CalicoPenn

For the most part, "strong manner" can also be stated as "deliberative". Watch an Olympics swimmer doing the crawl - the strokes are defined and clearly being placed in the water. If the swimmer is just weakly or lazily flopping their arms in front of them, that's not a strong manner. It's not about the power of the stroke, or the strength of the Scout. As long as the Scout is deliberately lifting their arms out of the water and moving them ahead of him to put back in the water, he should be fine on that. As for floating - the lower part of the body, without an occasional kick from ones legs, sinks - including folks butts. This is pretty much true for everyone. It has nothing to do with body size - butts sink. The gluteous maximus (aka butt) is a large muscle mass. Some may be fleshier than others - but it is still a muscle - and muscle tends to be denser than water which means it doesn't float. What does float? Ones upper torso. Why? It's essentially hollow (yes, it has lots of organs stuffed in to it but it is hollow) and it contains two fairly large air bags - aka lungs - and the air in one's lungs are just enough to enable to upper torso to float without being dragged under by one's butt and legs. As long as the Scouts shoulders and head are floating on the surface (and they tend to), the Scout is floating. If you have an indoor park district or YMCA pool around, and you're worried about it, it wouldn't hurt to spend some time practicing before camp - if you know of a local student who is on a swim team who wouldn't mind earning a few extra dollars to teach your son proper swimming stroke techniques - you could try that too. I suspect most Scouts that don't earn the merit badge at Summer Camp are either held up by weather issues or have problems swimming in lakes.

This is pretty much the exact same argument folks had when the BSA announced that it would allow gay boys in Scouts but allow Troops to make their own decision on whether to include gay boys or not. The opponents of the inclusion of gay boys weren't content enough to accept that they would have a local (re Troop/CO level) choice of whether or not to include gay boys. They wanted to make sure their neighboring Troops didn't have that choice either because they didn't want their gay-boy free Troop to have to interact with Troops that had gay boys at summer camp, camporees, flag ceremonies, etc. I'm not commenting on these types of threads as much anymore because frankly, I'm tired of the whining and groaning and complaining and the threats to leave. If you're one of these conditional scouters, which I define as "I'm happy to volunteer as long as nothing ever changes and the BSA does things the way I want them to do them", then do us a favor - stop talking about quitting - just quit. Do it now - don't wait until 2019. The Scouts - both the youth members in your units, and the organization as a whole, doesn't need your negativity. As far as I'm concerned, your Negative Nellyism is going to do far more damage to the Boy Scouts of America and to your Scouts then the inclusion of girls ever will. Could the BSA have done better announcing it? Sure. At the same time, us people on the ground could have handled it a lot better too - letting the BSA roll it out without all of our speculation. And no, I don't buy the excuse that in a vacuum people will come up with their own plans. We're adults - adults can show patience and forbearance, (and model it for our Scouts) and wait until official news comes out to start making our plans - we don't have to act like 8th graders worried about what some bully might do to us after school. At the most, the only thing we should have done is had a conversation with our CO to ask how they wanted us to handle the co-ed program once it was announced. If your sons are driving your decision, that's fine - that pretty much drives most people's decision making anyway. But if your decision making is being made because you personally are upset that the BSA didn't send out a survey to each and every member of the organization to ask for their opinion first, then walk through the door, don't look back - and get on with your life without Scouting and let the rest of us who will work to make things work get on with the business of giving our Scouts the best program that we can.

Packsaddle would be proud!

It can be done either way. If the Treasurer prefers to get the full amount of the receipts from a fundraiser then wants to reimburse expenses (for the fundraiser or for a separate expense) because it makes the books look cleaner, then support that. If the Treasurer is fine with people deducting expenses from receipts before handing them in, then support that. Lesson learned move on. No need to turn this in to a cold war. That being said, there is something that needs to be done. A Den Leader cannot hold another office in the Pack. If your current Treasurer is also a Den Leader then she needs to give up one or the other. If you have already got a new Treasurer lined up, then make that transition at the next "parent" meeting. Whomever is the Committee Chair needs to send the current Treasurer and e-mail telling her to bring all the Treasurer's records to the next meeting where the transfer will take place. No dilly-dallying - no wavering - just get it done. You have an eager volunteer - they'll stop being eager if you don't get this transfer done right away. Get the records in the new Treasurer's hands right away - in fact, if you've already appointed that person Treasurer, then you have a Den Leader holding the books that should be in the Treasurer's hands. You shouldn't have two Treasurers. You only need one.

