CalicoPenn

Kudu - I was using going to a motel as a metaphor for "get the heck out of the way and out of dodge". It can mean finding a campsite elsewhere and staying out of the way until it's time to drive folks back.

I'm actually a bit surprised by Kudu's answer. I would have thought the answer would be much simpler. How many adults should be on the campout? None. Drive them to the campground, then go get a motel room and leave them alone. Give the SPL a cell phone for emergencies and viola - done. But if you must have adults around, then 2 (assuming 1 per patrol) but no more than 3 - and they camp separately and leave the boys to do what they need to do. Anyone else who comes along as a driver either goes home or goes into town and takes a motel room. Or if they must stay in camp, they camp with the other adults then vamoose after breakfast - out fishing, or hiking, or visiting town. As you increase the numbers of patrols, add an adult - but the adults stay in their own area unless invited by the Scouts to participate in something. One of the best troop camp trips we ever had was with 6 patrols and 7 adults - on Saturday morning, the adults disappeared and we didn't see them again until dinner time. The next day, the state park supervisor came by at breakfast and presented a certificate to the adults to thank them for a service project they performed for the park the previous day. None of us knew what they had been doing with their time (we knew what we were doing - a nice long hike, with time for a game of capture the flag in the afternoon). I can't think of a stronger example of service than that.

I have just one question. How will they enforce a maintenance requirement? Scout is awarded his Eagle Scout - then doesn't do any maintenance - what can the unit do? The answer is "nothing". When the unit says the Scout has to maintain the project afterwards, I'd nod my head, then just promptly ignore them.

I find it to be much cheaper and more efficient to just visit another campsite with empty coffee cup in hand. Seriously though - you can get a 3-cup stainless steel coffee percolator from Campmor for about $20 - and just recycle the guts. I would use it for boiling water though (for whatever water boiling needs I have) and use a French press for making coffee or tea (think about this - if individual coffee bags for steeping is bad, why wouldn't the same hold true for teabags? If you're a tea drinker, use loose tea - and the French press is great for that too). You can also get 6-cup coffee percolators from the same source (or other real outdoor gear sources - sorry, Walmart just won't have it - their market is the guys grabbing cheap gear for car camping - and that generally means larger sized cooking gear and not a wide selection). If you look around, you should be able to find 6-cup enamel-ware coffee pots (no percolators in these) if you want that old fashioned look.

Zero degrees Kelvin. About as close to an absolute as we'll ever get. Sheldonsmom says "define torture" - and I agree - we need to develop a definition common to all as to what torture is - do we use the FBI definition? The Geneva Convention definition? Our own definitions? But I think we need to take that a step further. It does no good to define torture if we haven't defined the larger concept. It's the biggest barrier we have to coming up with an absolute answer. So I put it out there: Define right and wrong. Until society, which has been struggling to define right and wrong for millenia, can come up with that definition, we will never be able to agree that anything is truly right or wrong. All we'll have is divergent opinions and its those divergent opinions which makes the issues and politics threads so fascinating, interesting and frustrating.

I use a polyester double sided tape (mine is from 3M - it's a thick, white poly foam - the backing is green - I get mine from Home Depot) to attach patches to Avery Translucent Durable Write-on Plastic Dividers (available at good office supply stores) which are put into 3-ring binders. I use 3/4" tape, cut the length I need, then cut that lengthwise in half - one half for the top of the patch, one for the bottom of the patch. The plastic dividers are semi-stiff which means they hold up well and can take the weight of the patches. Paper or cardboard dividers just don't hold up. I really don't worry about future collectors - my patches are for me to look at and jog my memory - they aren't an investment.

Why the assumptions? Human nature - or perhaps more accurately, Human Social Nature. As a society, we have a tendency to take observations and ideas and run with them - often to one extreme before we turn around and run back with it to the other extreme (and then we turn around and run with it to - the first extreme). Just when we seem to get that pendulum stabilized and sitting where it should be, someone comes along and starts it in motion again (and often its the media that is the catalyst)and even the media is affected by these pendulum swings - in the history of the news media, we saw an era called "Yellow Journalism" - it was sensationalist and celebrity obsessed - then it calmed down and got more serious - giving us an era of Cronkite and Galloway. Where are we today? Sensationalist and celebrity obsessed again (I blame 24 hour cable news for this). When we first learned about Helicopter Parenting, it was in context as a legitimate concern of colleges and universities. It referred to parents that would call professors, or the dean, if their little snowflake got a B on a paper. It referred to parents who would contact student housing because their little snowflake wasn't instant friends with their roommates, or didn't like that they were 8 rooms away from the shower and not 2. It referred to parents who swooped in to sole all their adult childs problems, even if the chld didn't think there was a problem. Then the media started running with the story. Now we were presented with stories that told us how to tell if we were a helicopter parent, and how to avoid becoming a helicopter parent, and what to do if we encountered a helicopter parent. Then we started to redefine helicopter parents (and here's where that pendulum started really swinging) with stories about helicopter parents of high school students, and middle school students, and soone elementary schhol students, and kindergarten students, and pre-school children. As a result, we (as a society) have redefined helicopter parenting to include parental behavior that is appropriate when dealing with a first grader but not when dealing with a college student. More importantly, we have started to look on the normal transitions that parents go through as helicopter parenting. I look at SSScouts frst two examples. I don't see helicopter parenting. I see parents going through the same transition of every parent with children of Scout age - trying to learn that line between having to help with everything, and letting go. In example 1, the son grimacing at mom is the start of his communicating to mom that "it's time to stop Mom - I can handle it, you're embarrassing me". The time to worry is if mom refuses to get the message (sure doesn't sound like it though if she's sitting down, giggling and is nervous - if she was helicoptering, she wouldn't be nervous - she wouldn't back off) In example 2, it sounds as if the son is a bit older (I'm guessing son 1 is 10-12, son 2 is 12-14) and has broken his shyness in telling the parents that he has it under control. That doesn't mean we won't see our share of truly helicoptering parents - and you'll know it when you see a real one - but Bacchus's point should be heeded - we can start moving the pendulum back if we stop to think if the parental stuff is truly helicoptering, or just a parent involved with their son's lives and feeling their own way to their child's indepence.

