CalicoPenn

Well, Pack - that certainly is a possibility - but only if the jam in question is Raspberry.

I remember Point - in fact, my first beer was a Point. I purchased it legally in Wisconsin at a campground I was staying at over a weekend at the Dells with a friend. I'm pretty sure it's the reason that it was also the last beer I've ever had. Point was awful awful awful stuff - I should have bought a Leinenkugel.

My evidence? I suppose my only evidence is just the knowledge that the BSA commonly uses 15-passenger vans to transport crews and gear at their various high adventure bases (having driven them myself back when I worked for the Maine National High Adventure Base) and knowing (because I saw the long term MNHA budgets) that the typical replacement period is 10-12 years per van (which would still put the mileage, at least for the MNHA vans, well under 100K). The rest is admittedly all cynical conjecture: 1) it's now 2015 which is the end of the rotation for any vans bought in 2003 and 2004; 2) The BSA is "thrifty" (read cheap) and wouldn't be likely to have replaced all pre-2005 vans all at once; and 3) September 1 seems an odd choice of policy date - maybe the new insurance coverage begins on September 1, but that would be awfully coincidental to the long-term camp and high adventure season ending just a couple of weeks before that date. There is also the cynicism of just plain old common sense - if these vans are that much of a danger, and it's been known since 2005, and reiterated every year since then, including a warning in 2010 that insurance companies are no longer going to be insuring these kinds of vans for certain uses, which seems to have included the usage that Scouts use them for, why take so long to come up with this policy statement and why not make it effective immediately?

The drinking age in many states was lowered as a result of the amendment to the constitution that lowered the voting age. The voting age was lowered because of the Vietnam War (old enough to fight, old enough to vote). Until 1975, most states had a minimum drinking age of 21 - after the voting age was lowered, most states figured that if someone was old enough to vote, they were old enough to drink - though oddly enough, many of them didn't lower it to 18, but lowered it to 19 or 20 and many of them lowered it only for wine and beer and not hard liquor. Not all of them lowered it either - I still remember the drinking age in Wisconsin in 1979 as being 18 for beer and wine & 21 for hard liquor but still being 21 in Illinois which meant a lot of "running for the border" from Northern Illinois. The reason the states raised it back to 21 was to prevent the loss of federal highway funds - the federal government did not raise the minimum drinking age but they certainly influenced the states in raising their minimum drinking ages (MDA) back to 21 by passing legislation that would reduce federal highway funds by 10% to any state with a lower than 21 MDA. They did this in response to noticeably higher automotive deaths due to the lowering of the drinking age during that period of time though I have to wonder how much of the increase in deaths was due to uneven drinking ages between the states - there were considerably more drunk driving accidents along the border of Wisonsin and Illinois than there were in the center of those states. As to this new adult/not adult policy, wouldn't it have been easier to make the age out for Boy Scouts at 21 rather than aging out at 18? Keep the age-out at 18 for Eagle Scout rank but resurrect the old "Leadership Corps" and anyone 18-20 wanting to remain in the Troop becoming a member of the "Leadership Corps" as youth mentors to the SPL/PL's and/or as part of a Scouting Reserve. Let common sense prevail as far as camping - Leadership Corps members camp pattrol style with other Leadership Corps members - and not as part of the other patrols.

So this is something that has been known since 2001 and 14 years later, the BSA develops a policy statement on it, and bans them as of September 1. Just call me cynical but it sure sounds like the BSA, which uses these types of vehicles quite often at their high adventure bases and council summer camps, has been slowly replacing pre-2005 vans out and will be getting rid of the last of them after this year's summer season.

Around here, we don't call them "rednecks" - we call them cervically erythema solare challenged. Oh - and boogety boogety cheeseburger to you to Pony Time boy.

