DanKroh

To answer your question, we only have one elementary school in town. The town is fairly small, so we have never divided it up geographically or any other way. There is no "turf". We have always had a joint open house, and divide up the scouts evenly at the end of the evening, although if the boy has a preference (because of friends or whatever reason), we respect that preference.

Our town has two packs, the other pack split off of ours something like 20 years ago, I''m not quite sure how long, other than longer than anyone else who is still around in either group. Cooperation between the packs has waxed and waned. Over the last couple of years, the CC and CM (a husband and wife team) of the other pack were rather competitive, and relations between the packs were not great. Well, they moved on last year when their youngest son moved on to Boy Scouts (about the same time I became CM), and they have a new CC and CM. Over the last year and a half, our CC has really been trying to build bridges with the other CC to have more cooperation between the packs. We''ve been doing a joint open house for as long as I''ve been with the pack, but it has not always been "cooperative". We really thought that this year, we were going to have that, a partner who would help promote CUB SCOUTS, rather than their own pack. Well, last night was the open house. The other pack''s CC hovered by the door, jumping on anyone who walked in and totally monopolized all conversation. She continually presented the with her pack roster and asked parents if there were any boys on it that their son might like to be with, because it was better for them to be with friends. Our roster (which we only had one copy of to their 6 or 7), was referred to in afterward if no friend was found on their roster. At the end of the evening, we sat down with the signups to divide up the interested parties. The other CC already had 3 applications from boys who put down a preference for their pack, but there were enough other boys that we were able to settle on equal sized dens for each pack. But then this morning, the other CC sends our CC an email saying that she "promised to follow up" with some of the families that were assigned to our pack and she was going to call them and send them their schedule (which they didn''t have any of at the open house), and that it would then be "up to us to pursuade them to stick with our pack". Now, am I being biased here that I think this behavior sends up a foul flag? Both our CC and myself have already sent these families a welcoming email (or phone call) this morning, but now the other CC is going to contact them and continue advocating for her pack, to try to lure them away? There have also been some issues already with popcorn show and sells around town. Our Kernel sent out email to try to coordinate with them about locations and times for show and sells. When she got no reply, she scheduled our show and sells (at different places around town, so we certainly are not monopolizing any one location), and send an email with our schedule to the other pack. Only, come to find out this past Sunday that they had double booked selling at the same hardware store as us (the hardware store evidently assumed we were together on this). It just seems like while they are talking about cooperation (and the other CC commented last night about how nice it was that we "balanced" out the groups), they are then turning around and making this whole thing a competition again. Our CC is a wonderfully diplomatic person, and is handling the situation well, but I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Fred, I think what Money did was beyond despicable. David Reimer was not a transgendered person, and the fact that Money lied to help cover up a botched circumcision rather than try to get Reimer help through phalloplasty is disgusting. He should never have treated Reimer as if he were transgendered. Beavah, I believe the youngest record of transitioning is 6. There was publicity recently (via Barbara Walters) about Riley Grant (formerly Richard Grant), a young MTF who began transitioning at 7 years old. She is now 10 and quite happy, after being suicidal from living in the wrong body. While the treatment of someone so young is quite controversial, even among those of us who are in the field, it is becoming more common. What should have been done to Riley if she had been in Cub Scouts while she was still "Richard"? Or even more so, what about a young FTM who has transitioned and wants to join?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"I almost forgot about that ''gender reassignment'' comment. I have tried on several occasions to get some discussion on this topic to see how BSA would view the issues surrounding it. It is an interesting topic that''s still unexplored....but I''ve already been under the knife enough times in my life, no thanks." Ok, Packsaddle, my friend, I guess that makes me the logical one to throw myself into this breach, seeing as how working with transgendered people is pretty much my bread and butter. So what is the BSA policy on transgendered people (pre- or post-transition) as leaders or even youth members (given that there are now cub scout age children transitioning)? If there isn''t one, what do you think it should be? Let''s start with some common terminology, since this is an area that not everyone is going to be familiar with. MTF (male-to-female) means a genetic (or bio-) male who female-identifies. FTM (female-to-male) is a genetic (or bio-) female who male-identifies. Pre-transition means before medical intervention to change their bodies to match their "internal" gender. Post-transition means after medical intervention (which may include hormones, any number of different surgeries, both, or neither) and living as their "internal" gender. It is considered very disrespectful to refer to TGs (transgendered) as "it", "shemale", "she/he", etc, and most respectful to refer to them with pronouns referring to their self-identified gender.