When I asked Beavah what he thought the next steps would be if a Scoutmaster "took away rank", the answer he gave was the answer I hope most of us would be looking for. It was have an SM conference and a BOR. In essense, "taking away the rank" wasn't really taking away the rank - it's more of a euphenism for suspension until the issues are properly dealt with. It suggests that "taking away rank" wasn't really taking away the rank to be earned again - but just a, perhaps, hamhanded way of getting the boys attention. (at least that's what I took away from the response - and Thanks for answering in the spirit the question was asked, Beavah). But to suggest that the lad has to do all the requirements again and completely re-earn the rank? I'm just not good with that. All that accomplishes is humiliating and demotivating the boy - may as well just tell him to go ahead and quit the Troop.

Jim, Did they announce who the new Scoutmaster of the Troop is going to be or did the current Scoutmaster just announce that time constraints is going to force him to step aside? The COR (often with advice from the CC and committee) is the one that normally selected the Scoutmaster. Does the CO always look around it's membership for the Scoutmaster? If your interpretation of the COR's/CC's feelings about the future direction of the Troop is accurate, I wouldn't be surprised if one of your next posts is as Scoutmaster of the unit.

So maybe they were "pencil whipped" through the requirements? Sure, it can be annoying if you let it be, but that's your issue, not theirs. There is nothing preventing you from reinforcing what they've been signed off on. There should be plenty of opportunity in the next few years for them to correctly raise and lower the flag, or to sleep in a tent they've set up themselves, or to plan and cook a hot breakfast or lunch, etc. etc. Getting signed off on the requirements is just the start - they are requirements because they are intended to be learned skills that will be used. If they aren't used beyond the sign off, then what's the point of doing them at all? When I hear/read stories of Eagle Scout candidates not being able to tie a bowline, I don't look on it as a failure of the Scout - I look on it as a failure of the unit (whether its the adult leaders, or the PLC, or a combination of both) in not providing opportunities to use the skills in other contexts. I learned how to tie a clove hitch for a rank requirement - but I didn't really learn how to tie a clove hitch until I spent a bunch of time on the waterfront at summer camp being a helpful pest to the waterfront staff and helping to tie rowboats off onto poles along shore. It was repetition that taught it. I haven't used a sheepshank in years (ok, decades). I've never needed to shorten a rope in that manner. At this point in my life, if I need to shorten a rope, I know where I keep my knife - and I know where to buy more rope if I need longer rope again. Could I tie one today? Maybe. I can picture what it looks like in my head - or at least what I think I remember what it looks like - but I just might have to pull out the old knot book to relearn how to tie one. My opinion is this is an opportunity to review your program to make sure that the skills learning is being reinforced.

Gee, I would hope my views are a bit more nuanced than is being presented. I have no problem with strict testing for requirements - provided it's done so before the requirement is signed off on. If the requirement states to demonstrate how to fuse and whip a rope, then it's incumbent on whomever is signing off on the requirement to have the Scout demonstrate how to fuse and whip a rope. But if the person who signs off isn't as rigorous as s/he should have been, and signs off the requirements without the proper testing, my view is don't take it out on the Scout. Make your changes elsewhere - just don't penalize the Scout. I think people forget sometimes that just because a requirement is signed off on, doesn't mean there is no longer a need to practice the skill. So maybe the person who signed off on a requirement was a bit loosey goosey with it. There is certainly nothing wrong with reinforcing the skill with repeated practice. If a Scout say's "I've already done it for my rank", then it's time to have a little SM conference to express that the reason they've learned these skills is to use them so since they've demonstrated that they can whip a rope, the Troop has a couple of ropes that need to be whipped and they're tasked at doing it. If they can't, no big deal - pull the book out and just relearn it - tasks that aren't done often usually need a refresh (how often do you make chocolate chip cookies? I'll bet if you only make them a couple of times a year you pull out the recipe every time - but if you make them every day, you don't need the recipe). Just don't take away or delay rank because someone else screwed up.