JTE does have a community involvement component: To earn Star: While a First Class Scout, take part in service project(s) totaling at least 6 hours of work. The service project must be approved by your Scoutmaster. To earn Life: While a Star Scout, take part in service project(s) totaling at least 6 hours of work. The service project must be approved by your Scoutmaster. There is a lot of room there to nudge Scouts towards more visible service projects. Though most of us would probably not do so, there is nothing preventing a Scoutmaster from saying that working on Joe Scout's Eagle Project will not count towards service project hours - and starting a tradition where working on a fellow Scout's service project is expected as being Scoutlike and is in addition to service projects for Star and Life. If Scouts aren't visible in your area, I'd be trying to change the culture of the units - to start training ASM's and SM's that part of the PLC planning process should include 2 to 3 Troop-wide non-Eagle Service Projects, with at least one of them for the Chartering Organization, and should include being part of the local community's festival or parade so that it's automatic. Here's a question - do Packs and Troops still approach stores, banks, insurance offices, etc. in their communities in February to ask permission to set up a window display for Scout Week (Month)??

Indoctrination? Nonsense!! No one is teaching them anything against their will or against their parent's wishes. These are all girls from families with like-minded ideas as the leaders - They are likely hearing much the same information from their parents at home - would that be "indoctination" as well? When a parent brings their children to an anti-abortion rally is that indoctrination too? The only innappropriate thing I can see here is calling them Brownies and dressing in a uniform similar (if not exactly the same) as the Brownies og the GS-USA - but that's something for them to deal with.

I see nothing gray at all - I see it in black and white - you have 6 Scouts who honored Scout Sunday and their faith tradition by attending Scout Sunday in full uniform at their home church - they attended Scout Sunday, they get the credit. Why the heck wouldn't you give them credit for that? It's obvious you didn't make attendance at Scout Sunday in full uniform at your chartered organization mandatory (only 12 out of 80 with 6 accounted for elsewhere? That's 18 out of 80, less than 25%). You say that for the first time in years, the Troop decided to have Scout Sunday at your chartered organization - what did you do before? Encourage Scouts to attend their home churches in full uniform perhaps? Did you tell the Scouts that they had to get "pre-approval" from the Scoutmaster to attend their Home Church (and boy, I sure hope you didn't - if I were the parent of a boy who was just told he had to get approval from his Scoutmaster to attend church, there would be heck to pay). Did you tell the Scouts that you were creating a new tradition and that everyone should plan to attend the CO's services? Did you discuss that with the parents? I would think very long and very hard about "coaching these boys on how it could be handled differently" Again, if I were the parent of a boy who was just told he should have handled going to his home church with his family differently, there would be fireworks at the next committee meeting. So this is what you do - you accept that report, you praise them for showing up at Scout Sunday in full uniform, you get them the patches (and get someone to the Scout Office ASAP before the patches run out - whoever is passing by next should be able to get them). You profusely thank the leaders that did all that planning but tell them that it's far more important that those Scouts went to church than that they went to the CO's church and that the Troop is not about to question Scouts (and by extension, their parents) on the choices they make on where to attend church services and then you start planning for next year. You have 62 Scouts and their parents that you need to convince to come to next years Scout Sunday services at the CO in full uniform - and you can have a friendly chat with the parents of the 6 Scouts that went elsewhere to see if it would be a violation of their church's tenent's to attend church at the CO next year. And you start planning for next year. Marching the colors in is a good start. Comments from the Scoutmaster could be a big Thank You (and I imagine it probably was). Comments by the SPL could be leading the Troop and any former Scouts in the church through the Scout Oath. Do you have a Chaplain's Aid? If so, maybe you could arrange it so that he does a reading during the services. Any reason the Scouts couldn't serve as Ushers on this day? Any reason they couldn't pass the collection plates around? Can you work with the Pastor on recognizing the various faith traditions of the boys in the Troop? Congrats on this first step - don't sour it now by allowing pettiness to take root. I don't know the leader of your church, but I would imagine if you were to ask him/her their opinion, you would probably hear something very similar to "The important thing is that they went to Church somewhere".

