CalicoPenn

"The key is that it's the end of his journey as a scout. Off yeh go. "Advancement and the Eagle Rank are a Method not a Goal". 100 times. Longhand, no usin' the computer! The end of a lad's journey as a scout should never be about Eagle. It should be about friendships and good times had, and lookin' back at how much he's learned and lookin' forward to where he's goin' to take those lessons." Yeah - looks great on paper - but then reality has a way of turning paper into spit wads. So apparently the answer, when there would actually be time for an SM to step up to the plate and help a lad facilitate the journey to Eagle is to tell the lad that "Advancement is a method, not a goal and the journey shouldn't be about Eagle". Uh-huh - let me know how that works out for you.

Illinois doesn't ban Sunday hunting - but Illinois' gun deer hunting season is incredibly short - one of the shortest I've seen. Illinois also closes some state lands to non-hunters during the gun deer hunting season (and yeah, I know there are other seasons but when it comes to hunting, unless you are a hunter, you think deer hunting, and you're thinking gun hunting). Now if Illinois had a longer hunting season, like Maine's (which is nearly a month long and closes on Sundays due to an old Blue Law), and were closing state lands (as Maine does as well during the season), I'd want to have a ban on Sunday hunting just so that the lands are open up to everyone at least once per week. I don't mind losing a couple of weekends to hunters but not a whole month. I've read one of the pro-Sunday hunting arguments is not allowing people to hunt on public lands on Sunday's turns hunters into second class citizens because they can't use the public lands they way they want - yet that argument fails to recognize that many states close at least portions of public lands to non-hunters during the hunting season - no one ever closes state lands for birdwatchers, skiiers, fishing, etc so I find that argument rather spurious. Pennsylvania? Well your hunting seasons are more complicated than a military recipe for fruitcake but there is an antlerless hunt that's about a month long.

Vol - you seem to be proving Merlyn's point - that people just might interpret what Perry said, because he's a Governor, as actual fact and policy when it isn't. The students who were told they couldn't pray at the flag pole were well within their rights and were told the srong thing by the school authorities - but things like that will happen when people try to take even slightly complicated things and simplify it to an idiotic sound bite. The person at the school likely heard just the sound bite from somewhere and created instant policy. Happens all the time. We also are subjected to a media that often doesn't try to ensure that what they print and say are accurate to the actual story. That clip from Fox News about the incident as the Supreme Court is a prime example - while being interviewed, Fox scrolls that the school was told they can't pray yet right from the mouth of the person being interviewed she says the guard told her "I'm not telling you that you can't pray" and goes on further to say the guard told her they just had to do it elsewhere. But because of the way the scroll was written, anyone not paying attention, or too stupid to comprehend anything more than a 4 word sentence, might believe the guard told them to stop praying. An accurate scroll would have read "School told to pray somewhere else". Don't think that makes a difference? Then why do so many people believe that kids can't pray at school? Because they've been told, wrongly, over and over again, by people with their own axes to grind, that kids can't pray at school. Listening further to the woman, she said that they moved down from where they were to the sidewalk in front of the steps and stopped and prayed and weren't bothered. Seems to me they were able to pray after all - just not where they were standing. Should they have been allowed to pray where they were originally standing? Without knowing any history behind why the policy was created (if indeed it is a SCOTUS policy and not just another example of someone misinterpreting the policy), I'd have to say yes they should be allowed to pray there. But just because there are individuals out there that are misinterpreting the rules doesn't mean the rules mean more than they say. Someone saying kids can't pray in schools and stopping kids from praying on their own doesn't make the rule that kids can't pray in school under any circumstances.