You can't fix this Troop. No matter how much you think you need to be there to fix it, or that you can fix it, or that the Troop is fixable, you can't fix this Troop. Not unless you are a member of the Chartering Organization, have the trust of the Institutional Head, and become the Chartered Organization Representative. If you aren't any of these things, then You Can't Fix This Troop. Your son has already told you he does not want to stay. Scouts vote with their feet, and his feet are pointed out the door. Do you really want to prevent him from finding the Troop that fits for him because you think you can fix a Troop when you can't? Let me say it again: YOU CAN'T FIX THIS TROOP. So what you need to do is move on - find a Troop that is a better fit for your son. Find a Troop that may be a better fit for the other lads in the Troop. Keep those contacts and once you find that Troop, and with the knowledge of your new Troop's leadership, invite the boys from the other Troop to visit and check you out. No pressure - just let them see what another Troop can do. If the old Troop squawks, ignore them. No matter what - ignore them. Don't engage in a discussion, just walk away. If the DE squawks, ignore him/her. Don't engage in a discussion, just walk away. It's also been answered that the Scoutmaster can't take away rank after it's been earned. What the heck does he think this is, the Army? Once you find that new Troop, that is the first boy I would be recruiting into the new unit. And as you're leaving this Troop let this lad's parents know that the Scoutmaster has absolutely no authority to take away their son's ranks for any reason. Put the notion into their minds that they need to leave this Troop if they want their son to have a good experience with Scouting. Beavah, you acknowledge that the SM can't take away ranks, yet you also state that he can "in the eyes of the parents and the boys". Tell us please how the Scout can continue to advance? Does he have to complete the requirements for the rank that has been "revoked" all over again? Does he have to follow some requirement made up by the Scoutmaster in order to earn the rank back? Does he have to stop working on the next advancement until the Scoutmaster makes some random determination that the Scout has passed enough time in limbo? Just curious as to how you think that would work.

To follow up with my theme on getting new information and changing thinking - to walk the talk so to speak - Ken is right (and wrong). President Obama was indeed invited to speak at the Jamboree opening, which was in the morning - so the timeline I provided would be incorrect (the 8 pm show was the closing arena show, not the opening arena show). Mea culpa. However, to say that President Obama was "scheduled" to appear is just flat out wrong. The Boy Scouts didn't schedule President Obama to appear, though they invited him to appear, because the Boy Scouts (by their own admission) were told that he would be out of town and would be unable to appear. He was previously scheduled to be at an event in Edison, New Jersey, and fundraisers in NYC in the evening. The President, according to his schedule, didn't leave the White House until 11:45 am - and went to New Jersey. The folks from The view adjusted their schedule to film in the afternoon. So the original point still holds - he did not dis the Boy Scouts to appear on The View. Believing he did so is still buying in to the media manipulation.

"It was horrible. However, it did not kill the US, as many predicted it would." I would argue that the jury is still out on that one. When the textile industry crashed in the US, it may not have killed the US, but it sure did wound it deeply. When the electronics industry crashed in the US, it may not have killed the US, but it sure did wound it deeply. When the furniture industry crashed in the US, it may not have killed the US, but it sure did wound it deeply. When the steel industry crashed in the US, it may not have killed the US, but it sure did wound it deeply. When the agricultural industry went from many small farms and purchasing cooperatives to large agri-business conglomerates, it didn't kill the US, but it sure has wounded it deeply (even if most of us haven't recognized it yet - if ag business starts failing like the steel industry, we could be in serious trouble trying to feed our 350 million people, let alone half the rest of the world). When Wal-Mart/Starbucks/McDonalds/insert favorite retail villain here wounded our small towns, it didn't kill the US, but it sure did wound it deeply. The US has gone from an agricultural/manufacturing society to a financial/service/consumer society. If history has taught us anything, it is that countries/empires that move from a stable self-reliant base where most of the goods we use are manufactured/grown in the country to an unstable rely-on-others base, where most of the goods we use are manufactured/grown in other countries, then the country/empire grows weak and is apt to fail. Apparently, we've decided not to learn from history. Sure, all those industries that tanked didn't kill the country as they did so - but the loss of those industries should be deeply felt wounds that have led to increased destabilization of the US. Think of it as a "Jenga" game - the more blocks you take away, the weaker the structure. I have to wonder if the loss of GM and Chrysler would have been just one more block being taken away, or would have been the block that made the whole structure crumble away. Rather than suggesting that we should have let the auto industry go away - one of the last remaining large scale manufacturing industries in the US - we should instead be insisting that we do what it takes, including tariffs on foreign goods and repeal of free trade agreements, to rebuild our countries steel, textile, furniture, electronics, and other industrial businesses. Isn't that the most patriotic thing we could possibly do? Support our country and it's people by ensuring that we can stand tall and accomplish what we need to accomplish, no matter what? Imagine what things would have been like for us during WW2 if we relied on Germany, France and England for all of our manufactured goods, instead of having our own industrial base that could be re-geared towards the war effort. The US may not have been killed, yet, but if we ever do fail, I have little doubt that historians will point to the 1980's as the beginning of the end - where we started abandoning agriculture and industry for finance - and that in the end, the demise of the textile, steel, electronics, furniture, automotive, etc. industries will be considered the cause of death.