Acco40, The Heritage Award is offered by an organization called "Nations Trails". http://www.nationstrails.com/awards/index.html "Nations Trails" also keeps a listing of historical trails and the awards you can get for hiking each of them. The Heritage Award actually has nothing to do with hiking or any specific trail. It is an award given for learning about US history and heritage.

"But because you work in the field and not in research is why I trust the folks I work with more than you. It is not politics that sway me because many of these guys are as liberal as you, but research is what they do. Also, it is not the studies I question so much, although Ive learned they should be questioned, but it is the interpretation of the results by nonprofessionals (media for one example) for personal gain like politics that nauseates me." I''m not sure why you think I don''t "do research". Many of us continue to "do research" as part of our private practices. Plus there was that pesky doctoral thesis. The interpretation of results by nonprofessionals (many of whom think they "know" psychology because they slept in a Holiday Inn the night before) should definitely be questioned. But aside from my own professional interpetation of the many studies I have read, the official interpretation of the APA is that the *credible* evidence out there supports that childen in households with two same-sex parents are just as successful in all measurable ways as children in households with two opposite-sex parents. But, again, you''ve made your opinion of the APA incredibly clear from previous posts. However, like you, I am also nauseated by the misrepresentation of research for political gain (such as a "traditional family, anti-SSM" agenda).

"Not true Dan. I am an engineer (thank goodness) but I work in a dept. of psychologist and this is a long discussed topic every spring. There are many studies that show homes with a mother and father are the most stable for raising children. What digust the folks around here is how the results of studies are manipulated to support a different conclusion then the studies suggest. Most of these folks here are liberal in their politics, but they are professional." Well, Barry, I am a psychologist who actually works in that field. We''ve gone back and forth on this before, and will get no where doing so again. You say the studies supporting one conclusion are biased, I say the studies supporting the other conclusion are biased. But I can''t let Gonzo''s statement go without giving challenge that perhaps it is not a solid, accepted fact as he has presented it.

"Maybe packsaddle is into self-loathing -- if he thinks men are such losers, maybe he should look into gender-reassignment options." Now who is slandering a segment of the population? MTF TGs (male-to-female transgenders) do not seek gender-reassignment because they think men are losers or because they hate men. Amazing how easy it is to twist a casual comment into "slander" and take offense at it, isn''t it?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"Studies show that children do better in two parent male and female homes." No, they don''t. At least, not ones done by anyone other Focus on Family.

I would say I probably average about 50 books a year for pleasure reading. Mostly science fiction and fantasy. Authors tend to go in groups; lately it has been Orson Scott Card (getting around to all the other books he's done besides the Ender series), Sherri Tepper, and Sharon Shinn. I've got a stack of Tanya Huff up next. And of course, the last Harry Potter book, which I had to wait for my son to finish first, since he now reads faster than I do. Sigh.

Aquila wrote "We have an Aspie in our family; this doesn't sound like it at all. Aspies are largely compliant (just clueless sometimes!), generally on the quieter side except when talking about their "one thing", and aren't prone to outbursts of inappropriate language (Tourette's is something completely different). Frankly, it sounds more like poor parenting to me -- and Scouts is NOT about being these kids' parent." At the risk of dragging the thread off topic, please let me clarify a few things. Asperger's Syndrome is part of the Autism Spectrum. That says two things there; first, as part of a spectrum, you are going to see a wide range of behaviors. Second, as part of a syndrome, there are often other concurrent conditions, statitically common are ADHD, OCD, Tourette's. It is very, very possible for this boy to have more than one thing going on. Asperger's also presents differently depending on age. Violent behavior can be very common approaching adolescence and puberty. Adults with AS tend more toward the compliant and clueless. Again, it's hard to generalize when the presentation of a single person can vary greatly over the course of his or her life. As packsaddle said, they are all just labels, anyway, but one point where it makes a difference is the efficacy of medications. ADHD medications can work wonders for kids whose only issue is ADHD. However, ADHD meds will DO NOTHING, and may even exacerbate symptoms, for someone with Asperger's. I wish people would be less quick to label kids with a neurological disorder as having bad parents, being willful, or just being bad kids. This is part of who they are, not a flaw in how they were raised. Sorry, but this kind of prejudice is a real pet peeve of mine.

