CalicoPenn

Chapter Chiefs are not part of the District or Council leadership - they are part of the OA hierarchy. Chapter Chiefs wear the loops for their units, they do not wear the silver tabs. Lodge Chiefs become part of the Council leadership as a youth member of the Council Executive Board. He could wear the silver tabs when serving in his capacity of Lodge Chief but should wear the tabs of his unit when not serving as Lodge Chief. The other Lodge Officers should wear the tabs of their units, not the silver tabs. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

"Our problem is that science has revealed how unique a fetus is from even the embryonic stage" Unique inwhat aspect? Sorry, Qwazse, science has revealed how remarkably non-unique a human fetus is in comparison to other mammals in the early stages. There are science and natural history museums that have exhibits showing a side by side comparison of various mammalian fetuses at early stages.

I've noticed lately this trend in society for bigots who have been justly called on their bigotry to try to hid behind the tolerance shield by claiming the folks calling them bigots are intolerant of their bigotry. There was a time when a bigot attemting to demand tolerance of their bigotry would be sneered at by polite society.

Agreed!

Double Post(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

"National Public Radio censored Ender's Game from this year's "100 Best-Ever Teen Novels" young readers' poll, because it was too violent. The jury had no such problem with The Hunger Games series, which came in second. Liberal bias much?" Yeah, Kudo, it's really easy to just go ahead and claim NPR censored something and it's due to liberal bias when you don't do any investigation to see if you actually have a leg to stand on. In this case, you don't. NPR didn't choose the nominees for their list - they chose a panel of experts that chose the list. There were only four of them: The Features Editor and Children's Book Editor for the New York Times Book Review The Children's Book Editor for Publisher's Weekly The Book Editor of the A.V. Club - the arts and entertainments section of The Onion - ironically, this is the non-humorous section of this paper. A Middle School Teacher/Librarian who is chairman of this years committee to select the Young Adult Library Services Association list of Best Young Adult Fiction. This panel of experts didn't nominate Ender's Game. Had they done so and NPR removed it from the list, that would have been censorship. Wisely, NPR didn't edit the nomination list either way - they let it stand just as their panel proposed it. A lot of favorites of people were missing from that list. A different panel would likely have come up with a completely different list - and other people would then be disappointed. Expressing your disappointment and second guessing the panel is just fine. Indeed, I'd expect it if one is passionate about something. But to wave it off as "it must be liberal censorship by NPR" is just lazy and shallow. (This message has been edited by calicopenn)

Well I guess I owe Christians an apology. I just wasn't aware that there can be exceptions to God's words as long as it comes from a Saint or a King or if you believe in the dimness of Jews. Mea Culpa - my error. "So you get to decide who's a Christian and who isn't?" Well heck, I figure if people can claim the right to decide who's moral and who isn't based on intrinsic characteristics, I have every right to claim the right to decide who is Christian and who isn't. Heck fire, there are Christians out there deciding who is and isn't a Christian - ask Catholics and Mormons who have been told they aren't Christians by fundamentalists.

1) What should the parents, friends and other members of the audience wear? My first thought was something along the lines of "business casual," but since it's in the church, should it be more formal? (this is a regular CoH, of course, not an Eagle). I think you're better off just trusting the judgment of the parents, friends and other members of the audience to wear the appropriate clothing rather than giving them directions of what to wear. I doubt anyone is going to show up in flip flops, cut-offs and muscle tees. Is there anything wrong with jeans and a nice pullover shirt? Heck, that's acceptable wear in most churches these days. 2) One of my scouts is earning his first merit badge. He is super-excited about it and has already gotten a sash. Is there any reason why he can't wear his sash and have the merit badge pinned on during the ceremony? He wanted to, but then thought it was weird to wear it with nothing on it? By all means, let him put on his sash and pin the merit badge on it. The sash is a part of the uniform whether it has something on it or not. Though for the most part, the sash is an optional part of the uniform, I know of some Troops that require Scouts to wear sashes as part of the uniform at all CoHs no matter when they joined the troop so guys that crossed over 6 months ago and haven't earned a single merit badge yet will all be wearing empty sashes. Don't sweat it. A suggestion for the future - when a Scout earns a Merit Badge, try to get it to him within the next couple of meetings, whether they are CoH's or not. At the CoH, hand out the card as recognition.