I thought about snarkily commenting that if the Boy Scouts didn't boo President Obama, then the Democrats didn't boo the Boy Scouts back in 2000. But that got me thinking. The one question that keeps coming to mind is "who's watching the watch dogs"? We need to become a lot smarter about how we process information in this super-saturated media world. The first step is to question what we're being told by the media - no matter whether it's Network, Cable, Newspaper, Newletter, Magazine, Radio, or Internet. We need to gather as much facts as we can before making our judgements, and more importantly, be willing to modify our opinions when new facts emerge. We also need to start thinking much more critically of the facts that we are given. Back in 2000, the "watchdogs" reported that the Democrats booed the Boy Scouts during their convention. Of course when it's reported in that matter, we immediately think all the Democrats booed the Boy Scouts. We learn through other sources that it was actually a small part of the delegation of the State of California that booed the Boy Scouts. While they were rightfully excoriated for their actions (they have free speech - but they should have been more respectful of a group of young Scouts that had volunteered their time to be part of an exciting event like this - we should be grateful that the Scoutmaster reported that in all the excitement, neither he, nor he believed, any of his Scouts heard the booing). Was it right to condemn all the Democrats for the action of some? Of course not. And such is the case here - what's reported is that the Boy Scouts booed President Obama. Now we all have learned that it wasn't all Boy Scouts, that it seemed to be concentrated in one general section - but even in that section, the vast majority of Scouts were very respectful - yet there are some "watchdogs" attempting to paint this as all of the Boy Scouts booing the President. Is that fair to the Boy Scouts? Of course not. But we can be more rational and take just those that booed to task (and yes, they have free speech rights, but they should have been more respectful of the Presidency). But then again, maybe we shouldn't. Maybe I should rethink my statement that the Scouts that booed the President aren't Eagle Scout material. Perhaps self-censorship is the worst kind of censorship there is because it can lead us to convoluted thinking elsewhere. I'm referencing the latest twiddle-twaddle about the community center that will be built in lower Manhattan - a few blocks away from Ground Zero (and let's be clear, it's not being built "at Ground Zero" and it's not a Mosque being built, it is a cultural/community center being built - there will be a prayer room, but a prayer room is not a Mosque - there are chapels in hospitals for prayer but no one calls a hospital a Church - and something most people know - there is already a Mosque a couple of blocks from Ground Zero - it's been there for years - but no one wants to talk about that, do they?). In the latest, we have GOP politicos standing up and saying they support the Constitution and they agree that the Constitution gives this religious group the right to build what they're building where they're building it - but that they should be "more sensitive" and not build it there. In other words, they're saying "You have the right to build - but we'd prefer you don't exercise your Constitutional rights". What could that lead to? Will they be telling us that we have a right to vote but would prefer that we didn't exercise that vote? So given that, should we be telling the Scouts they have a right to boo, but we would prefer they didn't exercise those rights? I guess that's what I'm talking about when say when we get more information, we need to rethink our opinions. It wasn't until I saw the comments from some politicos suggesting that some people just shouldn't exercise their Constitutional rights that I started wondering if my earlier opinion holds up. So we know that it was a small group of people at the 2000 Democratic Convention that booed the Boy Scouts. Those of us that comdemned (and still condemn) the entire Democratic Party for that really need to re-evaluate, as do all of us who are lumping the expressive few who booed the President into all Boy Scouts. I also mentioned needing to think more critically about the pablum we're being spoonfed (and the media is doing that). The controversy started because a certain media outlet trumpeted that Obama was skipping the Jamboree because he was going to appear on The View instead. Since we don't take the time to do our own research, people are quick to jump on that as fact. When we do the research, we learn that The View is filmed live at 11:00 am Eastern Time in New York City. We learn that the Arena Show at the Jamboree started at 8:00 pm Eastern Time. New York City is about 250 miles from Fort A.P. Hill. With minor stops, that's just a 7 hour drive. But with that kind of distance, the President is on a plane - and that's a flight of a bit more than an hour - there would have been plenty of time for the President to make the arena show after filming The View. What we also learned is that the BSA was told the President had a conflict because he was attending a couple of DNC fundraisers that night in New York City (which is why he was able to fit The View into his schedule). So when we put all this together and think about it critically, we have to come to the conclusion that the "headline" about the President appearing on "The View" and not the Jamboree is just manipulation of the worst kind. And it can be very hard to admit to ourselves, let alone others, that we have been manipulated. Of course, that shouldn't stop us from wondering why he attended fund raisers instead of the Jamboree - but that's a completely different conversation then, isn't it - and not as "sexy" to certain segments of the media since most people would just yawn and go about their business. So as we move on, let's agree on a few things for the future: * Only a portion of the California delegation to the 2000 Democratic National Convention booed the Boy Scouts (which is their Constitutional right) - and we aren't going to allow all Democrats to be condemned for those people's actions. * Only a portion of the Boy Scouts at the Jamboree booed the President(which is their Constitutional right) - and we aren't going to allow all Boy Scouts to be condemned for those Scout's actions. * That the President could have easily appeared on The View and at the Jamboree on the same day and that the whole issue of The View is a red herring being used by some in the media and blogosphere to cynically manipulate us and public opinion, and that we will speak out against this kind of manipulation when we see it. * That the "But it's the 100th anniversary of Boy Scouts" argument is just another kind of manipulation since the only possible response is "so what?" and the only possible answer is a circular argument ("so what?" "It was important!" "Why?" "Because it's the 100th anniversary of Boy Scouts" and on and on and on). * That being asked not to exercise our rights under the Constitution is the most injurious attack on the people. I know this is long - I got on a roll - but I felt it was something I had to put out there. Calico

