CalicoPenn

Spiders in tents? No one informed the Scout that motels have spiders in them too? This isn't a Scout Spirit issue - this is an adult leaders lacking spine issue. When the Scout and Dad stayed at a motel instead of at summer camp, the Troop's leaders facilitated that by not standing up to them and telling them "No". If they insisted, you cancel the Scout's reservations. No if, no ands, no buts (given that there was no medical reason for the motel stay). This should have been dealt with long before now. Cooking on their own? You tell them "NO" and invite them to eat what everyone else is preparing, or leave camp. You are no obligation to provide anyone with space to do their own private cooking. Sleep in the same tent as dad? You tell the "NO" - the Scout will camp with his patrol, and dad will camp with the adults. If they don't like it, you invite them to leave camp. If you lose the Scout - so what? Why negatively impact the experience for all the rest of your Scouts for one person?

Question - when is the next election for SPL and if you aren't 18 yet, why don't you put your hat in the ring?

"The republicans running for the house, senate, and governor in Wisconsin and Ohio ran on the platform of decreasing the influence of unions" I'm not going to let this slide. In Wisconsin, one of the bones of contention is that the Republicans did NOT, in fact, include decreasing the influence of unions in their campaigns. Had they done so, there is a good chance that the Governor would be Tom Barrett. This trope that "the Republicans ran on this" is a spurious claim of certain conservative media personalities that doesn;t hold up under examination. Not even Scott Walker will say this is what he ran on. This issue became contentious in Wisconsin because it was a surprise to every one.

I object to the characterization of my writing as being angry and full of hatred. It is simply an observation of, and opinion of, how the term "elite" has been used by the conservative right wing media and political personas. When Sarah Palin uses the term "media elite" to criticize those who fail to always portray her in a positive light, and whose only explanation of "elite" is "not one of us", then does this not fit with the observation? When Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh complain about the "liberal elite", does this not fit with the observation? If you get anger and hatred out of that, then I suggest you examine your own mindset and openness to discussion. Some specific points: "If one would watch even their liberal media outlets, they would be learning about the big republican battle brewing between the Tea party and the republican elites led by Carl Rove and Jeb Bush." Yes - they certainly will be learing about the battle between the Tea Party and the Republican "elites". But it isn't the "liberal media" calling conservatives like Karl Rove and Jeb Bush "elite". It is the conservative right wing (which long ago co-opted the Tea Party, as much as some would like to deny that) that is calling these folks the "elite". It's folks like Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and even Rush Limbaugh who are calling the Republican establisment "elitist".

In the US, the "elite" is a label used by the conservative right wing media, and often, conservative right-wing politicians, for any person, any organization, or any broad grouping of people (ie "liberals", "gays", "Washington Democrats", "unions") that they disagree with as a way to convince their followers of the rightness of their position without having to actually work to develop and express a cogent set of facts to back up their assertions. This doesn't neccessarily mean the conservative right wing media/politicians are lazy, rather, I tend to believe it means their followers are lazy and really don't care for or need any explanation other than "the liberal elite think health care for all is a good idea" to decide that universal health care is a bad idea. Why make an actual case for your position when your followers can be convinced with one meaningless statement. Either one must have a fine tuned sense of irony, or be completely oblivious to irony, to state or believe that someone else is "elite". Somehow Democratic Senators are "elite" but Republican Senators are "one of us". Somehow union members making $60K per year are "elite" but commentators making a million or so per year calling union members "elite" aren't. Somehow, billionaire George Soros is "elite" but the billionaire Koch brothers are not.

Hawk - there is some validity to being cautious about trying things over and over but I've seen too often when someone new with a different take on how to accomplish something tries what has already been tried, they are prevented from succeeding by those who say it can't be done (I'm not suggesting maliciousness or out right sabotage here, just the normal resistence to change most of us have at some point on things). I've also seen folks try something that's been tried before and succeed where others weren't able to pull it off - sometimes its just a matter of coming at it from a different angle, or with a fresh set of eyes. Seems to me that history/science is rife with examples of people trying things that have been tried before and succeeding where others did not. When I hear someone wants to try something that's been tried before, I try to enthusiastically support their effort - they may still not succeed, but out of their effort, something else may be achieved.