"If you're a Christian and support the death penalty, or war, then frankly, you're not a real Christian - you're a fraud. The Commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" There is no exceptions in that statement. There isn't a sentence that comes after those words that say "except in the case of war or in cases where the state kills people in your name to punish them"." Apparently some folks missed the part that explains my thinking (See above) on why I think if you claim to be a Christian but support war or the death penalty you are a fraud - a Christian in name only. By all means, if I missed the theology that explains how some one can ignore a basic precept in the Ten Commandments and call themselves a true Christian, enlighten me - but see if you can do so in a Christian manner, without attacking someone who believes differently than you do. It's so much easier to just claim that someone is wrong and intolerant than defending one's theology. Defend it - don't just tell me I'm wrong - tell me how I'm wrong. If you can't tell me how I'm wrong, I can only maintain that I am, in fact, correct in my analysis. "It's not "Thou shalt not kill." That is a mistranslation (St. Jerome did a poor job on that one). The better translation is "Thou shalt not murder." " Well, I've heard this argument before - the problem is that the roots of the word "murder" don't go as far back as the old language the Bible was originally written in so the correct translation is still more likely to be "Kill" and the attempts to re-translate it to "Murder" is an attempt to soften the commandment to allow for things such as war or the death penalty. Sorry, I'm not going to buy that argument - if you can re-translate passages of the bible to mean things that they didn't originally mean, or to make it fit your view of what scriptures say, then it makes the Bible nothing but a book of fairy tales. " your argument will be valid if and when the BSA becomes classified as a hate group" Ok, Sentinel, who gets to make the declaration that the BSA is a "hate group"? Or at least whose judgment that they are a hate group will you accept? There are people already out there calling the BSA a hate group. I tend to disagree with them, but it's out there. There are people believing the people who call it a hate group. I wish they wouldn't but there it is. I imagine the folks who are in the KKK are upset that people call them a hate group too. But what's important is you are, despite my warning, thinking I'm comparing the KKK to the BSA - and that's not what I'm doing at all. I'm asking you to think about how something might be the right thing in one instance and is not the right thing in another instance and what made the difference.

I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't a requirement of a chartered organization.

I'm torn on this. I'm sympathetic to the folks that are calling for boycotts of the BSA because they discriminate against people. Yeah, yeah - I know the BSA can "legally" discriminate against gays and athiests (and really folks - get a grip - that's about the only connection there is between the two groups in this - they're both being discriminated against). But that also means they could, if they chose to, "legally" discriminate against women, against blacks, against hispanics, against Jews. If it's not morally right to discriminate against them, then it's just not morally right to discriminate against gays and athiests. If your "biblical morality" allows you to ignore one morality for a different morality, then your "biblical morality" isn't worth the paper it's printed on. If you're a Christian and support the death penalty, or war, then frankly, you're not a real Christian - you're a fraud. The Commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" There is no exceptions in that statement. There isn't a sentence that comes after those words that say "except in the case of war or in cases where the state kills people in your name to punish them". However, I'm also sympathetic to the notion that the local Troops and Packs aren't National, they don't set policy, so really, why punish them for National's foibles by boycotting their tree and wreath sales, or pancake breakfasts, etc. I bought quite a few tins of popcorn this year, and pumpkins, and overpaid for car washes to support local Scouting units, because of that notion that local Troops and Packs aren't setting the policy. But I've taken some time to think about that a bit. There is no way for me, or for the person on the street that opposes the BSA's discriminatory practices, to truly affect National Policy. And the local units? They are the public face of the BSA. Is it right to withdraw support from the local folks because doing so will only hurt them and not National? Maybe not - but then again, if units start to struggle to find membership and to raise funds because of the policies, and that in turn starts to affect Councils, which in turn starts to affect National, then maybe so. If you're one of those folks that will only react rather than think about what I'm about to say, save it - I know it may be inflammatory to you folks already, we don't need to hear it - I'm not comparing the BSA to the group I'm about to reference in a hypothetical way - I'm simply using them as an example because they are well known - for the rest of you, just think about it and honestly ask yourself what you would do. Would you be as quick to dismiss boycott calls against a nationwide bunch of local, mostly autonomous, youth groups that don't make National Policy and may not agree with the policies of their national organization if the initials of the national group was KKK rather than BSA? That's why I'm torn on this - my immediate reaction is there is no way I would ever support a local KKK youth group, even if it has never discriminated against anyone, is loaded with kids of all races and religions, and does a lot of great community service projects, and doesn't believe in many of the policies of their national organization. Why, then, with local Boy Scout units in the same, exact situation, should it be any different? (This message has been edited by calicopenn)

