83Eagle

Last time I checked, George III wasn't popularly elected, nor was he subject to reelection. I suspect if the citizens of Wisconsin don't like what's going on, he will be defeated, or recalled.

See what I get for not searching back 4+ years in the forums? :-)

I'm with moosetracker on this one. I would not have given an alternative because they still get something fun, that you will end up doing by yourself. I'm not meaning to be critical, it is just not the approach I would have taken. I noted in another thread that you mentioned "Scouting would be fantastic if you could exclude the parents." Now, I get the gist of what you are saying there, and here, but think of the fact that these two thoughts do not reconcile. On one hand, you want more parents involved, on the other hand, you want to exclude them. As I said, I get the gist of it--parents are the ones who can suck the joy out of a program--but these two contradictory viewpoints may be shaping the way that you are posing your requests to parents. You have to make it sound like it's fun to volunteer, as well as a requirement. I am thinking that you do not have kids of your own in this Pack? My memory on that is not clear but I think you are trying to "rescue" it, or something. If you do have a son of your own in it, you can also mention that when you talk to other parents. When I explained to parents that over the past 3 years, I have not been at one event where I have just been able to spend time with my son like the other parents (the "leader's kid" syndrome), that did connect with quite a few of them. Otherwise, you gotta be willing to follow through with the "volunteer or else" approach. And as always approaching people directly is what works best. Be prepared for blowback on that approach, however. I had a parent berate me for being heavy-handed and leave in a huff. This was the minority and fortunately most parents "get it." But there will be a contingent of parents who feel that this is "the job you signed up for" (as I was told) and they shouldn't have to do anything. It's the little league effect where they can just drop off and the coach does it all. Perhaps that will not bother you, but I was not prepared for it the first time, which is why I came up with the "I'm a dad too" approach, which seems to connect better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kxc6kzH-uI(This message has been edited by 83eagle)

Last time I checked, Wisconsin had a legislature, albeit one where Democrat members are AWOL, and a judicial branch. If there was truly a king Scott, proclamations would be all that is necessary to effect any legislation being proposed.

It is a revenue shortfall. Pretty much same as the last time Why not covered this time around? Two main reasons: Reason #1: No massive federal stimulus infusion this time around (not sure of the exact amount, just going from memory, at least a billion I think) Reason #2: Public hue and cry about raiding segregated funds to pay for the general funds. Folks got a little miffed when the previous guv used the transportation budget plus who knows what else to balance the ledger. Some of that was taken to court and found to be unconstitutional and the state is in the midst of paying fines/restitutions/something on that as well. Why not "Tax the rich?" Well, Walker said he wouldn't, so he is doing what he campaigned on, and you can't fault him for that. Well, you can still fault him but people elected him based on that campaign pledge, so you get what you get. Or as I've heard somewhere along the line, "Elections have consequences." Like I said, this shortfall is not a surprise to anyone in the state and was projected by both the outgoing and incoming administrations, with the difference only in the degree of severity. The above stuff is VERY anecdotal on my part but you can look up the details with a little reseach, if you're so inclined.(This message has been edited by 83eagle)

I don't know, could be! All I know is in my experience with the teachers' union, the priorities are, in order: union interests, teachers' interests, students' interests, parents' interests. I taught in middle school, but now I am in the private sector. As a teacher, it was frustrating to know that there was no opportunity for merit/performance-based pay. As a parent it has been frustrating to see mediocre or even poor teachers protected because of seniority. I am painting with a broad brush here admittedly, but I can give specific examples. Here's one: we (parents) used to be recruited by teachers to come and help in the classroom as volunteers--reading, making copies, generally helping out. When the district needed to lay off a number of paid teachers' aides for budget reasons, a concession that had to be made to the union was that parents were no longer allowed to come help in the classroom. That's proof of my priority order cited above. And I ask you, how does that help our children?(This message has been edited by 83eagle)

>>How do we increase the effectiveness of Public Education, are Unions needed or not? Do they help or hurt or are a non-factor? I recognize the need for Unions, but do they have a place in Education or again, is this just a red herring? I prefer to let Bob Chanin, former NEA General Counsel, answer that question: "Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas; it is not because of the merit of our positions; it is not because we care about children; and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of million of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them; the union that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees."