I prefer Dual Survival over either Bear Gryllis or Survivorman. They're upfront about the cognitive dissonance that is inherent in folks in survival situations being followed by a camera crew. I like how Cody Lundin - the laid back, barefoot "hippie" and Dave Canterbury - the gung-ho, former military hunter counterbalance each other, how they approach situations with different experiences and skill sets, and what we can learn from each of them - Canterbury's stubborn stick-to-it attitude, and Lundin's calm and thoughtful attitude. From what I've seen so far, Lundin's a bit more polished and resourceful, but that could be that the early shows play more towards his strengths and experience. I think both are good role models for Scouts - perhaps we can have co-spokespeople.

Teabags? Yep - that explains a lot. ;-) By the way, that's another advantage to the Red Beret - can't staple teabags to it. I attended a couple town hall meetings and was flabbergasted at the number of senior citizens yelling for the government to stay out of health care - I guess Medicare must not be a socialist government program after all. Yeah Beavah - I know you couldn't resist - but I'm not saying a Scout is entitled to a merit badge - I'm saying if a Merit Badge Counselor, the person who has the sole say so in whether the requirements have been met, signs the application that states the Scout has earned the merit badge, then the Scout has earned the merit badge - whether we agree or not. That's not entitlement - and lets not weaken an already weakened word any further.

Words and sentence structure means things. "I certify that the the following record of advancement is correct and that it meets the standards and requirements of the Boy Scouts of America" Read the above carefully - the word "it" refers to a specific thing - the record of advancement. When you sign, you are certifying that "it" (the record of advancement) meets the standards and requirements. You aren't certifying anything else. If you were certifying that the advancements and badges listed in the record of advancement meets the standards and requirements, you would be signing a statement saying that you are certifying that the advancements and badges listed in the record meet the standards and requirements. "I don't believe the Boy Scouts of America has "standards and requirements" published for form-filling, eh? And I reckon a properly filled out form is self-evident without a certification that yeh think yeh filled it out properly. And there's no expectation for alphabetic order either" And yet if you look at the Boy Scouts record of advancement, it has standards and requirements for filling out the form. If you go here you can read the form (and the standards and requirements for filling out the form published on the form, as well as the certification statement)itself: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34403.pdf The published standards and requirements for filling out the form are as follows (Form 34403B - 2003 version): 1. Advancement procedures: Packs. After Den Advancement Reports, No 33847, are received from den leaders, this form is completed for the entire pack. Troops/Teams. All Boy Scouts or Varsity Scouts ready for advancement must appear personally before a board of review composed of at least three members. An advancement report must be sent to the council service center immediately following each board of review. This report must be signed by at least three members of the board of review, including its chairman. Crews/Ships. Venturers/Sea Scouts should give their advancement applications to their Advisor or Skipper who, in turn, takes them to the crew/ship committee for approval, then prepares, signs, and forwards this advancement report to the council service center. 2. Only MEMBERS with unexpired membership certificates can be credited with advancement. Awards are not available to members of units whose charters have expired. 3. Fill in name and only one advancement award or merit badge on each line, but list all of one members advancement consecutively. 4. Please attach applications for the Eagle Scout Award and the Venturing Gold, Silver, and Quartermaster awards to this report. 5. The pack, troop, team, or crew advancement committee member should interview youth members who are not advancing. List these individuals names on bottom of form. 6. No Boy Scout advancement may be earned by female Venturers or by a Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, or male Venturer who has reached the age of 18. 7. Venturers may earn Venturing advancement through age 20. 8. Each merit badge counselor must be registered as a merit badge counselor with the BSA. I know it's hard to believe that the Boy Scouts of America has published standards and requirements for filling our forms, yet I've presented the evidence. As Chico Marx said "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes" Calico And for those wondering about the alphabetic listing, in for 34403B (2000) version (still available on the intertubes as a word document that can be filled out on computer) the instructions read as follows (Note line #3): 1. Advancement procedures. See status bar on screen & press F1 for help with each blank. See Advancement Procedures and Policies 33088E for more information. Packs. After Den Advancement Reports, No. 33847, are received from den leaders, this form is completed for the entire pack. Troops/Teams. All Scouts ready for advancement must appear personally before a board of review composed of at three to six members not related to any Scout being reviewed and not unit or assistant unit leaders. An advancement report must be sent to the council service center immediately following each board of review signed by at least three members of the board of review, including its chairman. Crews/Ships. Ventures/Sea Scouts should give their advancement applications to their Advisor or Skipper who, in turn, takes them to the post committee for approval, then prepares, signs, and forwards this advancement report to the council service center. Ventures may earn Venture advancement through their 20th year. 2. Only MEMBERS with unexpired membership certificates can be credited with advancement. Awards are not available to members of units whose charters have expired. 3. List names alphabetically with only one advancement award or merit badge on each line. List all of one Scouts advancement consecutively. 4. List the name of a Scout appearing before an Eagle Board alone on one Advancement Report and attach the signed Eagle Application to this report. 5. The pack, troop, or team advancement committee should interview boys who are not advancing. List these boys names on bottom of form. 6. No Boy Scout advancement may be earned by female Ventures or by a Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, or male Ventures who have reached the age of 18. 7. Badges of rank, merit badges, and Eagle Palms are restricted items. These items may not be sold or distributed unless the Advancement Report #34403A has been properly filled out and submitted to the local council office. To do otherwise will jeopardize individual youth members record of achievement. #33088E p. 34 I only wish I could have been facetious about the whole alphabetical thing. CP