Being a Cub Scout is cool. During middle school, Boy Scouts becomes "uncool". Is it the uniforms? I'm not so sure - it's rare to see Scouts outside of Scouting wearing a uniform. Is it because of sports? I don't know - I've seen too many lads that are active in both to say yes. My opinion is that it's related to increased peer pressure brought on by the transition to adolescence. I believe the period we are most susceptible to peer pressure is the middle school years - we're transitioning from childhood to mini-adulthood. Hit 11 years old and its time to put away the childhood things and "grow up". No more trick-or-treating, no more sitting on Santa's lap, no more reading Dr. Suess, no more playing with GI Joe or Transformers or playing tag in the yard. Scouting? Well, our experience is with Cub Scouts, and that's something we did when we were kids. Now, our peers are telling us it's time to grow up and put that stuff aside. Bullying tends to be more intense in this period, and is often related to the "childish" things we might still do that our peers are trying to get us to stop doing, mostly because they're insecure about their own positions. So, Scouting becomes Uncool and something to be hidden. Then it starts changing again in High School. We're no longer trying to mold the herd, now we're trying to become individuals. We start to value each other as individuals rather than as part of the herd. Boy Scouts (as a whole) may not become "cool" but it's no longer seen as a childish thing and is therefore no longer "uncool". In fact, while Boy Scouts may not be seen as cool, things you do in Boy Scouts are seen as cool. When you start answering questions about what you did over the summer/weekend with "I went on a 25-mile overnight canoe trip down the Fox River" or "I spent a week in New Mexico backpacking", the response is often "cool". Perform at your high school's homecoming half time dressed as an Indian and dancing through flaming rings of steel and your peers will be telling you how awesome that was and wanting to join. I had some of the same experiences Horizon did in High School. My favorite was the ole "What are you, an Eagle Scout?" question answered by 4 people in class "Yeah, I am". The question really shouldn't be how do we change the perception that Boy Scouts is uncool, it should be how do we make our Scouts understand that what they are doing is really cool.