I prefer following the Strauss and Howe generational mapping which is the preferred mapping of academia over the generational mapping of the marketing profession, which is the mapping most often referred to by the media. For example, under marketing mapping, the Baby Boom starts in 1946 and ends in 1964 but under Strauss and Howe, the Baby Boom starts in 1943 and ends in 1960. The generations according to Strauss and Howe: GI Generation (note - NOT called the "Greatest Generation" - that name came from a documentary) - 1901-1924 Silent Generation - 1925-1942 Baby Boom - 1943-1960 13th Generation (aka 13ers or Generation X) - 1961-1981 (The term Generation X came from a book by Canadian Author Douglas Copeland and he also uses 1961 as the starting point for Generation X) (And yes, this means that President Obama is, under this mapping, the first Generation X President) Millenial Generation - 1982-2004 Homeland Generation - 2005 to now. There are some sociologists and anthropologists suggesting that the last 2 years of one generation and the 1st two years of the next generation don't wholly belong to one or the other generation but are more of a transitional cohort between the generations in that they seem to share the common traits of both generations.

You seem to suggest that his calling people that he disagrees with, his "enemys", communists is also something new. Did that start when his grades started to slip? His math, foreign language and chemistry teachers - how are they different from his other teachers? Are they minorities? Liberals? Not church goers? This may not be just a behavioral change - this may also include a personality change (and yes, those are different though often occurring together). I'd suggest the first thing you do is talk to the parents and see if they've noticed any significant chnages at home - it's not uncommon for parents to see changes and mark it down to "being a teenager" - sometimes it takes an outsider to point out that some changes are far to radical to be ignored. If you've know him a while, you might be in a position to suggest that he be evaluated by a medical doctor and a psychiatrist - with a change so radical, there can be a lot of things that could account for it - from drugs and alcohol and changes in friends, to having suffered a trauma (did he lose someone close to him recently, fall off his bike and smacked his head, or has he become secretive about something that might suggest some kind of abuse), to having an undiagnosed mental health issue, to having an undiagnosed medical condition (has he complained of headaches recently where he hasn't had them before?). This may very well be something that is beyond just taking time out of Scouting or Band or Church. Something that is beyond schoolwork organizing and tutoring. Don't try to fix this on your own. This is something the parents need to be fully engaged in.

The BSA wouldn't be liable (they don't own the equipment) though that wouldn't stop a lawyer from including them in a good ole college try. Technically, the COR wouldn't need permission from the Troop to loan the equipment out since it is technically owned by the CO and the COR is the CO's representative - that being said, the COR should not have loaned out the Troop's equipment without involving the Troop - I'd be having a discussion with the head of the CO about trust and the now damaged trust relationship between their representative and the Troop (and if I were in this situation, I would not be trusting the COR right about now and would probably be making arrangements for the equipment to be stored offsite where the COR couldn't get to it). As to who is liable, that's a question for the courts - if it gets that far. I'd think the CO would be named as someone potentially liable, possibly the COR as an individual since the COR lent out the equipment, potentially the Troop, and potentially the maker of the equipment. Whomever the injured party is, or their insurance company, will make the decisions on who to go after and it's really out of everyone elses hands at that point. There is also other considerations - what kind of injury are we talking about? Did a stove blow up due to lack of maintenance or did it blow up because someone filled it with the wrong fuel, or hooked it up incorrectly? Did a tent fall over on someone because the poles were faulty or because they set it up wrong? In a perfect world, the COR would have involved the Troop so the Troop could create a list of what was lent out.

