenship and how to make ethical decisions, this could be one of the best lessons your son learns in Scouting.

Naaah. What does your son think? It's his issue to deal with. I hope you are simply looking for perspective so you can give him guidance and aren't thinking this is something you need to address yourself. You don't really give enough information about how the situation was handled to really offer an opinion. I can think of a number of circumstances under which your son's outcome would have been acceptable. Is the troop's expectations clearly communicated? As a Star candidate, he should know what the troop's expectations are. Does your son's troop do frequent uniform inspections so he would have been aware of the problem? Was the situation handled in a helpful, friendly way? I could see handing a kid the patch, a needle and thread and helping him sew it on. In fact, one time I had a kid show up for a BOR without his uniform. We rather made a joke of it and his patrol mates started stripping down, giving him various parts of their uniforms and borrowing stuff out of the uniform closet. The kid wound up looking like hell, but he was in a full uniform. Learning occurred and everyone had a good time with it. On the other hand, if the leadership handled it like a bunch of pompus, pedantic twits; if they make it a "gotcha" session; didn't try to create a learning opportunity or behave in a Scoutlike manner, I'd have an issue with them.

Scouts should have opportunity to use and practice the skills many times before he is tested and recognized. EXACTLY! There are a couple parts to providing that opportunity. Hopefully, many of the basic skills are used organically -- you go camping and boys build fires and cook, set up patrol flies using the proper knots, navigation, etc. Other skills which are not frequently used in a normal course require some contrivance -- like a lashing competition between patrols or a first aid review day. The other part of that is motivation. Some skills have their own, obvious motivation -- you want to eat and stay warm, right? People are motivated by different things -- some kids may simply enjoy a particular activity; some may be motivated by the challenge of mastering a skill; some may enjoy the simple sense of accomplishment. But some folks may need need more external motivation. This is where advancement SHOULD come in. If boys know they will be RESPONSIBLE for maintaining a realitive level of proficiency in a skill, they may be more motivated to participate in programs involving basic skills or to occasionally practice the skill themselves or even pick up a piece of rope or their first aid merit badge book and brush up before a Scoutmaster's Conference or Board of Review. Of course that's not the be-all, end-all of the program, advancement or otherwise. It's simply another arrow the unit should have in it's quiver to help instill in the boys responsibility, preparation, self-reliance and other values at the core of the program.

The award has been around for years, the pack just chose not to award it. The details of how the pack tracks it doesn't really matter. As part of it's descretionary criteria, I assume the pack could have included retroactive attendance if it chose to do so. Regardless, I wouldn't die on this hill. On the other hand, I think it's a little distasteful for the dad to be out mining bling for his son. Does the kid really have to have every little doodad?

If approved, prepare for a flood of media stories everytime some local CO exercises it's local option to exclude gays. Or if national totally reverses the ban unconditionally, the stories will be on local units which treat gays poorly. Or, as Merlyn alludes, the focus will switch to the ban athiests. It won't end.

> While doing it once and getting it signed off may be what National wants, Just curious, where in any advancement literature from national does it say that? Everywhere it says "No Retesting". It's the same thing. Everywhere the BSA pushes First Year/First Class it's pushing one and done. Ten kids in new Scout patrol, monthly camping and everyone has to serve a patrol cook within the year. Do the math. Of course BSA never uses the phrase "once and done." It's a somewhat pejorative short hand which coveys both the facts and sentiments. Kinda like describing troops which expect Scouts to take their Boards of Review seriously by wearing their uniforms and bringing their handbooks as "administrative roadblocks."

Why tie that to advancement OGE? Wouldn't that be a better fit with something like Journey to Excellence? By tying program evaluation to advancement are you not skewing your inputs toward active Scouts who are advancing? Wouldn't the committee receive better information if all Scouts were "reviewed" on a regular basis? And shouldn't the BOR members have primary responsibilities for program evaluation, like the CC or COR? Or at least have the same folks conduct EVERY BOR so they can more readily spot trends and issues? If the purpose of the BOR is to allow the youth to evaluate the unit's program, it is really poorly designed for that purpose.

We went skiing this weekend with 38 people. As best I can figure, I need 147 copies of the Near Miss Incident Information Report (No. 680-017).

Rediculosly, insanely broad and over-reaching. Was is Lincoln who said the best way get rid of a bad law is by it's strict enforcement? I think we should all follow this to a "T" and report every unplanned incident which results in harm to a person, property or the environment. Next time a Scout pees on a tree, I'm writing it up. Trash bag rips and last night's baked bean dump on the ground, out come the forms. Scout is leaning back in a chair and a slat breaks, my DE gets a call. I'm giddy with excitement.