Calico, you'll have to call the previous governor to get it explained: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/109275069.html Again, this deficit is NO SURPRISE to anyone paying attention. Regarding the "surplus" in the remaining budget as was widely and erroneously reported by the likes of Rachel Maddow, it NEVER existed. It was contrived by looking at money in the bank, but without looking at upcoming liabilities. In other words, if you have $100 in the bank and you write a $200 check with no income coming in, do you have a surplus at that point in time? Apparently in the minds of some.

>>To my mind, none of what you have said justifies a sitting Governor taking upon himself the unitary powers of a monarch. Do you disagree? I agree.

One more thing as it relates to the WI situation in specific. The state union contract has been expired since mid-2009 if my understanding is correct. Over 16 months, and with a 100% Democrat-controlled legislature and executive branch, a contract could not be agreed upon which would make this whole issue pretty much moot at this point. As has been said, the unions played chicken with the budget and lost. This time around there is no massive infusion of federal "stimulus" funds to make up the state budget shortfall.

>>The workers have given Walker what he claims to want in cost-cutting. The right to collectively bargain doesn't affect the budget under those conditions. Simply not true. The big problem is the 3.5 billion dollar budget shortfall. That is being made up in the budget almost exclusively by reduction in expenses at both the state and local (revenue sharing) level. Now before you argue "Tax the rich!," Walker campaigned on a platform of balancing the budget with no tax increases. So his course of action is no big surprise, despite the hue and cry being made now. As a matter of fact, pre-election flyers sent out by public sector unions warned of this exact scenario based on Walker's experience in Milwaukee. Again, this is no big surprise to anyone who had been paying attention. So what's up with collective bargaining and why is it a budget item? Well, local governments need the flexibility to address to address the reduction in local revenue without being constrained by collective bargaining over NON-WAGE issues (keep in mind they can still bargain for WAGE issues). Otherwise, thousands of workers will need to be laid off. That's just a fact and is basic mathematics. It is a finite sum of money that the state can spend. It cannot simply roll the printing presses like our federal government. The dirty little secret here is that, even if the Walker plan passes as written, municipalities are completely free to continue to provide whatever benefit levels the public sector unions desire, should they wish to do so! In fact, after the Walker announcement, Milwaukee quickly rushed to get contracts resigned in order to "lock in" higher benefit levels for its public employees! This makes absolutely no sense because they could have done this at any time no matter what--so all this has done is made it more difficult for the area to respond to the shared revenue shortfall in the months ahead. (Read: Layoffs.) Everyone needs to understand that this is NOT about the "little guy." The union leadership doesn't give a darn about you. If the union is so great, why do we hear this continued complaint about how underpaid public sector employees are? Why didn't they do a better job advocating for you then? The truth is the little guy is gonna get screwed no matter what, whether by the union or by the employer, either in benefits/salary or layoffs. It will happen. It is basic math. This, as always, is about power, and which "side" is going to blink first.

"Gay" will never again be "happy." Saying that someone left a "niggardly" tip will probably get you tossed out of the restaurant. You might be tempted to "smoke a fag" but someone might turn you in for a hate crime. Language evolves--or devolves--and unfortunately some terms are best left on the pages of the dictonary.

Unions institutionalize mediocrity by preventing performance-based rewards and demanding termination based on seniority rather than merit. When I worked at a union shop I was warned not to be too productive or I'd "break the rate." Public sector unions are especially bad because they sit on both sides of the table, negotiating with people who they've paid to put into office. Get rid of 'em all.