I've never seen a handicapping system used before but in my district, we give out a Top Troop Award in addition to individual Patrol awards - and it's a pretty coveted award. Because of the way it's set up, it doesn't pay to put all the older Scouts in one patrol to clean up if the other patrols won't do as well since a Troop could have three mixed ages patrols take 3rd, 5th and 8th and still have more points in the end than a Troop that takes 1st, 9th and 12th. There's also a camp inspection that takes place too, and a stealth visit by staff during lunch to see if the patrol method is being used - points are awarded. We did have to make one adjustment and that was to have Top Troop Awards based on size so that Troops with just 1 or 2 Patrols weren't competing for points against Troops with 3 or more patrols. That has seemed to work out well. There is no set point system - the camporee committee sets the point system they are going to use before each camporee. Depending on the activity, sometimes the newer Scouts have an advantage - and sometimes its because they just don't know any better. I ran our districts first aid meet for 3 years after becoming an EMT. For the first two years, I followed the same pattern that we had always used. 5 scenarios, the first being a simple one, the next three being a bit more complicated but concentrating on a specific skill (one would be a series of burns - 1st, 2nd + 3rd, one would be a big cut, possibly requiring a tourniquet (yeah - the dark ages), one would be a couple of broken bones (arm and leg) with a possible ankle strain thrown in and requiring transport (which meant making a stretcher), then the 5th would be a complicated scenario that usually had 2 victims, multiple breaks, bruises, cuts, transport needed - the whole nine yards. Time limits for each scenario were given - the last one was generally a 20 minute time limit - the broken bones and transport was usually ten - the rest were between 5 and ten. The second year I added an extra event - we rigged up a phone booth with a phone connected to a phone in another room - it gave a dial tone and only connected if 911 was dialed. During the "break/reset periods), someone from each Patrol was pulled aside, sent to the phone booth, given a card, and had to make a 911 call based on the scenario on the card and giving proper information to the "operator". That was pretty successful. The third year I threw in a 6th scenario. We had the standard 5 scenarios, and finished with a final, complicated, multi-injury car crash scenario - with a 15 minute time limit (the 5th was dropped to a 15 minute limit as well). Troops were warned a few times well beforehand to make sure their Scouts really understood not only how to do first aid, but when to do first and aid and when not to do first aid. The 6th scenario was the most complicated scenario of the meet. Only one "Patrol" got 100% of the points - and that was a Webelos Den who was not competing for any ribbons but was competing because they had a good Webelos Den Leader who wanted to give his Webelos a taste of what they might do as Boy Scouts. This "Patrol" was so flustered by the scenario - so overwhelmed, that by accident, they did one of two things that would get you full points - nothing. The key part of the scenario was the statement that the car crash happened on a sububan street (not unlike the suburbs we lived in) and that 911 was called and the fire department and ambulance crew was 3 minutes away. Thanks to the advent of the professional paramedic services in the early 70's, by the early 80's we were teaching that not doing first aid when the professionals were just minutes away was the proper first aid because it kept the professionals from having to waste precious minutes undoing everything that was done so that they could make proper field diagnoses. One Patrol did get 80% of the points for keeping the patients calm and treating for shock (the second thing that would get you full points) (and would have gotten 100% if they hadn't moved one of the victims before hand). Most Patrols got 50 or less points - we did give points for doing the technical first aid correctly - but those points were pretty low so the maximum a Patrol could get for doing the technical first aid was 50 points. Surprisingly, only a couple of Scoutmasters were upset with me.