"I wonder why the SM is deciding to deny this boy his Eagle? I would not put it that way. My observation is that the SM, the COR, the CC and the advancement chair are all on the same page: a Life scout should complete all Eagle requirements without any pro-active help from them. The Scout could have run for Patrol Leader or applied for one of the other positions at the end of August, but waited until now - literally the last possible moment - to approach the SM." Yeah, ok, I guess it's fair to say the SM isn't intentionally denying this boy Eagle - but frankly, this SM, and the CC and the COR, are denying this boy the opportunity to earn Eagle because they refuse to be flexible and insist in following their ignorant ADULT timeline of how things should be done. As adult leaders, our number one goal should be to assist the Lads on their path - and that inlcudes the path of advancement (among all the different paths). It shouldn't be to slam artificial barriers down in front of the Scouts - even if there is no intention to do it. I was ready to consider that the SM had some other reasons and was willing to side with the adults but then you give the kicker - the lad was working for a military academy nomination (and congrats - he got it). Those aren't easy to get and take up a lot of time - seems to me the lad was being responsible by not trying for a POR knowing he might end up not doing justice to the job. Now? I think the COR, the SM, the CC and the Advancement Chair should be taken out behind a shed and kicked in the pants, hard, until their brains (can you tell where I think their brains are right now?) reboot. These knuckleheads are exactly why a lot of people get really frustrated and leave with a very sour taste in their mouth about Scouting. You folks have a lad who's one more step closer to becoming an officer in our armed forces and his last lasting memory of your Troop and the Boy Scouts is going to be of a bunch of idiots who blocked him from an opportunity to earn Eagle. I wouldn't be surprised if he never let scouting darken his doorway again. You now have almost no time - if you have a friend in another Troop that will accept this lad right now - today - and make sure he gets a POR - call them and get it done. The transfer paperwork can be signed today. Or contact the Institutional Head - that's the COR's boss in this matter - and see if he'll intervene - or go to the Scoutmaster and makes this lads case and see if you can talk some sense into this guy - and be ready to back the SM up (if you can get him to reverse course) when the COR, CC and Advancement Chair start to squawk. Alternatively - and this will take some doing - by my calcs - using 180 days as 6 months, you might have until Monday or Tuesday to do this - start a crew now - call the DE to make it happen - you have two lads in it already - your son and his best friend - recruit more for the minimum you need - then make him an officer that meets the requirements and get a great crew up and running to suck the older lads out of this Troop so they don't have to be faced with such unflexible rules again. You have a chance to make a huge difference in this - please don't give up - but if you end up passing that line because of the intransigence of these clowns - I'd seriously consider whether you want to remain involved in this kind of Troop.

Oh shoot - I just realized that my very wide grin after my sentence about violating a small furry mammal's posting policy didn't post - I have got to learn how to put in those smiley things! Sorry Beavah - I took it all as light hearted fun!

I've never run across someone wondering when Boy Scout Popcorn was going to be sold. I always run in to people who can't wait until it's Girl Scout Cookie season. Why? You can buy popcorn any day of the year pretty much anywhere you go. Thin Mints? Just from the Girl Scouts at a certain time of the year (you can get similar, but they're just not the same as the cookies in the green box). In price comparisons, a box of Girl Scout Cookies at $4.50 per box doesn't seem all that much out of line with a similar sized package of Chips Ahoy or Oreos. The GS Cookies might be a little bit higher but we're willing to spenf that little bit extra for a good cause because we don't perceive that the price is that much more than the price we'll pay in the store. BSA Popcorn prices just don't have the same perception. I think the only thing I would sell would be the 18-pack microwave popcorn products - at $18 for 18 bags, I can show the customer a favorable comparison to the same product in the store - $1 per bag where the store price may even be higher - good value, and people love a bragain (witness the number of people who will line up outside a store on Thanksgiving night instead of spending it with family in order to score a television for $300). $9 for an 11 ounce bag of Caramel Corn when you can buy an 11 ounce tub or caramel corn at the store for $2.25? I don't care how much you love Scouting, that's hard to swallow. My thoughts? Find a new product that people will look forward to year after year 9ala the Girl Scouts) or go back to basics on the product mix for popcorn - be heavy on microwaved and pop your own and go easier on the pre-popped.