Got notice of a new raingutter kit, a trimaran: http://www.scoutstuff.org/BSASupply/ItemDetail.aspx?cat=01RTL&ctgy=PRODUCTS&c2=NEW&c3=&c4=&lv=2&item=612513&SRC=ET&ET_CID=ET_trimiran_03012011&Page=online&ET_RID={6b7fc908-a77f-4ca7-8c34-2a7db5b46b60} The online specs say not to be raced in the same class as regular regatta boats but I haven't seen the box to see if this is printed on it. I can see this being an issue if some boys show up having built this kit that says "Raingutter Regatta" on the box though.

"Sorry, Johnny. I know you worked very hard to earn these badges. You helped the community by doing scouting for food and got a really cool patch from the council. You went to summer camp and got a patch for being a chaplain's assistant. You built a pinewood derby car, rocket, and boat and got patches for doing your best in all those activities. And your parents bought you a vest where you can proudly display these patches. But you see, at this very important event, you can't wear your vest and patches, because as it turns out they're really not 'official.' Hope you understand. Keep working on that badge handbook and be sure to sell lots of popcorn!" Good grief! What an idiotic decision. Let 'em wear it. We should be doing everything we can to encourage boys to be interested in and proud of their accomplishments in the program. It's an "offical" vest even if it isn't on the inspection sheet. And it's covered by patches the cub has received from participating in Scouting activities. The fact that someone would try to prohibit this, makes me question who they are in the program for--themselves or the boys.

But I am so dense about sewing, this looks to me like you need to cut TWO of these patterns and sew them together? Is that right? No, you only cut one because the material is folded where it says "fold" The fold ends up in the middle of the back of the vest. Cut out the pattern and sew it along the top, turn it so the seam is on the inside and you are done. You probably want to try pinning it together where you are going to sew, before you sew it, to make sure you're sewing in the right place. :-)

Felt the need to bump this now for some reason.

Yeah, but the program is Cub Scouts, not Parent Scouts. Enthusiasm is infectious. Obviously not everybody can make every camp so I end every pitch with, "don't worry, if you can't make winter camp, come to spring camp," etc. You don't want to punish kids who have uninvolved parents, but at the same time parents are supposed to be involved so we're not going to strip down the program to the detriment of families who want to jump in feet first. And our parents and committee are on board with the direction being taken. Also, when we have activities, I try to find ones where I can give parents either/or choices to help, not yes/no. In other words, "parents, you can decide whether you want to help out at station a, b, or c." There are still one or two holdouts that sit on the bleachers but it's to the point where they look like the odd ducks out. And I'm toying with the idea of not pulling out the bleachers......

One more thing Seattle, since I guess I completely stole this thread. I go over the parents heads...to the boys. There aren't too many boys in a Pack that don't want to go camping. So make them sell it to the parents. For instance, interest in a winter camp was running a little light. So I brought in a golf club, a whiffle ball, and an orange cone. Who can guess what this is for, I asked. Lots of answers. I'm not telling, you gotta come to winter camp to find out. Who wants to go sledding? Who wants to go snowshoeing? Who wants to sit in the cold snow around a warm campfire and eat s'mores and drink hot cocoa? Etc etc etc. By that time the boys are in a frenzy... "Well, you gotta make sure your family turns in their winter camp form!" 40 heads turn on a swivel to look at parents behind them... Works better than passing out a flyer.

There is no secret. Start small and build. Actually our first was a "day into night" camp for our den a few years back where we started at lunch, outdoor flag ceremony, did campfire cooking, earned the flag football and hiking belt loops, and ended with a big bonfire after which everyone went home. Made a big billboard of photos to display at the next pack meeting and all the other den boys said, "wow, I wish we could do that." I then volunteered to be the leader to take a group to district camp and we had just a few boys go. So, I did a multimedia presentation for the first pack meeting and this year we have 30 going even though there is no fundraising support. Next was to offer to run Pack campouts. Got the CMs ok and got BALOO trained and off we went. Boys have fun, get the parents involved at the event, next thing you know you have your next campout committee. The first few were a LOT of work on my part and I was pretty much a committee of one, but I knew it was the only way to get a sleepy Pack back out in the wild where it belongs. Success breeds success. No secret there.

