CalicoPenn

The more I read it and think about it, the more I'm inclined to believe that the passage merely defines what is a long term camp. Camp is not a long term camp unless it is at least 5 nights and 6 days long. If camp is 7 nights long, it's met the definition of long term camp and all the nights count.

The scholarly work by Gagnon is his opinion based on his interpretation of the source materials he has read. I see no reason to accept his opinion as being any more or any less significant than any one elses opinion. Other biblical scholars say that the bible says nothing about homosexuality - that all of the admonitions on homosexuality (of which there are what, 3?) have nothing to do with homosexuality at all and talk about something completely different but that some folks have interpreted these statements wrongly in order to advance their own agenda. Who is to say these scholars are wrong?

The way I have always interpreted this - right or wrong - is that the long-term camp must be at least 5 nights and 6 days in length. Beyond that, I'd use a reasonable person standard - would it be reasonable to count a 6th night in long term camp for one of the nights? I always said yes because most summer camps run for 6 nights. Beyond that 6th night, not so much. My memory may be faulty but I thought at one time the rule stated "At least 5 nights but no more than 6". But an argument could very well be made that the requirement as it reads is at least 5 nights but no more than 5 nights and all others have to be overnights, short term camps or weekends. Ah - but now the real judgment call - and this is for the Scoutmaster to make. In this particular case, I personally, if I were the Scoutmaster, and felt that this lad deserved consideration, would have no problem declaring that the "6th" night of long term camp was just an "overnight" and would count it towards the 15 nights. In a sense, that 6th night at Summer Camp may very well be just an overnight - the camp program is pretty much done once the campfire is finished - all that's left is breakfast in the morning, breakdown, and going home. The OA doesn't require any kind of paper records of the nights camped - they don't need to see any Troopmaster records. The Scoutmaster simply certifies that the lads have met the requirements. That's all there is to it - if the Scoutmaster says the lad has 15 nights - he has 15 nights. But that's me - your Scoutmaster's opinion may vary. Calico

Admittedly part of my answer was a bit flippant - I wouldn't really smack a Scouter upside the head with a handbook - though sometimes I can be sorely tempted when faced with some of the pettiness I've seen. But in thinking of the bigger picture - what is with this tradition? I've always looked upon Totin Chip as an award - an acknowledgment that one has gotten training in an area and has demonstrated knowledge - not unlike a merit badge really - just without the patch. I've never thought of it as a license - I don't think the BSA literature supports the notion of it being a license either - please correct me if I'm wrong. It's gotten me thinking - if it's ok to tear off the corner of a Totin Chip card, why isn't it ok to tear off the corner of the First Aid Merit Badge if a Scout uses the wrong kind of bandage, or whatever and if he loses all 4 corners, has to earn it again? Why isn't it ok to tear off the corner of a First Class rank card if the Scout slips on a Scout Spirit issue and has to re-earn it if he loses all 4 corners? This tradition just makes no sense to me at all - tearing the corners off a Totin Chip card doesn't do anything to enhance safety, or review procedures, or develop respect for the tools. I know that having to sharpen all 7 of the Troop's axes and the three bow saws once did more to instill in me a respect for the tools than someone tearing off the corner of a card would ever have done. Or maybe I just don't understand.

I think I've relayed that in my Troop, the corners of our Totin Chips weren't removed. If we transgressed the safety rules, the correction was much more diabolical. We had to sharpen every axe, hand-axe, and bow saw the Troop owned - all in one sitting - and even if they were sharpened just minutes before. In this case, the ASM should be slapped upside the head with a Boy Scout Handbook - but that would only work if it might knock some sense into this guy.