Behind every entitled child is an entitled parent. Behind every entitled parent is an entitled grandparent. People don't come out of school with a sense of entitlement (except perhaps medical, law and business school). Entitlement is modeled for children by their family and the TV. Most kids I know who were on the free lunch program were mortified that they were on the free lunch program - it meant their family was poor, and now everyone knew they were different - and no kid likes being different. Then again, if I were somewhere else, perhaps a rural Appalachian school where most people were on the free lunch program, maybe I would be seeing a different story unfold. But what I see as instilling a sense of entitlement is Uncle Leroy saying you're entitled to that job whether you deserve it or not, or Aunt Betty saying you're entitled to that free lunch whether you qualify or not, or Mommy cutting in front of everyone in line at the post office because she's entitled, or Daddy driving aggressively to get in front of everyone at the next light because he's entitled. That's where children get their sense of entitlement - not some social program that they don't understand beyond "I have to go to school and my family can't afford to provide me lunch so the school does it for me". "And like all socialist programs, da quality is mediocre and da product is a one-size-fits-all thing." You know, maybe this is true of small island nations, or monolithic countries, but it's certainly not true in the US. The only "one size fits all" social programs we have in the US are Medicare, Social Security, Pell Grants and Veteran's Administration Hospitals and no one using those services complain that they are mediocre. The people who claim they are mediocre are people who aren't utilizing the services yet. Federal programs such as Food Stamps and Medicaid are funded by the US but are run by the States, according to State rules (provided they meet Federal minimums). It's one size fits all within the State, but certainly not at the federal level - and there are some State programs that are very well run, and some that are mediocre. Schooling is done at the local level - some school districts are outstanding, some a mediocre, some are outright poor - but it's not one size fits all. TO make a blanket statement that the quality of all socialist programs is mediocre is just not supported by the real world. The Scandinavian countries have some of the most socialist governments on the planet - can you really say their social programs are mediocre?

8) Don't give the Scout the merit badge because in your opinion, the paperwork is in error, because in your opinion you know more than the Merit Badge Counselor who is actually charged by the BSA as the person who decides if a Scout has earned a merit badge because someone who has confused advancement (which is about ranks) with earning merit badges (which is not advancement, though can be part of advancement) told you that just because the application is signed by the Merit Badge Counselor doesn't neccessarily mean that the Merit Badge has been earned which is actually contrary to policy of the BSA. (not recommended). Look - the bottom line is the Merit Badge Counselor signed the application - that means, per policy, that the Merit Badge has been earned. We don't get to pick and choose which Merit Badge Counselors we're going to believe after the fact. If the MBC did a poor job, in your opinion, take it to the district or to council - and just never use that counselor again, but don't take it out on the lads. Whether you agree or not, the person who gets to make the determination, by policy, has said that the merit badge has been earned. Follow the program - don't make up your own rules. Or just go ahead and be loosey goosey about it - just be upfront with the Scouts and their parents that merit badges won't count if you decide after they're completed that they don't count - and hope that your parents know nothing about Scouts and Scouting. And don't rely on the following as an out as has been suggested: "I certify that the the following record of advancement is correct and that it meets the standards and requirements of the Boy Scouts of America" This sentence means just what it says, that your record of advancement meets the standards and requirements. It does not mean that all the advancements on the record meet the standards and requirements - it means that the record itself is correct. Your signature verifies that you have followed the instructions on the report and have filled the report out correctly (or if using a computer generated alternate, that it meets the same standard as the report). It means that the the memberships of the Scouts listed haven't expired. It means that the names are listed alphabetically, with one award per person on a line. It means that you've listed all of one Scout's advancement consecutively (that if a Scout has earned Tenderfoot and Second Class at the same time that it's listed Tenderfoot and Second Class, not Second Class and Tenderfoot). It means that the Scouts listed are male, and not over 18. The only possible hitch, as has been pointed out, is if the MBC isn't registered and an adult over 18 - but check with your Council - they may very well accept summer camp MBC's under 18 - though in general, most summer camps have the head of the department, who is usually over 18 (like the waterfront director) sign the card, though assistants may initial completed requirements. Don't belive this statement means anything more than a statement saying that you followed instructions and filled out the form correctly - because that's all it does.

Back to the options: 1) Follow policy, which states that once a Merit Badge Counselor has signed off on the merit badge, the badge is earned, and present the lads with the merit badge, while loudly telling everyone in earshot, including the Scouts and their parents, that they didn't really earn the merit badge despite what the MBC said, and that you're just giving the badge out because policy says you have to give it out. (Not recommended) 2) Don't give the badges out because you have decided that you know more than the BSA and their policies obviously don't apply to someone smarter than the BSA is and make the Scouts re-do the badge with a new MBC (not recommended - and rather arrogant). 3) Don't give the badges out because you have decided to contravene policy and make them do a retest of everything in your presence until they get it right to your satisfaction (not recommended - and if you have time to do that, how could you possibly have time to do the job of Scoutmaster?). 4) Quit - now - so that you don't have to wrestle with your conscience on following clear policy and doing what you think is right. (not recommended - and a cop-out - life sometimes requires us to hold our nose and do something we think we shouldn't have to do - it's what we do to follow-up that points to our true character) 5) Follow policy and give the merit badges to the Scouts, as earned per policy, then quietly have a discussion with the executive in charge of the summer camp program, and/or the volunteer in charge of the camping committee to express your displeasure at their failure to provide a proper program. Explain that you were following the Scout Law and assumed they were trustworthy enough to provide proper instruction by their summer camp counselors and that you are taking this as a learning experience for yourself and that you will be far more rigourous in determing whether their summer camp merit badge counselors next year have the right stuff - and that they need to re-earn your trust. Then suggest that your PLC schedule a few more aquatics type outings (even swim nights at a local pool) where the Scouts can all practice their skills. (RECOMMENDED).