Good to know - and I stand corrected

No rules on slides - a Scout can use whatever they want as a slide as long as it is acceptable to their unit. The neckerchief should be worn under the collar. I know that folks like to debate that point but I can point to official BSA documents to back-up my statement. Look at the BSA issued uniform inspection sheets. In every case, the example model of proper uniform wear shows the neckerchief being worn under the collar.

People sure like to dump on the 1970's era Scouting - they love to call it disastrous too, and like to blame it for so many of Scouting ills. Then to prove the point, they quote Wikipedia which certainly is an unbiased and 100% accurate source of information Many of us who went through the 1970's program tend to remember things differently. In fact, you can find threads on this very board that discusses Skill Awards and most of those commenting are pretty positive about them. Some people like to claim that there was a de-emphasis on the outdoor program but that wasn't the case at all. The 1970's program as never about eliminating the outdoors emphasis for Troops that wanted to emphasize the outdoors, it was about broadening the appeal to include people for whom the outdoors might as well have been outer space. If you had an outdoor emphasis in your Troop in 1970, you probably still had an outdoor emphasis in your Troop in 1975. And the rank/awards/scouting program still supported it. What it was also trying to support were units in big cities where access to the outdoors was very limited - the program was designed so that big city scouts could be successful too. You should also note that rank requirements actually got tougher during the 1970's. Sure, some Eagle-required Merit Badges were dropped, and some became optional in a choose one of two or one of three manner - but you had to earn 3 more Merit badges. You had to earn Merit Badges for T/SC/FC - never had to do that before. And that much-maligned "Personal Growth Agreement" conference? We call it a Scoutmaster's Conference today - and it's watered down today too. Part of the Personal Growth Agreement conference was coming up with goals to work on for the next rank. Scoutmaster's held you to them too. I think that should be brought back. What I truly take exception to though is this notion that somehow the great and revered William "Green Bar Bill" Harcourt somehow reversed the "disastrous" membership declines by re-writing the Scout Handbook to emphasize a more "traditional" Scouting program. The numbers just don't bear this out. Folks who make this claim point to the increase in membership numbers after 1980. What they don't point out, and giving the benefit of the doubt, it may be because they don't know the breakouts among the different programs within Scouting, is that the bulk of the membership increases in the first part of the 1980's was in the Exploring program and in the second part of the 1980's was in the Cub Scout program. Green Bar Bill rewrote the Boy Scout Handbook. He wasn't really involved much in Exploring and Cub Scouting. So how well did the re-write of the Boy Scout Handbook, which is used by Boy Scouts in Troops, affect the membership numbers? Not much at all. In 1970, there were 1.916M Boy Scouts (just Boy Scouts - in Troops - not adult leaders, not Cub Scouts, not Explorers - just Boy Scouts). In 1975, there were 1.503M Boy Scouts. in 1980, there were 1.064M Boy Scouts. Then came Green Bar Bill's famous Boy Scout saving handbook. in 1981, Boy Scout numbers increased to 1.101M. That's a gain of about 37K Scouts. in 1982, up to 1.126M. That's another 25K Scouts. In 1983? Uh oh - down to 1.116M Scouts - a loss of 10K Scouts. It went down again in 1984. In 1985, Boy Scout numbers had dropped down to 1.063M Scouts. 1990? 1.011M Scouts. 1995? .981M Scouts. Green Bar Bill's new Boy Scout Handbook, if that is what is to be credited for the numbers going up again, resulted in a net gain of about 62K Scouts - all of whom were lost, by 1985. So much for the turn-around effect of Green Bar Bills revamping of the Boy Scout Handbook. And about those Cub Scout numbers? In 1980, there were 1.696M Cub Scouts. In 1985, down to 1.499M Cub Scouts. in 1990, Up to 1.821M Cub Scouts -isn't that great! But 1991 - a real disaster struck Cub Scout numbers plunged by 859K Cubs to .962M Cub Scouts. In the "disastrous" 1970's, you can just about track the year-by-year birth rate decline of the 1960's (most Scouts in the 1970's were born in the 1960's). But there is no birth rate decline to help explain the 1991 loss of membership.