" I love Nessmuk's quote: "We do not go to the green woods and crystal waters to rough it, we go to smooth it."" Seems to me that this is pretty much the exact opposite of Leave No Trace. In Nessmuk's time, that bushcraft was indeed all about "smoothing" the woods and waters - it was about taming the woods and waters - bushcraft was about turning a campsite into a temporary compound - a home in the woods. We've come a long way in our thinking since then and I suspect folks like Kephart, Nessmuk, Kreps, Beard, etc. would understand and embrace the new ways of the woods - especially with the nifty new gear we have available to us today. I don't doubt for a moment that Kephart, who built fires for a purpose - and that was to cook, would gladly give up that chore for our more modern stoves in order to have more time to explore the woods he so loved. I realize we tend to romanticize the old days of wood and bushcraft, but that's because most of us haven't had to live with it. When I was just starting out in Scouts, we cooked every meal over an open fire - in just a couple years time, we started cooking all of our meals on stoves - I think the time we gained in making that switch to go out and do more was well worth the loss of the "romance" of cooking over an open fire (which frankly, wasn't all that idyllic - it was dirty, it was hot, a lot of time was spent being chased by smoke). Yet - this is not to say that we should ignore these skills completely. I've been a blanket camper for a very long time now - I haven't owned a sleeping bag for years. I do enjoy camping under canvas - and when I do so now, it's under a canvas diamond fly - not a tent. It's good to know how to build fires by flint and steel or bow drill. I've built fires in public parks (as part of rendezvous) where you wouldn't be able to find where it was built a couple of days after I left. Ideally, we are taking the best of the bushcraft era and adapting it to leave no trace principles. Hopefully, we don't get all nostalgic about digging trenches around our tents, of chopping down a couple of birches to make a flag pole for our campsite.

"This is VERY interesting to me. You are saying that all Committee Members are "registered". At my ASM training, we were told that this was 100% inaccurate - all parents are members of the Committee. There is a leadership structure (which these folks don't even come close to following either). " I'm sorry that you were misinformed in training - someone should have corrected the statement as the person who told you that it is 100% inaccurate that committee members are registered is 100% inaccurate. While all parents MAY be members of the Troop Committee (but who would want that? How efficient would a committee of 50 be in a Troop with 25 boys, presuming no siblings and all two parent households?), that does not automatically make all parents a member of the committee. Committee Member is a registered position (the position code on the application is MC) - they have to take YPT training before they're registered, they have to complete the registration form (and pay the registration fee) and they have to go through the same background checks as the Scoutmaster and Assistant Scoutmasters. There may be some units out there that make all parents members of the committee - if they aren't registering them, then they aren't officially members of the committee. If they are registering them, and it's a unit with more than, let's say 5 boys - then they're insane (which of course is just my opinion). The BSA recommends that the committee identify resources among the parents and try to involve them all in at least one thing (maybe someone bakes cookies for a Court of Honor or teaches the Scouts how to build birdhouses once a year) but that isn't the same as being a member of the Committee.

It is not just measles folks should be worried about - while it's certainly possible someone might bring the measles into a troop meeting, its more likely someone will bring the flu into a troop meeting, and this year it seems to be particularly nasty and thye current flu shot isn't fully effective. A Scout is Trustworthy - seems to me the unit can send out an e-mail blast letting Scouts and parents know that they should not come to meetings if they are ill - and trust the Scouts to follow that advice. If a Scout attended a meeting and then is discovered to have the measles, I think it would be incumbent upon the leaders to send an e-mail blast letting them know that one of the (not to be named) Scouts came down with the measles after attending a meeting/outing and you're suggesting that the families take appropriate precautions. There is a story out of California of a parent with a child in remission from Leukemia who is asking his school district to ban unvaccinated children from attending the school to protect his child from potentially catching what would likely be a fatal disease for his child. The school district is going to "monitor" the situation. The parents who have not vaccinated their children are upset at the suggestion and think he should be the one to keep his child home. What's noteworthy here is the irony that the parent has brought up. Student's at his child's school are banned from bringing peanuts or peanut butter sandwiches to school so as not to make students with peanut allergies sick and no one is suggesting that the students with peanut allergies just stay home instead. As for Dr. Wolfson - he said as far as he's concerned, that child probably got leukemia from vaccinations. Leukemia was identified in 1845 before there were vaccinations. And people are really going to take him seriously?

"Agreed. Add Den Chief cords too if the scout is no longer a den chief." Unless the Den Chief cords in question are the Den Chief Service Award cords - those are an earned award and can be worn until a Scout ages out.