Desert - I'm serious, and speak from experience as an Eagle Scout who had to appeal my EBOR in order to get the badge I earned. In my case, the "distinguished" members of my BOR refused to accept someone with anything but a Judeo/Christian religious orientation as Eagle Scout material. Perhaps your experience is that all EBOR members are "Distinguished men and women" but there are plenty of folks in this forum that can point to experiences with folks in EBORs and question whether the folks on the boards were truly "distinguished". The EBOR process allows for an SM/ASM to witness the BOR - and one of the reasons for that is to make sure the folks in the EBOR don't cross the line.

No one who paid attention to NCLB believes that it was a serious attempt at anything.

In another thread, someone mentions coming upon a Scouter in tears because he was at a Council event and was missing his son's school play. I'd say that's the right time. One of the best training sessions for non-profit management I ever went to was a session on "Founder's Disease". This hits people who have been on boards and committees for a long time and are hesitant/refuse to leave the organization/board because "things will just go donwhill if I leave". Though named "Founder's Disease" (because many times, it is the founders of the organizations that can't let go and move on), it equally affects people who join organizations later and come to think of themselves as indespensible. I see folks in this forum who I would identify as having "Founder's Disease". Some things to look for: * belief that the unit will just fall apart if I leave. * belief that someone new just can't do the job as well as I do it. * belief that traditions will go away if I leave. If you every hear yourself playing Eeyore (NOT to be confused with Eamonn!) at a committee/PLC meeting and saying either "It will never work" or "That's not how we do it" or "We tried that before, it didn't work so let's not waste our time", then you probably have "Founder's Disease". There's only one cure for "Founder's Disease". That's to sit back or out for a time. Scouting makes it pretty simple for folks to move on (though I consider it opportunities for further growth). Leave the Pack, join the Troop. Leave the Troop, join the Crew or Ship. If you've think you've got it down, leave the Unit, join the District - most districts are sorely in need of folks for the Training committee, Camping/Activities committee, Commissioner staff. Burnt out as Commissioner? Join the training staff. Burnt out training? Become a Commissioner. It's unfortunate to see so much evidence of "Founder's Disease" in Scouting since Scouting is one of the few organizations that provide so many different outlets to help.

On behalf of the the Flabby Alliance of Terra, I object to the use of the word Bovine!

Before assuming that you lost this family, might I suggest another contact to be sure? Isn't it possible, based on the "deer in the headlights" look you got when you mentioned the PWD that it dawned on the parents that "oops, we forgot to work with our son on building his PWD car and we don't have time to do it before the meeting so it's best if we don't attend that meeting so little Johnny isn't the only Cub not there racing a car"?

The "Jobs Banks" have already been eliminated - in 2009. Even so, in 2008, the drain of the GM jobs bank was 0.17% of the amount they took in. Here's what I don't get about the American People. The Unions raised the standard of living for all people in the middle class. Most people may not be in union jobs now, but the 40 hour work weeks, 2 weeks of vacation, sick days, decent working conditions, etc. all stemmed from unions standing up for the rights of workers. Starting about 30 years ago, we've faced a sustained attack on the working people of this country. Not just union workers but all of us. If you were a non-union white collar worker in the 50's, 60's and 70's, you probably got a pension, just like the union workers did. By the time you retired, your pension was enough to allow you to live comfortably for the rest of your life. Not extravagently, but confortable. You aren't going to be eating cat food because it's all you can afford. Then came a "better" idea - IRA's leading to 401k plans which eliminated most pensions for white collar workers. I recently read an interesting article that states that the average amount of money in the 401k plans of 55 year olds is $35,000. That isn't a payout of $35K per year - it's $35,000 total - with 7 to 10 years to retire, that is no where near what is needed to retire on. And this is the part I don't get. Somehow we have been convinced that 401ks and IRA's are better than pensions when clearly they aren't. That has allowed a certain segment of the political class to convince a significant portion of us that unions, which try to raise our standards of living, are bad. That union pensions are bad because we don't get the same benefits. (And a corallary - they've somehow convinced a significant portion of us that a CEO getting a salary & bonus package worth millions per year while laying off fellow Americans to enhance the bottom line is good). Somehow, instead of us looking to unions as a source of inspiration to fight to keep us at a higher level, some people prefer that we try to drag them down into the pit with us. Reminds me of watching a pot full of crabs trying to escape - just as one gets to the rim, the others pull it back in. If you don't like unions, that's fine - don't join one. But stop pointing your fingers at them because your personal economy is miserable. Don't blame the unions, blame the people who really control your economic destiny.