So we've gotten the technical answer (you can only wear the lodge flap of the Lodge you're currently (rather important part too - this currently word) registered in. That means technically you can't wear the Lodge flap of any other Lodge - and also means if you aren't registered in a Lodge at all, you can't wear any Lodge flap, even if you were inducted into the OA. We've gotten the answer most of us would support - the "No, you really shouldn't but we aren't going to say anything if you do" answer. I like that John continues to wear the Lodge flap from his original Lodge, especially since it no longer exists. Against the rules? Yeah, but it's his choice - and he's got a pretty nice justification for it which seems to segue rather nicely to the point I want to make, which I'll make in a series of questions that only you can answer for yourself. Ask yourself if membership in the Tsisquan Lodge has any meaning for you. You seem to be an active member of the Lodge - at least that's the impression I get as you say you're going to be attending the next service weekend. Is this the Lodge that you were inducted into? Are you proud of your Lodge? Then ask yourself if the Wauna La Mon'tay Lodge has any meaning to you beyond a pretty patch. Do you have any connection to the Wauna La Mon'tay lodge other than the patch that was given to you at the World Jamboree? Once you answer those questions, then let your heart guide you to the answer that serves you best. I know that personally, I wouldn't wear it. In fact, I doubt I would have made any adjustments to a World Jamboree shirt - I'd keep it intact as a memento, and perhaps wear it on special occasions when I wanted to highlight my trip to World Jamboree.

I suspect that the DAC had his ducks in a row a few weeks back. As I recall, there was a not-so-cryptic mumbled comment by the DCA that was relayed to us - said something like "I'll have to deal with this appeal" and then coupled with other comments from other district sources that they were aware this particular SM and Committee just might be problematic. Leads me to also suspect that the folks at the District level are well aware of that third side to the story. mdsummer - I hate to use the words slam dunk, but as an Eagle Scout who received his rank after appealing, this one sounds like a slam dunk to me. As long as your son keeps the same calm, collected head you've relayed to us here, we'll soon be welcoming a new Eagle to the flock.

I recently read something that's really helped me put this whole economy into perspective. It's just one small statistic in the midst of a myriad of statistics, but it's enough to give one pause. Back in 1989, the vacancy rate for office buildings hovered at about the 12% range (that means 12% of available office space was vacant). During the "booming 90's", the vacancy rate for office buildings hovered at about the 12% range. During the "slow but steady growth 2000's" the vacancy rate for office buildings hovered at about 12%. Throughout the 2008 downturn and continuing into the economy of 2009, the vacancy rate for office buildings has been hovering at about - you guessed it - 12%. So that leads to an obvious question - is the economy really as bad as we think it is? The term I've been hearing quite a bit lately is "regression". Some economists are arguing that we are not in a depression, nor are we going into a depression - that the recession is a recession in name only because that's how we think of downturns - and that what we're really experiencing is a regression to 1990's levels. In a sense, it's a correction of Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" and that what we are experiencing as a recession is a restoration to what the economy should have achieved by now if there weren't the boom and bust bubbles of the 90's and 2000's. There seems to be evidence of that in the stock market. The Dow dropped below the 10K mark, continued to drop, then seemed to level off at the level some economists are arguing is the level it would have reached in the last 20 years through a natural progression. Interesting thoughts I felt.

So does this mean that we should be expecting liberals to pull out the old neocon canard of "if you haven't done anything wrong, you shouldn't be opposed to this"?

If I can hop in on the allergen issue - I encourage you to visit a doctor who specializes in allergies. I suffered quite a bit from "hayfever" in my younger days (not so much now - but I'm still prepared). In my case, it was mostly reactions to ragweed pollen - active from August to November. I still remember many nights camping with the Troop or my family when I woke up in the middle of the night struggling to breathe because of my allergies - and those camping trips were always in the fall. For just that reason, I always had an inhaler with me - the same type asthmatics would have. When I woke up, I would get dressed, be out of the tent, and sitting under the tarp after using the inhaler to get breathing normally and relaxed again - usually with my tentmate (who couldn't help but be woken up by my panicked thrashing around while I was getting dressed and getting my inhaler) and often one of the adult leaders (who would hear the commotion). By the time I was 16, I was given pills I could take to help prevent the reaction - worked pretty well - and I understand they've gotten better since then. The mold allergen issue your son is having isn't insurmountable - and probably is something the Scout leaders already have some experience with.

Does this mean I'll finally get off the list??