Glad to see there was follow-up.

Mash, How long has this been going on? Was he engaged before and you're noticing the withdrawing behavior? Are there any Scouts in your unit who have been closer to him in the past and he's withdrawing from them too? Was there a close friend he had in Scouts that has left Scouts or moved away? Is he withdrawing at school too? Has he suffered a loss recently - death of a grandparent, a friend, a beloved pet? What gives you the idea that he has social anxiety? If he's withdrawing from his closer friends, it may not be that at all. Even people with social anxiety usually have one or two close friends they hang out with, or rely on in social situations. What your describing throws up a different red flag to me - it may be depression caused by a loss of a loved one or some other traumatic event. It's that other traumatic event that worries me. You're describing one of the classic signs of someone who is being abused - physically, emotionally or sexually. If his parents are getting him professional help, that's a big start. For you and your unit, just being a constant and consistent presence is important. And I hate to say it but keep an eye out for how he reacts to individual scouts/leaders. If you notice his reacting more strongly around a specific individual, start watching that person as well - this scout could be being victimized by that person (here's hoping its not someone in your unit).

Yes, guns and cars have both been used to kill people but guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing things. And you have to have more intensive training to get a drivers license which allows you to drive a car legally. You don't need a license, or insurance, or much training at all to have a gun.

Can the mayor give out Scouting awards? YES...YES...YES...YES...YES...YES. Any more questions?

Confusing story - and incomplete. The headline implies the fire department evacuated the Scouts. The story suggests that the Scouts evacuated themselves, as well as the non-scouts in the cave. The stories don't say what caused the smoke. Commenters are already trying to fill in the blanks and are blaming a campfire (implying the scouts built the fire). Maybe it was a campfire, and maybe the scouts built it, but two people ran from the scene so its possible they built the fire and fled because they knew they did something stupid and didn't want to take responsibility for it. Unfortunately, this is one of those stories that appear in the news media with Scouts as the hook that is never followed up on later. I doubt there will be a follow-up story about the cause of the fire - and the Scouts will be blamed in people's minds with or without justification.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Most people focus either on a well regulated Militia or the right to bear arms not being infringed. What most people don;t think about is "being necessary to the security of a free State". This clause gives the reason why the second amendment even exists. It doesn't exist so that people can use guns to hunt. It doesn't exist so that people can have guns for self defense. (Though those are secondary benefits which are still important - they're just not the primary reasons). It exists so that people will be armed to come to the defense of their state and country. The constitution presumes that the United States and the States within are free states. It does not presume that the United States and the States are totalitarian dictatorships. It certainly does not presume that when people have disagreements with their government that they can take up arms against that government (example - the Whisky Rebellion - President George Washington himself didn't hesitate to send the militia in to suppress and subdue armed and violent citizens that were threatening (and more) duly sworn representatives of the government there to make sure that a federal tax on domestic whisky was collected). At the time the second amendment was created, the founding fathers were wary of having a standing professional army. They had just seen how "ordinary citizens" (mostly - they did have help from "professional" soldiers) had defeated the most powerful army on earth at the time. They knew that an armed citizenry was a powerful force that could be called upon to defend their government(s) from OUTSIDE forces. They did not expect that people would need to defend themselves from their own government. Yes, yes - we've all read the whole at times the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed by the blood of tyrants stuff but that was very much a political statement aimed at one particular tyrant. Your right to keep and bear arms is meant to have an armed citizenry ready to come to the defense of the government (the State). We've allowed the creation of a professional military to defend us. In doing so, we have allowed ourselves to believe that we can leave the defense of our country to others while we go on with our lives. This has allowed folks to twist the meaning of the second amendment to one of being able to defend themselves against their own government, and get away with it. Those folks are deluding themselves in these modern times. When you have a government with a standing army that can manipulate a silent drone from a thousand miles away to drop an explosive device on your home, there is no effective gun defense against your own government. ps - yes, the Illinois Militia had 2 pound grasshopper guns (cannon). Like every other state, the Governor/Legislature could call forth citizenry to form temporary militias - these were the armies of a state, the militia members were paid for their service while they were part of the militia, by the state. While many members of the militia brought their own rifles, the state also had their own armories that they could outfit their militia from. If a militia unit had 2 pound cannon with them, they were provided by the state armory - not brought by some random guy who happened to own a 2 pound cannon and just happened to be in the area that the state was recruiting people for militia service. Abraham Lincoln was a member of two different militia units. He served as elected captain (elected by the members of his militia unit) for 30 days, then when that militia units term expired (after 30 days), re-enlisted and served as a private. His militia units were formed for one purpose only, to chase down the Sauk Indians refusing to give up their land that they felt was ceded to the US by people not authorized to do so. We know it better as the Blackhawk War.