Sounds like your son had a lot of fun - though he probably could have hit the showers at least one more time. A lot of camps will put some limits on merit badges at camp based on age. The limit of 2 seems a bit odd but I'm guessing the reasoning is that 11 year olds (or even 10 year olds who have earned the AOL and aren't quite 11) can sometimes feel very overwhelmed by it all, and often are so gung ho that they'll try to do more than they can really handle (which makes for a very negative experience). If he's doing T-2-1 classes and a couple of merit badges, that's a lot to fit in to a day. I went to a summer camp that had it's own horse ranch (Ma-ka-ja-wan in Pearson, WI). This was many years ago, and they had an unofficial effective age limit of 14 to work on Horsemanship as well. The reason was because it was a very popular merit badge and there were limits in the number of Scouts that could take the badge every week (limited by the number of available horses of course). As the staff was going through the listing of those that wanted to take the badge, they would prioritize the older scouts (the 15 and 14 year olds - the rare 16 and 17 year olds - most 16+ Scouts didn't go to camp - they were either working at a camp, or working some other seasonal summer job and couldn't get the time off). Usually, by the time they accepted the 15 and 14 year olds, they had filled the course. Occasionally, there would be room for some 13 year old Scouts - who would be drawn from a hat for that week. Sometimes, there wouldn't be room for all the 14 year olds - if the 14 year old was staying for a 2nd week of camp (and many units at Ma-ka-ja-wan stayed for a 2 week program), he would be accepted for the 2nd week. If for some reason he couldn't get in for either session, the staff "reserved" a guaranteed spot for him the next year (amazing what a camp staff could do with just paper and pen - no computer needed). Now I imagine there are some camps that might not accept the 11-13 year olds because they don't want to take on the liability risk - but I hope not. Interesting thst your son took some of the most difficult merit badges to earn at Summer Camp - it often takes a couple of years to earn rifle and archery. But the advantage of partialing (is that a word?) on those merit badges is it becomes pretty clear pretty quickly that they are difficult badges to earn, and there were likely to be plenty of other Scouts who also took home partials so it would take the sting out of it. Imagine taking fishing merit badge where there is a requirement to catch a fish, spending all week at camp fishing in every spare moment, and never catching a fish then having to take a partial on that badge. Now that's a heartbreaker.

"If you were a tree what kind of tree would you be?" She lost me right there. What was she thinking???" Except that it didn't happen that way. Despite popular culture (and Wikipedia) claiming that Barbara Walters asked Katherine Hepburn "If you were a tree, what kind would you be", Barbara Walters never asked that question. What really happened is that during her interview with Katherine Hepburn, Hepurn said "I'm like a tree". I don't care what kind of journalist you are, if you're good at what you do, then when someone comes out and states, without any prompting, "I'm like a tree", you have to follow-up and ask "What kind of tree?". That is simply good interviewing technique so let's give Barbara the credit she deserves as being one of the premier interviewers of the late 20th, and first decade of the 21st century that she is, without continuing to spread the lie that Barbara asked the "what kind of tree" question out of the blue. Calico ps - the answer was "An Oak" - which gives a good glimpse into the character of Katherine Hepburn, and how she viewed herself in the world.

"Frankly, I was somewhat embarassed to see my president appear on a "gossip" show such as "The View". I expect him to be much too busy for such appearances. I want to know he is focused on the economic crisis, not "Jersey Shore" characters." Well then I would think you would have been relieved to learn that on The View, President Obama admitted that he doesn't know anything about Snooki (which really confirms that President Obama had a heck of a joke writer for his talk at the correspondent's dinner). The again, you do seem to have a pretty dismissive attitude towards The View. I guess in your world, talk shows hosted by women, including perhaps the most honored and respected woman in broadcast journalism history, can't possibly be about anything but gossip. Never mind that the President talked about the Shirley Sherrod incident, which was very current news, jobs, the economy, and the wars on The View. Never mind that at about 6.6+ million viewers, President Obama reached more people than he did when he appeared on Meet the Press, or Face the Nation, or This Week (and that no one seems to be criticizing his appearances, or any other President's appearances, on any of those shows). No, let's just criticize the President for appearing on a news opinion show that you can't accept as a news opinion show because it's not geared to white, middle and upper class, males. Sexism is alive and well - let no one even try to deny it.