My thoughts: "Hes missed 4 out of the last 5 meetings and a lot of the parents who love scouts and our pack are growing concerned." Pack meetings or those consolidated Den meetings and the parent "roundtables"? Pack meetings, it's a concern if its more than a couple - life happens and its not unusual for CMs to miss a Pack meeting and/or outing or two. The Den meetings? Even if they're all in the same place at the same time, the Cubmaster shouldn't be there - parents will always decide the Cubmaster is in charge of any meeting he's at, whether he's in charge or not. The Cubmaster really has no need to be at the Den meetings - the Den Leaders are in charge, they should be able to run their Den meetings without the CM being there. Really, the Cubmaster's presence is a big signal on the purpose of a meeting - when he's there, its an all-Pack meeting - when he's not, it's a Den meeting. Use that to your advantage. "myself and the WDL offered ourselves to be his ACMs ... "Well you wouldn't be DL anymore" The CM has identified that he needs you more as DL's than as ACMs. I'd respect his decision here. Having an ACM can be a nice thing, but its an option, not a neccessity. If the CM can't make a meeting, the CC steps in - it's part of the CC's job description. I've sen Packs without ACMs designate the WDL as the "Acting Cubmaster" when the CM isn't available for a meeting - and since the CMs job at a Pack meeting is essentially that of MC, that shouldn't be an issue. "so a parent isnt looking around asking wheres the CM I need to give him something" Why does a parent need to give the CM anything other than a handshake, hug or holiday card? The CM's primary interaction with a parent is a PR relationship - the "Hey, how's it going? Son enjoying Cub Scouts? Everything good with the Den? It's great to see you here" variety. Paperwork, etc. should go through the Den Leader - the Den Leader can get it to the right person (unless the committee member handling something wants it to come to them). Registration? Give to Den Leader to give to Committee Member in charge of registration. Popcorn money? Give to Den Leader or to "Popcorn Kernal". These things shouldn't be going to the CM. If your parents are wandering away from their Dens to look for the Cubmaster, you should be retraining them to deal with their Den Leaders. "We said we can help you out with retrieving awards, tracking achievements, managing things when you cant be there." Retrieving awards? There is a Committee Member position that would do that. Tracking Achievements? That's the Den Leader's job. Tracking Advancement? Again, Committee Member. Managing things when he isn't there? Committee Chairs job if there is no ACM. "One night he wasnt there, one of my bear cubs we discovered had a peanut allergy that both the parent and scout did not know about and we had to get him some medical attention. Told the CM. His response "Oh." " What did you expect? Pat on the back and a hearty "Well Done!" Ok, that might have been nice to hear. Wailing and gnashing of teeth? Why? Nothing he could do about it. I see this as you delivering information and him acknowledging it. There's really not much more he can do. You were present so its much more appropriate for you to contact the family to make sure the scout is ok - and you relay it on the the CM. The CM shouldn't be calling the family to inquire or follow-up - not unless he was there. This is a medical issue now, and a lot of folks are raised to keep medical issues private - I wouldn't assume the CM is uncaring, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt that he is just being respectful. If the family were to approach him at a pack meeting and chat about it, thats the time for a "I had heard and am glad little Joey is doing ok". Are you expecting him to take this information and somehow dictate a new "no peanut product" rule to be announced at a Pack meeting? I sure hope not. " He has been a no show at pack meeting where we usually give out vital information. It's kinda left the CC to do the work of two people and her to assume what is fine and not fine with the CM." Its part of the CC's job to step in and give out the vital information if the CM isn't at a meeting. But what is really disturbing is that the CC has to "assume" what is fine with the CM or not - isn't the CC communicating the the CM? Haven't you had an annual planning meeting where all this was already hashed out and now you're just delivering the program or are you running by the seat of your pants? "We do have monthly parent meeting and round tables with them. They are the ones who knock around ideas for the pack to do." What?? Why are you doing this? No wonder there's a potential for dysfunction - it sounds like you're doing planning a couple of months in advance at the most, based on suggestions from your parents meetings. Your Pack should be having an annual planning meeting - usually sometime in the summer - often its a combined Pack Leader and Committee meeting where calendars and suggestions are pulled out, brainstorming occurs, and the years calendar, from monthly themes for Pack Meetings to the Pack's outings, is planned out. Maybe you don't put together the plan for the Bike Rodeo you want to hold in April, but you put it on the calendar and add to the calendar 2 or 3 months before, planning time for the specific event. No need for monthly parent roundtables to get ideas for the next few outings. If you want to give the parents opportunities to give you ideas, that's again something done through the Den Leaders - anything wriong with sending out a flyer at one den meeting to be returned at the next den meeting asking for ideas for the next years outings? One less meeting for parents and for you to go to every mont - as for giving out information, thbats what Den and Pack meetings are for, as well as e-mails and newsletters. "We have had parents step up,company without asking wanting to mange achievements, camping, and activities. However our CM says no to a lot of these things for reasons beyond me. We have one parent who's a type a mom. I used to think that she was going to be a challenge to work with, but in fact, she's just wanting the best fr the kids and offered to handle some things for the CM. he said no, and she want to the COmmittee and they said yes." The examples I'm reading are really the Pack Committee's baliwick. Have you read the CM's job description? There's really nothing in there that would require him to have a committee of his own to handle. They're easily done by one person if he's got good Den Leaders working with him. Is he saying no to suggestions for changes to the upcoming program? Good - he should be saying no if the plans have already been made. Is he really saying no to people volunteering to help or is he telling them to go see the CC - I've seen way too many parents who have been told to see the CC decide thats no and not a "see the guy who needs to fill these jobs". "Our committee chair is frustrated with it because they have addressed it with him, but he seems to not really take what they say to heart." Addressed what with him? Take a good look at all the things that you're asking your Cubmaster to do - take any of those things that rightfully should be done by the Committee and find Committee Members to do them instead of dumping them on the Cubmaster's lap. Check your expectations of meeting attendance - a Cubmaster generally has no more than four meetings a month he has to go to - the Pack Meeting, the Committee Meeting, the Pack Leaders Meeting and the District Roundtable. Den meetings? Not unless he's received a call for help from a Den Leader. Parent Roundtables? Unneccessary meeting in the first place, and one the CC can run if you really need it - if I were the CM, the plan would be set by July 31 for the Cubbing Year starting September 1 and ending August 31 of the next year and would take those "parent roundtable" suggestions and stuff them into a box until the next annual planning meeting. "Parents are growing concerned." Then you need to retrain your parents so that they understand that the Cubmaster's role is not to take money, to take registrations, to track advancements, to track achievements. So that they know that if they have questions, or need to get paperwork in, that they go to the Den Leader first (just as we try to train Patrol members in Scouts to go to the Patrol Leaders before going to their Senior Patrol Leaders with issues) who will get the answers/information. It's to act as Ringmaster to the three-ringed circus called a Pack Meeting. Its to stand up and lead the silly songs, to hand out awards, to keep the enthusiasm level up. Its the Den Leaders and Committee Person's job to do all the program and support stuff that leads to the handing out of awards, that leads to the activities, that leads to the monthly three-ringed circus. "Boy Scouts is boy led and Cub Scouts is parent led." Wrong. Cub Scouts is not parent led. It is Pack Leader led. It is led by the Cubmaster, the CC, the Den Leaders and the Committee Members. The CM is the forward position public face of leadership. The Den Leaders are the CM's Lieutenants in the field. The Committee Chair and Committee Members are the behind the lines folks that make it easy for the front line folks to get the job done. All of these leaders are the folks that decide what the Pack is going to do and how its going to do it. The parents? They can decide to stay on your raft, or join another raft - but they don't decide how or where the raft is going to be steered. " I just finished WB training and I loved it. However his hatred (yes) towards WB given past experiences with it has caused a bit of a rift between us that I was not trying to create. I just wanted to help him and provide for him an outlet to say "Hey, Im stuck at work or something's come up. Can you run and get this and that?" " Finally, and please take this in the spririt it's intended. You've just finished Woodbadge. It means you're excited and pumped up - not unusual in those who have just fininshed Woodbadge. You're brimming with ideas, and eager to go out and do. And that's a good thing. You're dealing with a CM that has had a bad experience with WB - though we don't know if its as a participant or if its in interactions with other eager folks that have gone through Woodbadge. The fact that he's had any experience with it at all suggests that he's an experienced Scouter and isn't a first year Cubmaster (as does his statement that he's aware of the practices of Cubmasters at other Packs in the area). Your eagerness may be inadvertently creating a rift - after training this weekend, you might come away with a whole new perspective on just what a Cubmaster should be doing. I'm guessing you might end up reflecting that, well darn it all, he's actually doing what a Cubmaster is supposed to be doing - and how can I support him in that. At least that's my take.