So I'm going to risk offending Beavah by violating his CP can't post policy . It's a very common religious right meme that children aren't allowed to pray in public schools anymore - and as has been pointed out, rather dishonest too, as blanket statements can sometimes end up being. Kids can pray in public school, on their own - the schools and their agents (principles, teachers, teacher aids, cafeteria workers, school bus drivers, janitors, etc.) just can't lead the prayers or create an environment where student-led prayer may be seen as the school favoring one religion over another or forcing students who do not want to pray to be subjected to the prayers. It's not just Governor Perry saying this. However, I can see some parents or kids or teachers taking Perry's statement, if they haven't understood it to be campaign rhetoric, as some kind of order from the Governor and take it to mean that all prayer is banned, but it's the campaign trail and the media prefers sound bites and won't take the time to explain that his statement doesn't mean that kids can't pray on their own in school. Beavah mentioned that teachers can't pray in school. That's not quite right either, which serves as an example of why such blanket statements like "kids can't pray in school" are often inaccurate - part of it can be correct, and sometimes most of it can be correct, but often there's a part that makes it not quite correct. Beavah is correct in that teachers can't lead their kids to pray, and probably should refrain from praying out loud in front of their students - but, like the "kids can't pray in school" thing, there's nothing that says a teacher can't say a silent prayer in his/her own head at anytime, or can't find a quiet and solitary place to pray during the school day - at least not as far as I'm aware. What really irritates me are the statements that try to turn non-religious subjects into religion. Environmentalism and Earth Day a religion? Seriously?? So that makes all those Christians, from many denominations, and Jews, and Muslims and Hindus, etc. etc. that are environmentalists and take part in Earht Day activities multi-theists then? What religion might the Chess Club be promoting - Fischerism? A Diversity Club that accepts animism as equal to Christianity is bad how? Seems to me the Diversity Club would be following the BSA principles involved with A Scout is Reverent. A Diversity Club isn't a religious club - but as I seem to recall, the Supreme Court has said that a University doesn't have the right to withhold student government funds from religious clubs just because they are religious - seems to me that would hold true at a High School district level so I'm not sure about this idea that a Diversity Club can get funds but a Campus Outreach for Christ club can't. As for Martin Luther King Day - he's not be honored because he was a reverend, he's being honored because his work as a reverend led to him being a leader in the Civil Right's movement which went well beyond the narrower focus of his pulpit. However, I do believe we should change the name of the day to Civil Rights Day to honor everyone involved in the Civil Rights movements (both past, current and future) but keep the celebration to the Monday closest to King's birthday. We've already merged Washington's Birthday and Lincoln's Birthday into President's Day to honor all of our Presidents, and Memorial Day and Veteran's Day now remember all our wars and veterans rather than the specific wars they started out doing (Memorial Day used to be called Decoration Day to commemorate fallen Union soldiers of the Civil War - now, it comemmorates all our wars and soldiers, including Confederate soldiers and Veteran's Day used to be Armistice Day to celebrate the end of World War One), it seems it's more in keeping with our traditions to officially call MLK Day "Civil Right's Day" in the tradition of Memorial Day, Veteran's Day and Labor Day.

I'm glad you said Andy Williams and not Perry Como. Andy's specials were great. But I would put him at #2. John Denver and the Muppets are my #1. This week at work, we're installing a nifty new gadget to our computers that allows us to dial our phones by just clicking on the phone number in our contact list or an e-mail. No more having to press the buttons on the phone. Too much work, I suppose. It got me thinking that just as those perennial lists of things that new high school graduates don't know or do that we did when we were younger oftern include "use a rotary dial phone", in 20 years, the list might say "use a touch tone phone". I expressed my opinion that within 2 years we won't even have phones on our desk - we'll be making phone calls right through our computers (our phone system is already a voice over internet service) and speak into a microphone that's on our monitors. I had only one person disagree with me - and that was on timing - he said 3 years.

Most of the tea party folks I've talked to love to quote the Federalist Papers as if the Federalist Papers are some kind of biblical guide to the Constitution. I don't think most of them would even know what an Anti-Federalist was. So no, I don't believe they are throwbacks to the Anti-Federalists.

Why no, Kudu - I don't believe anyone has. Are you volunteering?