It sounds to me that officially, you're just a Dad. Committee Member is a registered position - there is no unregistered Dad on the Committee position. As for the motto - do the boys realize that they'll be announcing to the world that they think they are stupid?

Technically, renting a movie from Blockbuster/Netflix/Redbox and showing it at a pack meeting, would be a violation as well. They aren't licensed for public viewings. Our library does group viewings of movies twice a month - but they also get permission to do so through a service that libraries can join. Yes - that means showing "Follow Me Boys" in it's entirety at a troop meeting would be a violation if anyone chose to object and pursue. Copying a couple of pages of knots out of a book to hand out? Not so much - it's likely covered under the fair use doctrine - provided that you aren't copying the entire book and handing it out. This movie won't be released on video until late February. It is also not currently available as a Video on Demand movie (I checked). Unless this was an advanced screening copy of the DVD, it would have had to be illegally downloaded - which just opens up a second can of worms - first, the issue of showing it in the first place, then the issue of illegally downloading it (and yes, torrenting it is illegal - if someone wouldn't think twice about illegally torrenting a movie, perhaps they need to think twice about whether they are capable of living up to the Scout Oath and Law and being a leader. Illegally downloading a movie, beyond being, well, illegal, is also morally wrong (thou shalt not steal) and if one wouldn't think twice about it, then one obviously isn't doing their best to be morally straight). I'd suggest a friendly chat with the folks who ran the lock-in and a reminder that the boys will follow examples - what we do - far more than they will what we say.

You and the Scoutmaster need to go to the COR right now and tell her that she gets rid of the new Committee Chair, right now, or you walk and take every single boy that you can out of that Troop and to a new unit. Your new CC is going to poison that unit, and there is no training in the world that is going to change this guys mind.

Fred, By it's Federal Charter, the BSA is a Patriotic / National organization. It's purpose, to quote the charter, is as follows: The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916. No where does the federal charter state that the BSA is a Religious Organization. Some folks like to think the term "kindred virtues" means "religious values" but they are wrong. What it means by kindred virtues are virtues related to patriotism, courage and self-reliance - none of which need a religious component to be successful at. Regardless of what a BSA spokesperson once claimed, the BSA is not a religious organization - and I stand by my statement - when the BSA decides to ask Congress to change it's charter to become The First Church of the Boy Scouts of America, then we can talk about religious freedoms. This rule, which is in place in 48 states, 21 of which include sexual orientation in it's definition, is not about denying first amendment rights - it's about ensuring that the members of the judiciary are not acting in a way detrimental to their offices. 48 states have determined that being a member of a group that discriminates is detrimental to the judiciary. 21 states include sexual orientation. None of them except California carved out an exception for youth groups. These rules have been aound for years and won't be going away any time soon. As long as the BSA continues, in the eyes of the courts that administer the rules, to discriminate, the rules will apply to the BSA. But - and this is the bigger point - it is disingenuous to claim a religious exemption just because the BSA recognizes faith - that does not make them a religious organization any more than the recognition by the CEO's of Chic-fil-a or Hobby Lobby of religious precepts makes those companies religious organizations.

Violation of religious freedoms? I know the BSA floated that boat back in the Dale case but they never used it in the case, or if they did, the Supreme Court ignored it in their ruling. When the BSA becomes the First Church of Boy Scouts of America then talk to me about religious freedoms.

Half the troops are already camping at out of council camps, there is a large number of camps in the general area, and there is at least $1 million in maintenance required at these two non-council owned properties in order to just maintain accreditation. As sad as it is to lose camps - I can sympathize with the Council on making these decisions. If these properties were owned by the Council, that would be a whole different kettle of hawks. Yes, it will be sad to see them go, but changing demographics is hard to fight against.