"Let me just say that in most cases, these scouts got better after puberty. Natures chemical change is amazing to watch." "as he reached puberty, his strength increased and his mood swings increased and he tendency to violence increased." While the first statement is often true for kids who have ADHD (many of them no longer need any sort of medication after puberty), the second is more typical for kids suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorders like Asperger's. Puberty makes things worse, not better.

Wow, Lisabob, that's a tough one. I can't say I have any easy answers to your question, but here are some experiences and thoughts that might help. First, you could easily be describing my son. Which makes me think that this boy has more going on than just ADHD. He displays many of the symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome, as well. Unfortunately, there is no medication regimen for AS, which may be part of why he doesn't respond well to medication. As such, I would approach the mother and let her know my concerns about the possiblity of AS, and mention that if it hasn't happened already (and it may have, but she certainly has the right to keep it private), she may want to have him evaluated for AS. Now, on to the troop situation. After 2 1/2 years, my son and I are considering changing troops. It is becoming more and more evident that this troop just doesn't "get it"-- that these behaviors are due to an invisible disability, and not a character flaw. These kids are just as disabled (or differently-abled, if you prefer) in their own way as anybody who uses a wheelchair, or is blind or deaf. Yet, if anyone suggested that we kick a kid out of a troop because his having to use a wheelchair is annoying everyone, I'd bet that quite a fuss would be made. However, I do recognize that behavioral disabilities like ADHD and AS can be very difficult to manage. Especially since these kids ARE generally very intelligent, and can have periods where they act like neurotypical (the preferred term to "normal") kids, that it is very easy for those around them to forget that they are not doing these things on purpose, and really, have very little, if any, control over these behaviors. And yes, sometimes these behaviors can become a safety issue, either to themselves or others. As someone else said in another thread, having ADHD (or AS) does not excuse bad behavior, even if it does explain it. So it is quite a conundrum. It's too bad that Mom can't be more active in her son's troop experience. I had decided before my son joined the troop that he would not go on any campout or troop activity if I couldn't also attend. I don't hover or interfer with his interactions, but I am there as a safety net if the situation escalates. And often, I can headoff an escalation by doing things that no other leader would know to do, or be expected to do, or even allowed to do (for example, he responds well to hugging when approaching meltdown). However, I am disappointed with the troop on several levels. I have offered since day one to meet with the leadership and talk about AS, but they have continued to be uninterested in that. They continually focus on annoying behavior that is not safety-related or even affecting anyone but my son, and chastise him when he seems unwilling (but is really unable) to change that behavior, especially since they don't understand what what motivates kids with AS and ADHD to modify their behavior is NOT the same as what works with neurotypical kids. I guess if I were the SM and had to come up with a course of action, here is what I would probably do: 1. talk to the boy, find out what he thinks of his scouting experience, get his input on what he wished was different, etc, then, 2. talk to Mom, explain concerns about AS, recommend evaluation for such 3. also talk to Mom about concerns, but put it in terms of more tangible safety issues (which is sounds like there are), rather than "annoying behaviors" 4. ask if there is a male family member who understands the boy's issues and can attend troop events with her son, who he might respond better to, since he "walks all over her" (not knowing how "progressive" their version of Islam is, do you think this may be a result of their faith?) 5. do some research and find out if there are any troops in the area that have more experience/specialize in kids with behavioral disabilities; if so, suggest that this troop may be a better fit for him 6. talk to the other scouts in general terms about how learning to deal with people who's behavior we find annoying is just as important a life lesson as learning to pitch a tend, or build a fire, or be a leader. Diplomacy is a useful skill, and one that far too few adults know how to employ. 7. create a modified plan of participation in the troop for this boy (with his and Mom's input). A week at camp may just be more simulation than he can handle. Suggest that his camping be limited to weekend outings only? Give him a job at troop meetings that will keep him busy and perhaps limit his one-on-one interactions with other boys. In effect, create an IEP for his scouting experience. I, too, hate to see a boy so obviously benefitting from the program turned away, but I also have a personal stake in such a situation, so to speak. I'd rather see it viewed as a learning opportunity by all involved. But in the end, we are all just volunteers, and shouldn't be forced to deal with something we really feel we can't handle. Good luck. ETA: I see others have suggestions while I was composing this long reply. If Mom is in denial about his condition, that makes the situation even harder. I'd probably still try to talk to her, she's not really doing her son any justice by denying that he may need more help.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Thanks for the explanation, Merlyn. Personally, I really despise this kind of semantic shenanegans. Calling duck a swan is not going to keep it from waddling and quacking. So do these "participants" have to fill out any sort of form to register their "participation"? It's really sad that someone at National had to think up these word gymnastics to be able to work a loophole in the system.