"When did "science" become political? When scientist started to receive funding from the government?" Ask Galileo when Science became political.

First: Fred - uncalled for, cowardly and an apology to both trailwalker and Merlyn is in order. If there is one thing Merlyn can't be accused of, it's cowardice. If Merlyn had made this posting, he would have used his well known screen name. And if this topic bores you so much, then just don't respond. Second: I've not heard of the UMC deciding to pull their charters. I did a bit of browsing and the UMC held their general conference this year. At the conference, they upheld the church teachings on homosexuality. No big deal, right? Unfortunately, the action may have created a rift that could become unsurmountable over the next year or so. The conference meets every 4 years, and is becoming increasingly conservative - the church, founded through a merger of two other churchs in the US in 1968 - grew as many churches do - by spreading beyond geographical borders into other countries - the member churches in Africa and Latin America are decidedly more conservative and are starting to tip the balance from the more liberal views held by many US and European member churches to more conservative views. Since the general conference, there has been a respected retired Bishop calling for churches to ignore the Methodist book of discipline when it comes to the teascings of the church regarding homosexuality, an estimated 1,000 clergy are following the Bishop, the governing body isn't responding either way - yet - and there are starting to be calls from the liberal side for the liberal denominations to split from the church and go their own way. It appears that the conferences of the Northeast, Pacific Northwest, West (including California) and some significant numbers of churches from the Great Lakes and Midwest are targets for a potential split. It doesn't appear to have gotten much farther than a "it might be time" thought exercise but it might be just enough for the governing body to be giving themselves some breathing room by not adding fuel to an already smoldering fire at this point. Just some speculative thought - it might not have anything to do with this at all - it might just be a new governing body wanting to take more time to understand the meaning of it all.