Boys Life is fine, but probably won't add anything of value to a leadership role. The obvious are there - Boy Scout Handbook and Scoutmaster's Handbook. Of course, as mentioned, all the online training should be taken advantage of as soon as able. I'd add The Patrol Leaders Handbook. That should be the bible for your youth leaders. The Den Chiefs Handbook - it gives some good insight on Cub Scout Pack operations and program differences from a Troop perspective - useful for transitioning Webelos to the Troop. It also provides insight to one of the easiest recruitment tools available to Troops. The Boy Scout Requirements book - this book lists all the requirements for ranks, merit badges (all of them) and special awards - it's not the ultimate source for answers on how to meet the requirements, but its a very handy tool to have around as a single point reference for advancement requirements (especially if a lad wants to earn a merit badge like Composite Materials - wouldn't it be nice to know as a leader just what the lad is required to learn?). For a non-Boy Scout book, I recommend "Who Moved My Cheese" - it's a general business leadership book about change - and if there's any one thing to know about the BSA, it's "expect change - anytime, anywhere". Calico

Why is the Advancement Chair attending and mentoring PLC meetings? Advancement Chair is a Committee Job - not a Program job. The Scoutmaster is the chief program officer for the Troop - and the PLC is part of the program. Either the Scoutmaster attends the PLC (and if he had to change the meeting night to make it possible for him to attend, I see nothing wrong with that) or his (the Scoutmaster's) designated program agent (one of his ASM's). Did he appoint you the task of mentoring the PLC? From the sounds of it, you took that task upon yourself, and are now upset that the SM is usurping your self-designated role. No matter his alleged motivations, when it comes to the appointment of leadership roles other than SPL and PL, you're Scoutmaster has it right - despite the 45 years of "tradition". You came in for advice - and almost to a one, some very experienced Scouters (and the ones that responded are all pretty much experienced Scouters)have said "whoa - back the truck up and think very very hard before you go this route" and you don't like the answer so you call them (us) a bunch of yokels? I urge you to consider whether your working in the best interest of the program or whether your just uncomfortable in the changes in your boyhood Troop. Everything you've written suggests to me a Troop in transition from an old style program to the current National program standards, complete with the growing pains that come with that. If you can't reconcile what the program is about with what you think it should be about, perhaps it is time for you to take a break and let the Troop grow (or sink) without you. Despite everything said about units belonging to Chartering Organizations, and the Boys, the cold, hard reality is that it's the Parents that make or break a Troop - and if this Scoutmaster has the support of the Parents, you are on the losing side of the war, even if you win the battle.

Ahh, the old "man shall not lie with man as he would a woman" claim. As I interpret this passage, this is more an admonition against bisexuality that homosexuality. See, gay men would never lie with a woman the way they would with a man so they're pretty safe there. It's the so-called straight men that need to worry - the ones with wives at home that decide to cruise airport rest rooms that are in trouble under this passage of Leviticus - not the openly gay couple sharing a home and bed. Thus - the interpretation just isn't clear.