Saying a policy isn't a policy doesn't make the policy go away, no matter how many times or how many ways you say it. Let's be clear - the folks in the unit can decide that they will ring bells for the Salvation Army as individuals - there is nothing to prevent them from doing so (and in fact, I would applaud them for doing so - as individuals - what I would not do is then expend Troop funds to hold a party for these people that exclude folks that didn't ring bells - it isn't a Troop event). Indeed, there is nothing to prevent them from deciding as a group of individuals that they will do this. But - they can not do so as a Scouting Unit - that is BSA policy - spelled out pretty clearly on the Unit Fundraising Application - an application that specifically mentions Salvation Army Bell Ringing as a project that a Unit can not do. It can not be a Troop project. It doesn't matter if the Troop is just trying to do something nice for the community - they can not, as a BSA Troop, ring bells for the Salvation Army. They can ring bells as individuals who happen to be in a Troop - but that is not the same thing as doing it as a Troop project. That's the policy - like it or not. If you don't like the policy, then try to change it - don't try to obfuscate it by claiming that the BSA can't do anything about it. Of course the BSA can - the Dale decision has re-affirmed the right of the BSA to tell the sponsors and Troops what BSA units can and can't do. Or is it alright to ignore policies you disagree with just because you disagree with them. The BSA say's a Troop must meet certain requirements to hold a sports shooting event - but hey, who cares what the BSA says, right? Just meet as a bunch of individuals and do what you want, right? 2-deep leadership on a campout? Ahh, who needs it - we'll just camp out as a group of individuals who happen to be in the same Troop - that way we can get around BSA policy. So much for the Scout Law. So hey, everyone, go ahead and do whatever you want from now on. Ignore BSA policies, rules and regulations - they're apparently nothing but pirate guidelines anyway.

I thought we were talking about values and morals, not policies. We may certainly disagree on policies. But what about the so-called values - isn't that what this discussion is about? I'd like to know where in a scale of values Obama fits in comparison to the other candidates. Again, not asking about policy - but about what are thought to be family or moral values.

"Everyone of the republican candidates are running on traditional conservative values, just not the values you're talking about." You bring up a good point, Barry. The values I'm talking about might not seem to be the traditional conservative values. But the problem is that "traditional values" isn't very well defined so we all come to the question with our own idea of what those traditional conservative values are or what we believe them to be. So what are the traditional conservative values - and are they different from what were thought to be traditional conservative values 50 years ago? 100?

Folks are missing Lisa's point. The Republicans deliberately campaign on a "traditional values" platform. The Democrats don't. Because of that campaign style, it's much easier to label Republican politicians as hypocrites when they fall short of the values they espouse in their campaigning - and its why when GOP partisans then try to point out that the Democrats do the same things, it doesn't typically resonate with the voters because there isn't the spectre of hypocrisy that looms over the charges. Yes, Bill Clinton was morally suspect in his personal life - but he never campaigned as a moral values candidate so when his moral failings are pointed out, the majority of people shrug and only the very narrow values base of the GOP party seems to care. But when someone like Larry Craig is caught in a morally compromising situation, the narrow values base of the GOP party turns on them, and the people who would typically shrug it off turn on him not because of the moral failings but because of the hypocrisy involved. Voters may dislike hypocrites more than they dislike liars. As to the field - and in my opinion: Huntsman - seems to be a values choice - not going to get past the base (he worked for Obama - how dare he). Romney - I still remember reading about his lashing his dog carrier to the top of the car and driving on highways to New Hampshire with his dog in the carrier on the top of the car. He doesn't meet my idea of someone with values I can support. Santorum - sorry, Lisa - given his visceral hatred of gays and lesbians, I don't think he passes muster on values - maybe to a small group of evangelicals who share his hatred, but beyond that? Nope. Cain - I think I can only compare him to Bill Clinton in this regard - complete with the nonsensical denials. Paul - seems to be a values choice - but not going to get past the GOP base. Bachman - railing about people taking government handouts while accepting hundreds of thousands in government funds seems pretty hypocritical to me. Perry - an Eagle Scout - yet actively worked to cover up the possibility that the State of Texas executed a man convicted of a crime that didn't actually take place - I don't consider that moral at all. Newt - Can I just fall on the carpet and start rolling around laughing or do I really need to say anything? The man served his ex-wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital undergoing treatment for cancer - great values there. Obama - admitted to making poor choices as a teenager but took the right path - seems to be a values choice.