I'm not quite sure if I support corporal punishment or not. If I do support corporal punishment, I definitely believe it should be administered by a parent only - as a parent, I would reserve the right to take a baseball bat to the side of the head of anyone that hit my kid - whether that person was a teacher, a principal, a scoutmaster, the neighbor, a cop, or even my own relatives. I don't see slapping a child across the face for back-talking to be corporal punishment - I see it as the parent losing their temper and inappropriately lashing out. I don't see how a parent counting to 100 to calm down, then taking the child over a knee for a spanking is really all that effective - though I think that would be the classic example of corporal punishment. There's an old movie - Boys Town, I think it is - where the main character cultivates a really neat relationship with a boy named Whitey - and then pretty much destroys Whitey's trust when he spanks the kid. Now Whitey deserved punishment, but the spanking did far more harm to both characters than good. At least that's how I recall it. Swatting the 4 year old on the hind end once when they kid is about to do something stupid? I'm not sure I'd call that punishment as much as I would call that a course correction. I really have no problem with that. Hmm, thinking about it, I don't think I do support corporal punishment - I support corporal course correction, but not punishment. I think so many people resort to corporal punishment because they are too unimaginative or too weak to use other forms of punishment. Now before someone jumps on me for the weak comment, my meaning is that we tend to talk a good game, but a lot of us don't have the fortitude or attention span to see something through - it's much easier to take a belt to a kid and be done with it than it is to pull privileges, or to enforce a long-term grounding (No X-box for a week? Bet that lasts less than 2 days). "I think one of the problems with folks under 30 these days is that they were not spanked enough." I disagree - I don't think it's because they weren't spanked enough - I think it's because their parents weren't able to successfully say NO to them. I know there's this feeling that in the "good old days" kids were spanked a lot more often - I doubt this is true. I think with the exception of the rare family that went right for the spanking, most of us weren't spanked as often as we think we were - I'm sure my parents spanked me when I was younger but I don't remember getting any spankings from the age of 6 on - I remember hearing my father snap his belt, which was enough to make three boys stop in their tracks, but there weren't any spankings that followed. Same was true for my friends - we knew which kids in class did get regular spankings but it was maybe one boy out of 30. The difference is our parents used the word NO quite liberally, and meant it. "It's the world we had for thousands of years until the 1980's, and now the US has the largest prison population of any country on earth - 25% of all prisoners are in the US. Why is that? Could it be that the US has stopped punishing children until its time to send them to jail?" No, it has nothing to do with parenting and everything to do with our "get tough on crime" binge we've been on as a society since the late 1970's - and a little bit to do with our love of guns without controls. Our violent crime rate is about the same as the violent crime rate in Britain, Canada and Australia but our murder rate is over 4 times the rate of any other country - our criminals are more likely to have and use guns. So part of this huge discrepancy in incarceration rates is attributable to our murder rate. A bigger part, though, is attributed to the way we treat and sentence for non-violent crimes. There are crimes that we throw people in jail for that other countries don't - like writing bad checks. We sentence people to jail for longer periods of time for some crimes than other counties do - as an example, we'll sentence someone to 16 months in prison for burglary while Britain may sentence that same person to 4 months. How does that increase our incarceration rate? Say we sentence a burglar to a 16 month term in January, a second to 16 months in May and a third to 16 months in September - in October, we have three people serving terms for burglary. In Britain, they sentence a guy to 4 months in January, a second to 4 months in May and a third to 4 months in September - how many of those are serving a prison term in October? One. Their prison population is 1/3rd of our in that limited example. We certainly treat drug offenses much differently than other countries - while most industrialized countries treat most drug posession cases as minor manners, we treat them with mandatory sentences when prison time is really unneccessary. Do we really need to sentence someone to 5 years in jail for having a dime bag? We could start reducing that prison population immediately with saner laws - is it really neccessary to have 500,000 people in prison for mostly minor drug offenses or does anyone seriously believe that 500,000 people are major drug dealers?

Wow, what a bunch of cynical, heartless people on here. Why an award? Because it can make the family feel better. This gentleman has put a lot of time and effort into Scouting - time that was spent away from family. Giving an award (in whatever form you decide to give) to the widow, or children at the next District Dinner, or next Camporee, or next Troop Court of Honor (whichever might be most appropriate) can show the family just how much y'all appreciated the Scouter and the family's sacrifices. I've seen these kinds of ceremonies many times - I've yet to meet a family member who thought that they were just getting another piece of junk to hang on the wall. Its not uncommon when you see a spouse once a year (at district dinner) for the spouse to say how little she realized that her husband was so well regarded and it really means a lot to her. I've not seen anything similar to the "Spirit of the Eagle". That lets you create your own - in whatever form you'd like. It might be a campership or the creation of some kind of memorial at camp. It might be planting a tree in his honor (with a nice certificate to present to the family that a tree has been planted in his honor). I know of one Troop that, for longtime Troop volunteers, would hold a retirement ceremony at the next Court of Honor for the current Troop Flag and would present the retired flag in a nice display box to the family. I like the James West award idea of Eagle732. I've also seen presentations of a nicely framed Rockwell Scouting print. The nice thing about not having an official posthumous award is that it allows you to let your imagination run free and come up with something that is unique and appropriate to the person. Don't let the nabobs of negativity keep you from honoring the long-time Scouter that has passed - come up with something appropriate and prepare for hugs and tears.