I know that one shouldn't get too worked up about things said online, and even less so when said by people you don't know personally, yet I woke up this morning trying to figure out why I still felt so insulted by this whole characterization of Cub Scouts. I mean, it's only natural when you've spent several years of your life putting in how many hours into something you know has value and then people use a broad brush to completely disparage what it is that you do and say that life would be so much better if only the program you're in didn't exist. Well, as I sat here planning some final details for the 4th of our 5 cub scout campouts over the past year, I thought about the criticism about Cub Scouts being an "inside" program. I thought back to our snowshoe outing of last week, our snow tubing outing of about a month ago, and our compass course and geocaching outings of fall, and an outdoor park cleanup service project. Well, I will grant you that the Den meetings do incoroprate some boring "bookwork" stuff along with the types of things I've mentioned above. But then again, we're building model rockets at our Den meeting in April, and it's kinda impractical to launch them inside. It sure seems that we have a bit of an outdoor component to our program. As far as scoutcraft goes, I considered how my son's den continues to learn knot tying. How we worked on different types of fire lays at our campouts. How the boys identified the essential gear to bring along on outdoor hikes. How we assembled basic first aid kits and learned how to use them. How the boys learned how to properly use a knife to earn their whittling chip. And ALL of the above are part of the official program, in case you aren't close to the Cub Scout program any longer, so it's not just our Den doing those things. Now obviously, Cub Scouts is adult led, not boy led, by design--it has to be because of the ages of the boys involved. But the opportunity is there to prepare them for the transition. In my son's den, sometimes the adults set the itinerary, and sometimes the boys are asked to decide on different activities to do. Hence the rocket idea. But, true, the parents are more involved in making those activities happen than in a Troop. So I will continue to argue that Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting are NOT completely different animals. The differences are of degree, not of substance. And, ultimately it comes down to the adults, whether it's in CS or BS. If adults simply have the cubbies cracking the books each week and if their biggest "outing" is the pinewood derby, then it's the decision of the leaders in that program, just like you can have troops that are "merit badge factories" or where adults take charge of the program.(This message has been edited by 83eagle)

Well, Kudu, if that scouting thing doesn't pan out for ya, I think ya got a future in politics.

But then he couples that with what a good idea it would be if Cub Scouting wouldn't exist I never said that! Baloney! And I quote, with elipses for ease of reference, but you can see it all in context at: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=300190&p=1 SeattlePioneer writes: If we weren't going to do anything except the program as it existed in 1916 we would: ... 2) have no Cub Scout program To which Kudu writes: Good riddance. I for one value the years I have spent with my son in the Cub Scout program, and he feels the same. But apparently he would have been better served just waiting around until 6th grade for someone to come to talk to him about Boy Scouts. (This message has been edited by 83eagle)

I think 83Eagle's baseball analogy fails in that when yeh look at Cub Scouting, da major features of boy scouting aren't present. Even in T-ball, yeh swing at balls and run bases and field grounders. It's recognizable as baseball, with accommodations for younger fellows. The disconnect in many cub packs from boy scoutin' is that, aside from uniforms and promises, the rest isn't recognizable to youth or adults as scouting. So in Cub Scouts, you go camping, work on advancements, and learn some simple scoutcraft like knot-tying. But with accomodations for the younger fellows like having the parents involved at every step of the way, allowing "Akela" to sign off on advancements, and not letting the youngun's go off on their own patrol. The difference is that parents understand baseball because they see it and the differences between the "feeder" and the "advanced" program are clear. They see that the tee evolves into a pitcher, that "no outs" evolve into a scored game, and so on. So if a disconnect exists between Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting, it's not because the programs are two entirely different animals, it's that the critical differences and evolutions between the two programs, grounded in the same principals, are not well understood. And who's fault is that? I'm not going to cast blame, but I'm not going to accept blame either or quietly allow it to be laid on the boys who didn't "know better" than to join Cub Scouts.