In re-reading the sentence, it occurs to me that what the letter means by current events and what we think of when we read the word current events may be entirely different. I'm apt to give the benefit of the doubt that what was meant is "what is the Scout currently doing", not "tell me what you think about the protests in Wisconsin". However, this could be one of those times where hacing the SM or ASM in the room as an observer comes in to play. If the questions are innocuous enough, no harm, no foul. But if the Scout is being subjected to a possible litmus test, as Lisabob reminds us is possible, this is where the SM/ASM steps in, asks the Scout to leave, and probes the EBOR board to find out where it's leading.

"When you hear about teacher going on strike it seems like its always for more salary. Could they threaten to strike because the tests need to be improved?" That gets to the heart of the issue in Wisconsin, doesn't it? The Guv wants to eliminate teachers rights to collectively bargain for everything except salary. What would be eliminated? One that comes up is to agree to class sizes in a contract. Study after study has shown that smaller class sizes leads to better learning and this is one of the things teachers fight for in their contracts. When they fight for optimum class sizes, it benefits the students. If the optimum class size is 20, and there are 100 students in a grade, that means 5 teachers - those that think the teachers are only trying to keep someone employes will push for 25 per class to eliminate a teacher to save money. Sure, it saves money, but the education that the students get is compromised. Who is looking out for the well-being of the students in this case? There is no doubt that when teachers strike, the issue that is reported in the media boils down to money - but that's because of what the media reports - they don't like to report on the "minor" issues like class sizes, and preparation days, and educational benefits (cost sharing of continuing education) because things like that don't generate the controversy that teachers demanding a 5% increase over 3 years as opposed to a school boards offer of 2% over 3 years does.

Ok, so lets stipulate that the 162 million dollar surplus didn't take into account some anticipated expenses and would leave a budget shortfall of about $140 million or so. When this budget was first put together, it had a reported 3.2 Billion dollar shortfall, yet the previous governor knocked that shortfall down a very considerable amount (by a few thousand millions). Can someone explain why a new budget has a projected shortfall of 3.2 to 3.6 billion dollars? Using the current budget as a guideline, can someone explain what spending increased/revenue declined to lead to yet another projected 3.2 to 3.6 billion dollar shortfall? Or is the government so incompetent that they don't look at past performance to create a new budget (actually - that explains a lot of governmental budgeting - why look at the previous years when you can start all over). In order for there to be a new 3.2 billion dollar shortfall for a new budget, there had to have been a lot of extra and new spending added to the budget and a lot of revenue shortfall. My statement still stands - someone has a lot of 'splainin to do.

I believe "teaching to the test" is code for concentrating solely on getting students to pass certain standardiszed tests at the elementary school and high school level. When I went to school (in Illinois), we took the "Iowa test" (named for the University of Iowa). The test was used for research by the College of Education at the University of Iowa and as a tool for schools to measure the progress of their students. At the time I took the test, it wasn't a mandatory test, participation was voluntary. Teachers didn't bother to teach to this test - it measured general skills that we should be learning as a matter of course. It gave teachers and parents a general sense of how the kids were doing. It meant that teachers had a pretty good latitude to teach subjects that they felt would be interesting. Now, these kinds of tests are required. In Illinois, it's the Prairie State Exams - and students must pass them in order to advance and graduate. State standards are now set to closely align with the Prairie State Exam. If the exam expects students to know about US History in the revolutonary war, and has no questions about the War of 1812, teachers won't teach about the War of 1812 because they can use that time to teach more about the revoultionary war. That's the danger to "teaching to the test". If the tests were more about generalized knowledge, then there would be less "teaching to the test". Instead, the tests are about specific knowledge - and if I'm a teacher and my job depends on some smart-buck 8th grader passing the Prairie State Exam, all I'm going to teach him is what he needs to know for the Prairie State Exam. Who cares if we don't go over a fasciniating piece of Illinois history like the Blackhawk War - if it isn't on the test - too bad. That's the danger of "teaching to the test" - and its more an indictment of having these kind of standardized tests than anything else.