Great story OGE - and I learned something new today - there were German Monks around somewhere between 3500 and 3100 BC, when the first Barley Ale was created.

Dreaded Double Post(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

I would say "Damn the Torpedo's, Full Speed Ahead" and go ahead and give out your own created awards. You're a volunteer, what can they do, fire you? Before it was merged with another District, the Sauk Woods district used to give out "S.W.A.C.S." - aka the Sauk Woods Award for Cheerful Service. It was just a simple certificate, awarded to people who have provided exemplary service to the district. Just working an event at a camporee might not earn you a SWACS, but planning and recruiting folks to work at the events might. I don't know that I'd want to have each unit give awards to their folks - that seems more of a function of the unit - this is a District event - hand out the District Award of Merit, training awards, short (and I mean short) recognition of folks that have earned their Wood Badge beads (this is not a beading ceremony, it's just a "stand when I call your name and the bartender has been told to cut you off if just one note of Gilwell escapes your lips" recognition). Hand out your own district awards as well (and it never hurts to give one to the DE, whether you think they deserve it or not). Our district also invited the two district youth leaders to attend (with dates if they were so inclined) - the Chapter Chief and the President of the Explorer Council (back in the day, the Explorer Posts had a leadership council where the leaders of the various Explorer Posts in the District could get together to share ideas and to plan an annual get-together). It's your event - you get to plan it however you want to do it - you don't even need to tell the Council folks what you're doing if you don't want to get into details. Sometimes, its better that they don't get an opportunity to interfere. Oh - and just because typing Sauk Woods reminded me of it, and though it has nothing to do with the question, when I was Chapter Chief, the Lodge Executive Board came up with this idea that all the Chapters should be known by their own Indian name rather than by their District names and that we had to come to the next meeting with our new names. The next meeting rolled around and the other Chapter Chiefs all announced their new names and what they meant. I went last and proudly announced that our chapter had chosen the name Sauk Woods, in honor of the Sauk Indians that had inhabited the woods and prairies of our immediate area before the settlers arrived, and as a sign of respect to the District that were were so closely tied too. The Lodge Chief turned red with anger, the Lodge Adviser laughed, and the guy from the now former Illiniwek Chapter said he wished he had thought of that (and the next month, they were again, officially, the Illiniwek chapter). Like I said, you're a volunteer, what can they do, fire you?

"The reason Thanksgiving ws moved from the last Thursday of November to the fourth Thursday of November was to give the shoppers an extra week for shopping." Well, yes and no - because it doesn't always work out that way. In 1939, FDR moved the holiday from the last Thursday to the 2nd to the last Thursday at the behest of retail merchants who were hoping for an extra week of holiday shopping - considering the times, the argument made a lot of sense. Remember, it was Lincoln that declared Thanksgiving as a National Holiday on the last Thursday of Thanksgiving - between the Civil War and WWI, the US added it's constribution to Christmas traditions by adding a dollop of consumerism to the mix. At the time of FDR's change, Thanksgiving wasn't a Congressionally authorized holiday, it was a Presidentially declared holiday - and the states were free to accept or reject the proclamations - and that's just what happened - despite FDR's proclamation that Thanksgiving would be the 2nd to last Thursday in November, a significant number of states kept it as the last Thursday of month. This was confusing so Congress stepped in and went to pass a bill declaring that Thanksgiving would be the last Thursday in November nationwide. An amendment was offered and accepted to make it the 4th Thursday of the month rather than the last Thursday of the month because there are November that have 5 Thursdays in them - this was to make it even more consistent - it's always the 4th Thursday of the month. How does this jibe with giving shoppers and extra week? Well, that works some of the time and doesn't other time. This year, Thanksgiving was on November 22. Next year, Thanksgiving is on November 28 - almost a full week later. So much for the extra week.