One - I didn't call 6 million Americans terrorists. I called the NRA a terrorist organization. You're the one who extrapolated from that to calling the members themselves terrorists. Two - the NRA itself claims they have 5 million members - not 6 million as you have stated. Who is being dishonest here?

Journalistic and Political BS. There is no evidence at all that the lobbyists hired by the BSA are working the halls of the capitol in opposition to this act. They could be working on many other things.

The Chartered Organization Representative is appointed primarily to represent the CO at District and Council meetings. It is a secondary responsibility to represent the CO at unit meetings. The COR isn't a regular member of the committee and should rarely meet with the committee. The COR should, however, meet several times per year (with no definition of several - since 2 is more than one, that might count as several) with the other two members of the Unit Key 3 (Committee Chair and Scoutmaster/Cubmaster, etc.). Each CO only gets one representative to District and Council, regardless of the number of units the CO has. Thus the "rule". If COs want to have a different representative of the CO liaise with each unit, they can do so - but those people would not be the CO's Chartered Organization Representative.

Everytown for Gun Safety is quite clear on what they consider the parameters to be to call something a school shooting - you can disagree if you want but its rather disingenuous to claim they are being dishonest just because the numbers they are reporting which match their criteria doesn't meet yours or someone else's idea of what a school shooting means. We can have honest differences of opinion without calling other people dishonest

It depends on how you define school shooting. While the number is off by 1 (the folks who came up with the numbers changed it from 18 to 17 because one of the schools has been closed for a few years) there have been 17 incidents of gun fire at schools since January 1. If you don't want to call some of them "school shooting" feel free if it salves your conscience - but frankly, arguing whether a middle school student committing suicide by gun in his school's restroom is a school shooting or not, or whether a student fires his gun in the air during an argument at school is a school shooting is beside the point. Whether its 5 or 7 or 17 gun incidents, it is 5 or 7 or 17 gun incidents too many.

Based on past experience, there will be no changes made. If we couldn't get sensible gun control regulations passed after a school shooter killed perhaps the most sympathetic group of children ever (young children who still believed in Santa Claus just two weeks before Christmas), we'll never have any changes - not unless we declare the NRA a terrorist organization and retire every politician who takes donations from them.

I have no problem with the Skorts - as long as they allow boys to wear them if they wish.

Got to pay for the Summit somehow - and it looks like the Boy Scouts of America is counting on the Man Scouts of Neverland to do so.

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.

I suspect that B-P would be fleeing in terror at the witchcraft of instantaneous electronic communications.

Wait - you mean this site has a place where people can click on green or red arrows to express their approval or disapproval of a post? Get outta here..... Seriously, don't go back to lurking - you're adding a valuable perspective. My attitude towards those arrow things is those are for cowards. If someone doesn't agree with something I've said, then A Scout is Brave - respond in the thread and lets have a discussion about it. Otherwise, I just can't be bothered by it.

* Female Scoutmasters * Liberals * Conservatives * Heavy influence by the Church of Latter Day Saints * Elimination of merit badges for farming Scouts * Public schools no longer sponsoring units * Churches no longer sponsoring units * Trail Life * Guide to Safe Scouting rules * Helicopter Parenting * Troop only Merit Badge counselors * Popcorn Sales (product too expensive) * Parents afraid of the outdoors making their children afraid of the outdoors. * Millenials * Baby Boomers and etc. etc. etc.