Well, we've avoided the elephant in the thread long enough. By National BSA Policy - Youth members shall not be permitted to serve as solicitors of money for their chartered organizations, for the local council, or in support of other organizations. Adult and youth members shall not be permitted to serve as solicitors of moneyBoy/Cub Scouts and leaders should not identify themselves as (such)in The Salvation Armys Christmas bell-ringing program. This would be raising money for another organization. This comes from the back of the Unit Fund-Raising Application. Funny - it specifically mentions the bell ringing program. It also doesn't matter if they're in uniform or not. Units CAN NOT participate as a unit in this kind of fund-raising activity, even if the Salvation Army is their sponsor. Now of course, if the lads and their parents want to do this on their own time, without identifying themselves as Scouts - that's all well and good. But as a unit activity, this is not allowed. Given that, the arguments about whether it's fair to exclude people from the unit's x-mas party who don't take part in this unit's not allowed by policy service project really don't matter any more. Since the unit can't, by policy, do this, then the unit shouldn't spend unit money on a party as a reward for a non-Scout activity. If you decide to point out this restriction to the unit, and the unit is fully aware of the restriction and decided to ignore it anyway, I'd run as far away from this unit as possible - who knows what other policies they ignore on a regular basis.

Is this the only holiday party for the Troop? It sounds like it based on your first post - that the Committee has expended Troop funds (that have been raised by ALL the boys) for a party that only some people can go to. It sounds like some committee member some time in the past came up with the "brilliant" idea to force the lads to donate their time to a charity the committee member is/was hot for and the rest of the committee was too buffaloed to just say no and thus the event became ingrained in the culture of the Troop. There is only one way you're going to change this tradition - and that's to become the COR and dictate from on high that the Troop will no longer spend troop money on events that restrict any member of the Troop from participating, with the exception of high adventure trips that may require a Scout to be a certain age or rank. Unless you have a reasonable expectation that you can become COR, you are not going to change the culture of this unit. The unit leaders (volunteers) may believe in their hearts that they are doing the right thing (or they may be just stuck in the "we've always done it this way" rut), but being exclusionary is usually never the right thing. That exclusionary policy has your partner ready to leave - that's what happens when there are exclusionary policies that don't have a strong reason behind it. The fact that you can point out that your son probably has more service hours than many of the lads that will be able to attend the party shows that this exclusionary policy is self-defeating. The fact that pointing that out to the SM and SPL didn't light up the light bulbs in their brains shows that the tradition is too ingrained in these folks for them to even consider that it may stink like a dead fish. How many other lads have walked away from this unit, and Scouting, without saying anything because of this tradition? We may never know, but it's likely that some have left along the way. And don't believe for a second that the PLC will ever be able to change this either. As much as we harp on "boy-led" units, most units are an amalgamation of boy-led and adult-led units. It's more likely than not that when the PLC sits down to plan the year (if they do indeed do this), a portion of the calendar is already filled out and the bell ringing is on it, indelibly and never to be removed by vote of the PLC. In Scouting, one of the things we develop is a sense of teamwork, that we're all part of a family. We don't do this by saying everyone is welcome, except for you because you didn't ring bells, and except for you because you didn't participate in the car wash. If this is the first "tradition" of the Troop you're stumbling on, what other "traditions" does this Troop have that stink like a dead fish? Sometimes, you need to go with the gut instincts - that first gut instinct to leave (and hopefully find a better unit) may be the one that's best to follow.

What the national park figures suggest to me was visitor days were slowly increasing then there was a major surge in the 10 years after 2000. What happened in those ten years? Fewer people traveling overseas. More people driving rather than flying to destinations. More people traveling close by because of economics (Mount Ranier National Park, as an example, has become a much more attractive vacation destination for the people who live in Portland, OR and Seattle, WA because it's closer. I was amazed at the number of people I've met in Portland and Seattle who have lived there most of their lives who have never been to Ranier. This past week, I met a man with his family at the George Rogers Clark National Historical Park in Vincennes, Indiana - he lives and works in the area and passes the monument nearly every day - this was the first time he and his family (wife and Cub Scout age boys) had ever visited the monument). An added touch of patriotism after 911 (National Park visitor hours include visits to battlefields, monuments, etc. - how many more people have visited the national park sites in Washington DC since 911?). I think the graphs are an interesting exercise, but in the end, they don't really prove any correlation. I could probably come up with graphs showing that same kind of curve for the number of people who eat Mexican or Thai food, or the number of people who shop at Walmart.