51 years ago on that date, CalicoPenn was born. From 7th grade on, when talking about November 22nd, I was constantly reminded how November 22nd was a tragic day in US History. Next year is the 50th anniversary. I will be avoiding all news outlets on that day. On the positive side, it won't be "black friday" next year - that would be too morbid. As for the conspiracy theories? I think people pay attention to them for certain events because the truth is just to much to bear. We just can't understand how one person can make such an impact. Instead, we'll listen to self-proclaimed experts say that one guy couldn't have made 3 shots in under 1 minute with the kind of gun they used - never mind that others have done it routinely. We can't bring ourselves to believe that Jack Ruby gunned down Oswald because he was a Texan with a god-given right to carry a gun and simply did what a lot of other people was thinking about. About the only alternate theory I'm willing to listen to is the one that AZMike prposes - that Kennedy wasn't the intended target, that Connolly was the target all along.

Sorry to burst some bubbles but "Black Friday" (known now in some circles are "Greed Thursday") is exactly what Christmas is all about in the United States. Most of the "traditions" that surround Christmas - whether it be Santa Claus, Christmas Trees, decorating the house, yule fires, feast days, and yes, even religious celebrations, were imported to the US from other cultures. We can argue all we want about how those foreign cultures were in turn influenced (or out right stole) from even earlier cultures (AZMike, you may not like it but most religious historians agree that the December 25th tradition of celebrating the "Son of God" comes from the Church (and at the time, there was only one "Church") re-purposing the northern celebrations of the "Sun God" to the "Son of God" in order to make converts of "pagans" that they knew they couldn't defeat with military force, as they had done with the southern tribes). But the consumerism that's led to "Black Friday" and "Cyber Monday"? That's a wholly United States invention - you can say its the US contribution to the culture of Christmas. Is it sad? Sure - but it must not be that unwelcome since the US contibution has been embraced by other countries as well. Dean - I'm just not as worried about China "taking us over without firing a shot" - the same thing was said of Japan back in the 1980's when a Japanese firm bought Rockefeller Center in NYC. China is using the debt they hold to prop up their own economy - they don't want us to pay them back. If we did, it would drop their economy into a tailspin that would be far worse than what we've been going through for the past 6 years. By the way, China may be our largest foreign investor, but they only hold 8% of US Debt. Know who holds most of the US Debt? The United States of America. Some of that is private investors, but most of that is the government itself. Yes, the US Treasury is the single largest holder of US Debt. We're borrowing from ourselves for pensions, social security and other future obligations. But don't let folks get you to panicing about that - they love doing that because they know that Americans are way to lazy to dig deeper so they can get away with it. Every month, the United States gets a lot of money from companies and people for Social Security contributions. That money isn't used to pay current benefits - it's "invested" in treasury bonds that mature in about 35 years (yeah, all that panicky stuff about SS is only funded for 35 years? It's really SS has 35 years worth of investments that is constantly being refreshed - next year, we'll be funded for only, gasp, 35 years). The bonds SS bought 35 years ago and have now matured? Cashed in to pay current benefits. The biggest problem with our debt is not "entitlements" (know why they're called "entitlements"? Because you've paid for them in the past and you're entitled to the funds in the future). Again, stop listening to the clowns that treat you like sheep. The biggest problem we have is overspending on the military coupled with reduced revenue. Consider that about 1/3rd of our budget is "entitlements" - but they're paid for. Another 1/3rd is the military - and that includes more than the DOD - it includes intelligence, it includes things in the Dept. of Energy, in the Dept. of Interior, Department of State, and other cabinet departments. The other 1/3rd is everything else we do. Modest proposal: DO we really need the Marine Corps anymore? Isn't everything they do redundant to everything that the other branches do? Army can handle infantry - and we can train them to ride on boats. Air Force and Navy have plenty of pilots. The Navy and the Army have their own special forces groups (If the Marines are so "elite", why are we sending the Navy Seals in to ground missions?). I know it's tradition, but do we really think naval power is the end all and be all in our modern times? As for the 16 trillion of debt - one last point on that - the GAO estimates the value of US assets throughout the globe at approximately 2 quadrillion dollars. A Quadrillion is a Thousand Trillions. 16 Triilion against assets? Imagine going to a bankruptcy court with $100,000 in assets and debt of $100 - the court will laugh at you and possibly fine you for taking up their time. We aren't anywhere near bankruptcy.

I'm actually more afraid of avowed Republicans serving as Scoutmasters than gay men. :-)

"I have to agree, it's not that gays have gay morals, they just don't follow all the normal morals." Can you elaborate on this non-answer? What "normal" morals don't gays follow?