I'm going to be blunter than perhaps others will be. Unless the parents and Scouts are clamoring for a change, unless you have the support of 90% or more of the parents and Scouts, unless you have the support of the COR - then stop. Just stop. You are comparing your experiences with the Troop as a lad with what's happening in the Troop now. You have an idealized view of the Troop rooted in your perception of how things should be. It is quite possible that when you were a Scout, the adults were struggling with the same issues you're dealing with now - you just didn't see that side. You've heard from a source close enough to the Scoutmaster to be given some credence that his plan is to serve 2 years (given that this was learned last summer, if I do my math right, that's now down to a year and a few months). Rather than pushing for him to be removed - the wise person would use this time to position him/herself as the Scoutmaster's replacement - and part of that time should be used to get trained. And yes - you need to be trained! Some of the things you mentioned as being flaws a trained person will recognize as being consistent with the program. A Scoutmaster (or designated assistant) SHOULD be attending PLC meetings. His role is to guide the PLC as needed and it's much easier and more convenient for the Scoutmaster to be able to interject during a PLC than to have to "veto" a plan as unworkable after the PLC has worked to develop it. He's there to help prevent having nights that aren't planned so he doesn't have to think on the fly and call for water balloons, or a game of kickball, or whatever. SPL's appointing all the positions in a Troop except for the PL's, with the Scoutmaster's input? Oh - the Horror! - Wait - a Trained Leader knows that this is exactly how it's supposed to be done! Patrols elect their Patrol Leaders. Troops elect their SPL. The SPL APPOINTS the ASPL's, Quartermaster, Scribe, Historian, etc. etc. etc. He gets guidance from the Scoutmaster because the Scoutmaster is more likely going to know which lad needs a leadership position for rank advancment, etc. Sounds like the Scoutmaster has it right! A "troop requirement" that all SPL candidates take "Buckskin Training" before they can become an SPL? Ridiculous - and good on the Scoutmaster for ignoring it. Sure, a Troop can have such a requirement if it wants, but for the most part it's a really stupid idea usually thought up by some adults who want to exert control over whom the boys in the Unit want to lead them as SPL. When a Lad becomes SPL - if he doesn't have the training, get him to the training - if it will be a while before training is held - do what Scout Troops have done for decades - train him without the Council's help. No boy should be held back from holding a leadership role because he doesn't have the training. The leadership role is PART of the training. That goes for ASPL's too - the only real prequalification should be "he has an active membership card". When you said "we set aside some time for the PL's to get together to plan" - who is WE? Did you involve him in this at all? You say "he pushed his way in". He shouldn't have had to push his way in - he should have been there from the get go. Frankly, it sounds like the Scoutmaster was keeping the unit on track - PLC meetings aren't held in the middle of other meetings - you don't send your Scouts out to do any kind of physical activity (even if it is a water balloon fight - and that must be something the lads enjoy or they wouldn't do it) without sending their PL's and SPL out to run the games. By the way, what's a "Uniform Czar"? is that anything like "Patch Police"? If so - stop it - stop it now. A TRAINED leader will tell you that Uniforms are only one method of Scouting - and aren't required at that. Instead of spending more time on Google trying to learn how to oust a perfectly fine Scoutmaster (other than one or two glitches that I see - and the one big one seems to have been corrected if he's talking about electing SPL's), spend some time on your Council's website learning what training opportunities are out there that will help YOU prepare to be a Scoutmaster in the future. Heck - any unit with a solid attendance at meetings of 25-30 lads in a Troop of about 35 is far from dysfunctional - most so-called "functional" Troops would give their left-handed smokebenders up to have those kinds of numbers. If anything, the number one cause of the "crummy state" your Troop is in is the ASM's not supporting the SM and encouraging the negative feelings the lads have about the Troop. Get yourself trained - forget everything you think you know about Boy Scouts because you were once a Boy Scout - you don't know everything you think you do and you don't know what you need to know. You have the enthusiasm which is great - now you need to temper that with real knowledge.

WELS is simply an example of "Our worship is the true and correct way - everyone else is wrong" form of religion which we've seen expressed in this forum before.

Is there some reason the crossover ceremony HAS to be done at the Blue and Gold? It could be done at any Pack meeting. If his ceremony is a within a few days of the next regularly scheduled Pack meeting, can't he do it then? Otherwise, why not just have TWO "Crossovers" - a small, private "official" Den crossover to get the lads on their way and the larger "ceremonial" crossover in front of the whole pack later?

Go here: http://www.scouting.org/Awards/hornadayawards It is quite detailed and will give you all the information you need.

Homosexuality wasn't political 35 years ago? The Stonewall Rebellion in NYC was in 1969 - 40 years ago. The first gay pride march, which was political, as were all those that followed at the time, occurred in 1970 - 39 years ago. The APA stopped classifying homosexuality as a disease in 1973 - 34 years ago. The facts don't bear out a statement that homosexuality wasn't political 35 years ago. It was quite political back then - and that was especially true in academia at the time. That some historians have claimed that dying cultures have two distinct commonalities isn't in doubt - however, lets keep in mind that this is not a statement of fact but rather a statement of opinion - and that opinion has, on its face, a bias rather than any kind of neutrality. One could just as easily have said that it was over reaching economies and over extended territory that were the two distinct commonalities among dying cultures, or that it was invasion by other cultures and changes in diet that were the two distinct commonalities among dying cultures - and evidence for those statements could easily be found to give them the imprimatur of fact.