By what benchmark do you determine if a teacher is mediocre or poor? I'm not suggesting that there teachers can't be mediocre and poor, I just want to know what benchmark one uses. Unions help school districts determine those benchmarks - and hold school districts to those benchmarks. Despite what the former general counsel of the NEA had to say, when you read about negotiations between teachers and the board of education, the vast majority of the time the negotiators for the teachers are actual teachers in the school districts. At least that's how it works in Chicago and the Suburbs. The head of the Chicago Teachers Union is a teacher - she teaches at King College Prep. When I was in high school, I saw the head of the teachers union that represented the District 214 teachers every day - he was a teacher in my school. When negotiations were reported, we read about the negotiations and negotiators and recognized them as teachers and as neighbors. There are parents who will claim that a teacher is poor or mediocre because the teacher gave their precious little snowflakes a C on a paper, or a D on a test. Thank you but I don't want those parents to have a voice on which teachers are considered mediocre and poor. There are great teachers who are saddled with classrooms of 30 students in poor schools with few resources with struggling students that would be labeled as mediocre and poor because their students don't meet standards. Thank you, but I don't want some kind of arbitrary standard (and yes, they are arbitrary) determing whether someone is a mediocre or poor teacher. There are ways of weeding out the truly poor and mediocre teachers - and frankly teachers make the best judges of who is poor and mediocre in their profession.

I'd still like someone to explain to me how the new biennial budget would have a 3.6 billion dollar shortfall when the current biennial budget was projected to have a 162 million dollar surplus (until Walker gave out tax cuts as soon as he took office). Did expenses really increase 3.6 billion dollars in the course of 2 years? Did revenue really decrease by 3.6 billion dollars in the course of 2 years? Somebody's got some 'splainin to do.

It may be a colloquial term for tired but in some places, using it will get you beat upside the head with a size 12 high heel shoe if you get my drift (and if you don't, look up Stonewall)

Good story - but it leaves me wondering... There were two Scouts in that canoe. Clearly, the Scout that was awarded the Honor Medal was the lead person, but he could not have done it without the second Scout in that canoe. Seems to me that the second Scout deserves recognition as well - at the very least, the Medal of Merit. After all, he also risked his life in this rescue.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

I'm pretty sure my first car was a Radio Flyer. My second vehicle was probably a Tonka My first car with a combustion engine was a 1965 Tank - I mean 1965 4-door Buick LeSabre. I crushed one of those wooden picnic table with the metal tube-like frames when it got between me and a concrete wall when I was backing it up one night. The picnic table was destroyed - I just broke the tailight lens (like I said - tank).

I'll bet dollars to donuts that this unit has a set of bylaws, and that the procedure for selecting the SPL and ASPL is in the bylaws. I can't think of a better piece of evidence for my continuing insistence that Troops do NOT need bylaws. You can pull all the info you want from the Scoutmaster's Handbook, Troop Committee Guide, SPL's Handbook or other BSA literature and it's not likely to change this Committee's procedures. The UC can meet with the CC, or the whole Committee and it won't likely change this Committee's procedures. There are only 2 people and 1 group that can force the change. The 2 people are either the COR or the Institutional Head. If the COR or the IH agree that this procedure is really off the course of True North, they can attend the next Committee meeting and state that the procedure for selecting the SPL and ASPL will no longer be followed, that from now on the boys will select their own SPL and ASPL (without prior screening of candidates by the Committee - sorry, Beavah, I know you're trying to find some kind of middle ground here but the Committee pre/post screening candidates is just as wrong as them selecting them in the first place), and that if any Committee Member has a problem with that, their resignation is hereby accepted - end of statement, no discussion, it's done. The group that can force the change is the Scouts themselves - they simply announce that they will no longer follow that procedure, they will elect their own SPL and ASPL and they will boycott if this policy isn't changed. It will take all of the boys to do this - none puts their name forward for SPL or ASPL, and if any is selected, the Scouts just don't accept them as their true leader. This option is the hardest of all - it means some of the boys will have to oppose their own parents. I'd go for the COR/IH handing down the ultimatum. If neither of these occur, then the only thing left is to run - run as far away from this Troop as possible, and take as many boys as you can. I would even contact as many Webelos Dens as you can to let them know this Troop is not on the path of True North and that people should really think hard before joining it.