I was 11 when I earned my Lifesaving Merit Badge. It was my third merit badge, after swimming and pet care. It was shortly after I earned my Advanced Lifesaving certificate from the Red Cross. Have I mentioned before that during the summer, I spent more time in the water than I did sleeping? For my lifesaving courses, the guy I broke the hold of was the director of the pool - a 30 something pretty strong guy who held no quarter. For my lifesaving merit badge, I broke the hold of my Scoutmaster - a 30 something pretty strong guy. I wasn't an abnormally large 11 year old - I was just a slippery bugger in water and I was often more at home in water than I was on land at the time. So I don't see it beyond the realm of possibility that an 11 year old can earn the Lifesaving Merit Badge. I'm not going to be quick to criticize mom and the Scout for not waiting for the SM to call first - Mom has already pointed out that it's not all that unusual that the SM would not communicate with the Scouts and that he would provide a blue card after Scouts have started and/or completed badges. As a Scoutmaster, I've done so myself from time to time - most Scoutmaster's I've worked with have due to circumstances. I wasn't about to let a Scout be delayed because my signature wasn't on a slip of paper when they had an opportunity come up to earn a merit badge. I will continue to criticize the Scoutmaster for making up his own rules on when a Scout can earn a merit badge. The BSA is clear about this - a Scout can earn any merit badge they want at any time they want with no outside pre-requisites. If the merit badge itself has a pre-req (such as Lifesavings pre-req to have passed certain 2nd and 1st class requirements) then those are the only pre-reqs that need to be followed. If a Scoutmaster can't understand that they aren't a gate-keeper, that they aren't a barrier to advancement, then that Scoutmaster should be either re-trained or retired. The biggest problem the BSA has isn't gays, it isn't girls, it isn't athiests - it's Scoutmasters following their own rules because they think they know better than the BSA. Unfortunately, the BSA fails the boys in this regard too by not maintaining quality control. They enable Scoutmasters like this one and allow him to get away with this nonsense because they refuse to have anything in place to correct it. The Commissioner's have been hobbled as an advice giving fleet of people with no real power to make changes. 60 years ago, a commissioner would have taken the complaint, had a meeting with the Scoutmaster and if the Scoutmaster refused to change, would let them know his services were no longer required, and found a replacement. Admittedly, that is a bit too extreme - but there is nothing except for "maintaining numbers" that would prevent the BSA from requiring Chartered Organizations from certifying each year that their unit is following policies with a real threat that the charter will be pulled if the Unit failed to follow policies, or failed to correct those not following policies. To the original poster if you're still following - unless the committee changes it's mind, then there is little you can do except capitulate or find a new unit. The only way to effect change in this unit is to become the Chartered Organization Representative at which point you can "fire" the Scoutmaster and the Committee - but the reality is that unless you have the support of the majority of the parents in this, the only thing you would accomplish at that point is to hasten the demise of the unit. My advice? Run - run as far away from this unit as you can - find a new unit - and warn away the Webelos and Cubs in your former pack on how this Unit is failing the boys by failing to follow the most basic of advancement policies. If they're so willing to dismiss these policies, what prevents them from deciding more important policies - those found in the Guide to Saf Scouting - aren't really neccessary to follow too?

JoeBob - I think the women learned that the only male virgins they're likely to encounter in paradise were 30 year old nerds that lived in their parent's basement playing video games while watching My Little Pony. Since women are, in a general sort of way, smarter than us men, they likely petitioned Shaykh 'Abd-Allaah ibn Jibreen to declare that women will not be saddled with 72 virgin nerds. (not that there is anything wrong with being a nerd).

California is not the only state where the state supreme court (which puts in place the rules of behavior the judiciary must follow) has reules that a judge can't be a member of a discriminatory organization. I believe the number is up to 28. They are, however, the first not to exempt youth groups. It appears that the ethics advisory committee really couldn't reconcile a difference between adult organizations and youth groups in the stated reason for excluding youth groups from the earlier rules. Someone could certainly try to appeal the rules in federal court but they won't get very far - state's rights means the states get to make their own rules. I imagine a judge that is a member of the LDS church won't be called to be a Scoutmaster or scout leader. The BSA may be the "official youth program for boys" in the LDS church but that doesn't give protection regarding these rules because the BSA is an external program the LDS church has adopted, like any other chartered partner - it is not a program designed by and of the LDS church.