First - the official position of the FDA - in the name of Food Safety: "All eggs should be stored in a refrigerator". Now that we've got that out of the way - most of us store eggs in the refrigerator, mostly so they remain as usable as possible for as long as possible (and because of fears of salmonella, etc.). Eggs stored properly in a refrigerator tend to last about 2 to 3 times longer than eggs stored without refrigeration. Even then, after about 5 weeks in the refrigerator, eggs start getting too old for breakfast dishes - though they may still be good for baking, or french toast - but sunny side up not so much. Eggs that are bought from the store in a refrigeration case have generally been washed. Washing eggs usually removes a very thin layer of protection on the egg shell that helps retain freshness and helps prevent bacterial contamination. Most cases of egg-borne salmonella are caused by a contaminant getting on the egg surface - a small portion is caused by eggs laid by a chicken that is sick with salmonella. Keep in mind - egg shells are microscopically porous. The thin coating retards gas and liquid exchange for the most part, but never fully stops it. All this being said, in these times, most washed eggs are then sprayed, as part of the washing process, with an artifical coating to replace the coating that got washed out. Farm fresh eggs that aren't washed simply haven't had the coating washed off - if you take it home and wash it, you wash off the coating. It is widely accepted that once an egg was refrigerated, it had to stay refrigerated, and that farm fresh eggs that have never been refrigerated are the only ones you could store unrefrigerated. Refrigeration is a function of longevity in storage. At one time, producers didn't replace the coating they washed off - not because they were lazy or didn't want the expense, but because they didn't know what that coating did. Research showed that the coating helped retard spoilage and since recoating the eggs after washing means the eggs would stay fresher, longer - that meant they could store them longer before shipping. Having both the coating and refrigeration extends the shelf life even longer - good news for egg producers. What I'm about to say is going to be anathema to most everyone who insists on refrigeration. Buying refrigerated eggs from the store and not refrigerating them at home more than likely poses no more risk of salmonella than storing them in the refrigerator. The salmonella risk from eggs is very very low - and since heat kills salmonella, a well cooked egg reduces that risk to almost zero. Sunny side up, over easy has a much greater chance of passing salmonella on than does over hard. Runny scrambled eggs poses a greater risk than non-runny scrambled eggs. Soft boiled eggs poses a greater risk than hard boiled eggs. And it doesn't matter if they've been refrigerated or not - if the salmonella is there, it could affect someone. Nor will it affect the freshness or flavor of the eggs for a reasonable period of time - about 2 weeks for most unrefrigerated eggs - whether bought at the mega market or from the farmer. In other words, for the average healthy person of Boy Scout age or above, taking half a dozen eggs out of the refrigerator on a Friday and putting them into a backpack egg crate, then carrying them around unrefrigerated until Sunday morning, probably poses no more risk than pulling them out of the refrigerator one minute before you use it. With a caveat - provided they remain in their shell, and the shell has no obvious cracks and defects (eggs with cracks in their shell should either be used immediately or discarded - refrigerated or not). That shell is already a near perfect potective container for an egg. Once breached, the egg will start to degrade, aka spoil. Just like peeling a banana or an apple - once you breach the peel, the fruit, now exposed to air, will start to turn brown. But - you need to decide if its a risk you want to take for yourself and your charges. If just one of the lads is immuno-compromised in any way, you may not want to take that risk.

Katahdin Area Council in Maine now runs Maine High Adventure out of Matagamon Base.

Southern Illinois? If you're really that upset about it, contact the Attorney General's office - they have a department that deals with non-profit financial compliance and even a Scout Troop not registered as a non-profit in the State will have to comply. Tell them your story and let them take it from there. Just be prepared to offer some proof, and to burn all of your bridges with the Scout Troop and the Chartering Organization.

Ahh, the old "changing fundamental definitions" defense. So what do we do about "The Church" (and by this I mean the entity that we know of today as the Roman Catholic Church) that performed "marriages" between men in the 1200's, back when "The Church" couldn't own property in parts of Europe (particularly in the Anglo-Saxon areas of Europe) and "Church" property was considered the property of the individual that passed on to the Crown when the individual died without leaving an heir (blast that whole "Priest's can't marry and have kids" thing - though I suspect that "rule" is related to this somehow). To get around this rule, "The Church" created and celebrated a "Marriage" mass (and yes, they did call it a marriage) that would usually join an older "Priest" and a younger "Priest" together in the bonds of "Holy Matrimony" so that the property would remain under "The Churches" control. I suspect they didn't allow "Priests" to marry women who could give them a child who might then have a legitimate claim to "Church Property". Many theologians studying this period believe this ceremony was the first marriage ceremony consecrated by "The Church" as "The Church" didn't give a whit about what the peasants were doing as long as they were giving them food and money - and that "The Church" ended up in the marriage game to solidify thier claims with the same sex marriages they were performing - a case, at least in "The Churches" case of the chicken coming before the egg, perhaps?