I would never recommend a unit get a credit card - it's way to easy for someone to misuse it obligating the unit to cover the debt - and way too tempting for a unit to borrow and spend more money than they have on hand to replace equipment rather than fundraise for the money in advance of the purchase. I just think a credit card is a bad idea. I'm wary of debit cards as well. Though you may not be able to borrow and spend, it's still too easy for someone to empty the bank account on personal spending without a check abd balance before it's too late. I realize it can be convenient, but convenience isn't always the answer, and sometimes is more trouble than it's worth.

Is "mom" answering the questions by directing the answers to the individual asking or by directing the answers to the group as a whole? If she's treating the questions as if they're coming from the group, then I think that's fine - he may be asking a lot of questions the other boys have but may be afraid to ask. I'm not sure it was appropriate for the CM to pull the lad aside unless asked to do so by the Den Leader - if you have concerns, talk to the Den Leader and let them deal with it. What happens next week if "mom" wonders why "Billy" isn't asking questions and "Billy" says "Mr. C. said I couldn't ask questions anymore"? I just wouldn't want to put myself in that situation. Let the Den Leader deal with den discipline.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

You look them in the eye, you tell them you have no intention of sleeping in the shelter, that you will finish cooking and eating dinner before you leave - then when you leave, you cheerfully say "Have a good night, don't let the mice bother you during the night, I wonder if the area is safe from the Hantavirus" then toddle off to your own campsite and let the leaders deal with the sleepless night ahead for half the Scouts.

Equating a 28 year old grad student hoping to turn his experience into a full time job with his college athletic department or into a career in a field where Head Football Coaches commonly earn mid-to high six figure salaries and some earn seven figure salaries and where even assistant football coaches can earn salaries higher than the College President with an 18 year old undergraduate wanting to give back to Scouting is just ludicrous. It's like blaming all Eagle Scouts for the actions of Russell Henderson.

Every time I read the requirements for the various ranks, I never see the words Mastery or Proficiency. Sure, the rules and regulations says something about proficiency, but where in the requirements that a Boy reads does it mention proficiency, or mastery? A Scout demonstrates a skill as required and is dinged because he isn't showing proficiency at it a month later? "Gee Mr. Scoutmaster, the requirement say's demonstrate, I demonstrated and passed back then, why aren't I getting rank?" "Because, Bobby Scout, the rules and regulations says you have to show proficiency and you haven't" "Golly, Mr. Scoutmaster, are those rules in my Boy Scout Handbook"? "Why no, Bobby Scout, they aren't - they're in a binder at Council office" "Well golly gee whiz, Mr. Scoutmaster, are there any other secret rules and regulations I need to know about?" Through 9th grade, most boys see the world in very distinct shades of black and white, and have a high sense of justice - being told there are requirements they have to meet that aren't in their Boy Scout Handbook and aren't common knowledge really turns them off. So the question becomes what is more important, following the requirements in the Boy Scout Handbook, or relying on some rule about proficiency in the rules and regulations. Heck, we can't get people to agree on what the rule that says don't add to, subtract from or alter the requirements means, let alone follow it, and now we need to make sure they follow some rule about proficicency, and who is going to define that term anyway? Should First Class Scouts show a mastery of certain outdoor skills? Sure - I think all of us would agree - but the mastery comes from a program that gives the Scout plenty of time to practice, and thus master, the skills they've learned and demonstrated for rank. If they are't showing mastery, it's not because they were "pencil-whipped" into rank, it's because the unit's program is lacking in opportunities. But for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and require mastery and proficiency - and I'll go ahead and define it. As of right now, mastery and proficiency in knot tying, lashing and rope whipping is hereby decreed to mean that a Scout can do all of the required knots/lashings/whippings behind their back while blindfolded in a raging thunderstorm while standing on a floating dock in the middle of a wind-whipped lake. What, you don't like that? It's not fair? Surely it shows mastery and proficiency, right (and if not, why not?). If you have a weaker definition of mastery and proficiency, then is it ok to say any Scouts that go through your program are just pencil-whipped through?