5year, I know you're not in the Troop - but you said the DC is actually a parent in the Troop - I said it before, I'll say it again - if the Troop really intends to move on, the first thing they need to do is contact Council and tell Council that the DC and his sons are no longer members of the Troop, then call the DC and inform the DC that they are no longer members of the Troop - it no longer matters if it hurts the boys - and yes, it's not their fault, but until the Troop rids itself of this toxic parent, then it will never be able to move on. The next call is to the Council Commissioner where the troop will demand that the DC be removed from his position, that the DC has cost the Troop a quialified volunteer and has damaged the reputation of this noe ex-volunteer - and the Troop will not compromise. It's time for this person to go - end of story.

UCEagle - thanks for adding to the information. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been - when I say the leadership component was added in 1972, it was the leadership component to the Eagle Scout service project that was added. Before 1972, leadership was part of being active in a unit (when the BSA added the requirement to serve as a warrant officer, that is pretty much what finally killed the ability of adults to earn Eagle). Before the warrant officer requirement was added (now POR), one was to do one's best to show active leadership to the unit. After 1972, there were now 2 leadership components for Eagle Scout - leadership to the unit (in form of POR) and leadership as part of the service project.

What's wrong with a regular old Court of Honor? In the beginning, First Class was essentially the highest rank. Star, Life and Eagle were honor awards that only indicated that you had earned a set number of merit badges. At first, the order was Life (5), Star (5 more) and Eagle (21 total). That's it - all you had to do was earn merit badges, which you could only work on after you reached 1st class. The 5 merit badges for Life were specific badges that had to be earned - Lifesaving, Athletics, Public Health, Personal Health and First Aid. Note that they fit in with the whole "Life" motif. Eventually, the BSA put Star first (5 of any merit badge you wanted), followed by Life (the 5 required for Life) then the number of merit badges needed for Eagle (including additional required badges). Until 1965, earning the Eagle Scout rank wasn't all that difficult (sorry any old timers who earned the rank before 1965 - but it just wasn't). It had most of the elements, including time in rank, but the service requirements were to do your best to perform service to the community. Though Eagle Scout was considered a rank well before 1965, I would think that First Class was still the ultimate rank in Boy Scouts at the time. Heck, adults could still earn Eagle until 1965 (though it was starting to be officially discouraged by 1957). In 1965, the BSA formalized the Service Project - one could no longer just do one's best to do service, now you had to plan and do a service project. But until 1972, you could do that all on your own - no need for anyone else. It wasn't until 1972 that the leadership component was added. There are quite a few people that point to 1972 as the year the BSA got soft on Eagle - yet the BSA not only added the leadership component to plan and perform a service project (gee, now you had to actually lead other people in doing it with you too!), in 1972, the BSA also upped the number of merit badges needed from 21 to 24! Soft my Aunt Hilda! Most of those First Class ceremonies were developed before 1965. Though the BSA says that Eagle became a rank in 1936, I don't think it really deserved that title until 1965. Those First Class ceremonies were, in my opinion, appropriate then. Today? Hey, if you want to do them because they're fun, go ahead - but frankly it's like a "graduation" ceremony from 6th grade - it may be fun, but ultimately, it doesn't really amount to much since it's really not the end of the trail.