Joined Cub Scouts as a 7-year old in pre-Tiger days. I was one of the youth that qualified based on grade level as opposed to age - most of the kids in my grade level were already 8 when school started - I was one of the youngsters that would turn 8 after school started but before the December 1 deadline that would have forced me to start my school career one year later. Of course that also meant my first semester in College, I was 17 until just a couple weeks before finals. Went through the ranks, earned the Arrow of Light but didn't join Boy Scouts until I was 11, crossing over in November(this was also the era of the 1-year Webelos program - not the Webelos 1 to Webelos 2 program being used today, and there wasn't an emphasis on having every lad crossover at the same time - when you came of age, you crossed over - and it wasn't unusual to have a crossover cermony at every pack meeting if the pack was large, as ours was. It was also made clear by the Troop I was joining that even though I could technically cross over at the beginning of the school year (having already earned the Arrow of Light) they were not accepting any crossovers until the lad turned (or was within a couple of weeks of turning) 11). My first outing as a Scout was the Klondike Derby. I was in my first Troop for 3 months then moved to a new Troop being formed by my old Pack's chartered organization. Stayed in there for about 1 year then joined my third and final Troop (the one I consider my home Troop). When I turned 14, I joined the Explorer Post that my home Troop's chartered organization sponsored Post. Was elected through the Post to the OA and became very active in OA - becoming my Chapter's Ceremony Leader, Chapter Chief then elected as Lodge Vice Chief. Was honored by the Lodge with the Vigil Honor. Though I remained registered in the Troop, I was semi-active - attending outings and meetings as I could, but remaining very active with the Explorer Post. I earned my Eagle through the Explorer Post - and was one of those "just in time" Eagles. I joined and was active in two other Explorer Posts during this time as well. Was a Camp Staff CIT at the Out-Of-Council camp my Troop went to (and that camp's first ever Out-Of Council CIT - and the only CIT asked to stay the whole season that year) then camp staff at my Council's camp the following year. After that, I was paid Day Camp staff for 4 summers (I had an in - my mother was the Program Director - she started the council's council-wide day camp program - until then, day camp was provided at the district level). I also worked for Maine National High Adventure both in their OKPIK program (this was before National rolled it out to be used by Councils) and at Matagamon Base. I do remember camping with my Pack, specifically with my Webelos Den, as a Webelos Days event at the council's summer camp. About 4 years later, I started working on staff for Webelos Camporees - my father had lobbied and worked to get the permission needed for Webelos to hold overnights at the district level, not just at the council level, and to extend that further to allow Webelos dens to hold their own campouts. I, for one, am very glad to see that it now extends to Pack outings as well. I also remember that I never had Buster Brown shoes. They were way too expensive for my middle class family to buy for three growing boys. Come to think of it, not many people I grew up with wore Buster Browns either. Maybe it was more of a case of Buster Browns not being available at the stores our families shopped at.

I'd gladly share the credit with Pack. I grew up with a field behind my house and would spend hours wandering through it - I considered it part of my backyard. Had a small wetland in it too. One of the common flowers was Yellow Goats-beard and I'd seen it throughout its life cycle. I was pretty sure that's what you were thinking about (it was the Dandelion head on steroids that made me certain) so I just pulled out my trusty Peterson's Field Guide to Wildflowers, given to me by my mother on my 10th birthday (figures - I was born in November and get a widlflower book just in time for snow season) and double checked. I have the full set of Peterson's Guides - including the Field Guide to Mammals of Great Britain and Europe which has been long out of print - mom recognized that my idea of a Mole was a furry creature that burrows underground, much to the chagrin of my Father, the PhD in Chemistry, for whom Mole means some weird mathematical formula. Guess there had to be someone in the family with a biology mindset. I recommend that Scout Troops include in their library at least a basic set of Peterson's Guides - my recommendations: Birds, Wildflowers, Trees, Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians, Insects, Stars & Planets and the generalist book of the closest habitat in your region (examples include North American Prairie or Western Forests). In most cases, you can get identification guides specific to your region - not just Trees but Eastern Trees or Western Trees. You can always add others later.