Every time I read the requirements for the various ranks, I never see the words Mastery or Proficiency. Sure, the rules and regulations says something about proficiency, but where in the requirements that a Boy reads does it mention proficiency, or mastery? A Scout demonstrates a skill as required and is dinged because he isn't showing proficiency at it a month later? "Gee Mr. Scoutmaster, the requirement say's demonstrate, I demonstrated and passed back then, why aren't I getting rank?" "Because, Bobby Scout, the rules and regulations says you have to show proficiency and you haven't" "Golly, Mr. Scoutmaster, are those rules in my Boy Scout Handbook"? "Why no, Bobby Scout, they aren't - they're in a binder at Council office" "Well golly gee whiz, Mr. Scoutmaster, are there any other secret rules and regulations I need to know about?" Through 9th grade, most boys see the world in very distinct shades of black and white, and have a high sense of justice - being told there are requirements they have to meet that aren't in their Boy Scout Handbook and aren't common knowledge really turns them off. So the question becomes what is more important, following the requirements in the Boy Scout Handbook, or relying on some rule about proficiency in the rules and regulations. Heck, we can't get people to agree on what the rule that says don't add to, subtract from or alter the requirements means, let alone follow it, and now we need to make sure they follow some rule about proficicency, and who is going to define that term anyway? Should First Class Scouts show a mastery of certain outdoor skills? Sure - I think all of us would agree - but the mastery comes from a program that gives the Scout plenty of time to practice, and thus master, the skills they've learned and demonstrated for rank. If they are't showing mastery, it's not because they were "pencil-whipped" into rank, it's because the unit's program is lacking in opportunities. But for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and require mastery and proficiency - and I'll go ahead and define it. As of right now, mastery and proficiency in knot tying, lashing and rope whipping is hereby decreed to mean that a Scout can do all of the required knots/lashings/whippings behind their back while blindfolded in a raging thunderstorm while standing on a floating dock in the middle of a wind-whipped lake. What, you don't like that? It's not fair? Surely it shows mastery and proficiency, right (and if not, why not?). If you have a weaker definition of mastery and proficiency, then is it ok to say any Scouts that go through your program are just pencil-whipped through?

Question: When and how did "To the Color" become the bugle equivalent of the National Anthem. After doing a bit of research, I think the better question is when did the National Anthem become the band equivalent of To the Color. The history of To the Color is a bit hard to pin down. I've been unable to find out the composer or when it was composed. But - I did discover that To the Color was used in the US Civil War, so we know that it was in use as a military call in the 1861-1865 period. Though the Star Spangled Banner was written during the War of 1812, it did not become the National Anthem until 1931. Prior to 1931, we didn't have a National Anthem. The first approved military use of the Star Spangled Banner was in the Navy in 1889, long after the Civil War ended. To the Color came first, the National Anthem followed. But to answer the question as posed, To the Color became the bugle equivalent of the National Anthem sometime after 1931 but only during flag raising and lowering ceremonies (and that's as precise as I'm able to get). In current usage, To the Color is used when there is no band available, when everything is being done by Bugle. Nowadays, it's rare to have either a bugle or a band present - the music is often provided by recordings (which could, if we're not careful, lead to the virtual extinction of the beautiful To the Color in flag ceremonies).

Ana, For decades the command "Color Guard, Retreat" has been used in flag ceremonies at veteran's day ceremonies, memorial day ceremonies, 4th of July ceremonies, meetings, summer camps, etc. etc. etc. by the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, 4-H clubs, and various other civic organizations. If someone wants to take offense now, you can't stop them (indeed, you would probably end up offending someone else if you changed it now and didn't use "Color Guard, Retreat"). Don't change what you've practiced with the boys now - it's not worth it. Frankly, it's not even worth worrying about in the future. If someone really wants to take offense, smile, nod and ignore them. The veterans at the ceremony won't even be listening to the commands all that well - they'll just be so glad and proud to see your Cub Scouts conducting this ceremony that they wouldn't even care if the Cubs accidently let the flag touch the ground. They could drop the flag into the mud and most of the veterans will still come up to them to tell them they did a good job. Your instincts are right not to change things now - it just increases the chances for mishaps during the ceremony. BTW - in the morning, Reveille is played while the color guard advances to the flag pole. To the Colors is played while the color guard is raising the flag. In the evening, Retreat is played while the color guard advances to the flag pole. To the Colors is played while the flag is lowered. In the military, the color guard commands are spoken so that the color guard hears them, not the entire assembly. Other people may hear it, but for most people it won't be clear what's being said, only that some kind of command is being given. The person giving the commands is part of the color guard and walks with them - it isn't someone standing at the flag pole or in front of the room.