"For a perhaps less cynical way of parsing it, perhaps LFL is a way for BSA to provide service to people who otherwise wouldn't get it, even if those people don't ascribe to all of BSA's principles...just as we don't ask the recipients of the food that is gathered in Scouting for Food to sign the DRP." Well, except that people who receive food that is gathered in Scouting for Food are not signed up as members of the BSA, while the LFL members are. Or perhaps I am confused. Are or are not the youth in the LFL program registered members of the BSA? If they are, is it not strange that they can become registered members of the BSA without the signing the DRP, while those in the traditional program cannot?

"So how mnay of you guys watch Top Chef?" Every episode!

"She makes a really good Ham Pot Pie, using a ham bone, potatoes and the "Pot" is some kind of a dough all this is simmered on top of the stove and really does stick to your ribs." Eamonn, I completely forgot about PA Dutch Pot Pie. It can be made with any meat, I've had ham and green bean, chicken, turkey, beef. The dough is an egg noodle dough, rolled thin and cut into big squares. The first time I ever made if for friends up here in Boston, they wanted to know where the pie crust was! But I have made a few converts. Oh yeah, and speaking of libations, don't forget birch beer.

Brent, just as an aside, since your comment caught my attention: "Regarding trained leaders, who here would send their kids to a school with untrained teachers?" Actually, lots of people do. It's usually called homeschooling.

We set a goal for each Cub to sell $250 worth of popcorn. If he reaches that goal, he gets two rewards. First, he gets a "campership" of $50 that he can use toward summercamp or any overnight activity that the pack goes on that year. The other reward (and of more interest to the boys) is that they get to throw a pie at an adult leader of their choice. If they sell more than $500, they get to throw 2 pies, but that's the upper limit. The pie throwing is really quite an event among the boys, as they cajole and bargain with each other over which leader/parent each will pie. Now, THAT's an incentive!

Never had fried dough before moving to the Boston area, but I don't know if it is specific to here. From my college days in Cambridge, I remember Buzzy's Roast Beef, and Toscanini's ice cream. But I am more fond of the delicacies from my childhood in south-central PA... funnel cakes and shoo-fly pie....mmm, feel that diabetic coma coming on. Gotta love a pie where the main ingredients are molasses and brown sugar.

"Would you also support the teaching that the political views and positions of who ever is in power are the proper views? No opposing views can be taught? Primary school children don't understand nor are they curious about the gay issues UNLESS they are directly exposed to them in their daily life as your children are. The explanations need to come from parents not government." Actually, LongHaul, I never said that I supported the use of the books in a public classroom, I just said that they were "age-appropriate" tools for teaching diversity and tolerance. I happen to think that they are great tools for any *parent* who wants to broach the subject with their children and are unsure of how to do it. I recommend them to a lot of clients who are trying to find ways to bolster the self esteem of their children about having a non-traditional family (same-sex parents). I don't believe it should be up to the government to dictate whether or not parents are allowed to instill intolerant views in their children. Eventually those children will grow into adults and decide for themselves. And then they get to spend lots of time with me and my colleagues sorting out the anger they feel toward those parents....

"Have you heard about the books some school systems are using to teach "cultural diversity?" Kindergarten students get "Who's In A Family" while 2nd Graders get "King & King", a fairy tale about two princes who fall in love and marry, and kiss at the end." Don't miss the sequel, "King & King & Family".... "Age appropriate? I don't think so." What exactly in the books did you find to be NOT age-appropriate, Brent? You have read them, right? Although I thought the writing was a bit sub-par, I thought the ideas were presented in very age-appropriate language. It is quite possible to talk about diversity and tolerance of homosexuality and non-traditional families without expressing any sexual content. My sons have both been taught acceptance of the GLBT community, and neither one has the slightest clue about the mechanics of any of it. What they do know is that their godfathers are no different from any other married couple in all the important ways. And yes, I trust either of them to take my boys camping or anywhere else without me. "We sure don't see those books in the schools where I live." More's the pity....

erickelly writes: "While often used to refer to relationship among various Christian denominations, Ecumenical's definition is "involving or promoting friendly relations between different religions" (Encarta) and that is the definition to which I was refering." That's fine if that's what you mean with it, but most people are going to read it and think you mean "Christian only". Just saying. YMMV. "As for the boy in your example that grows up to not believe in a higher power, why would he want to remain a group that had that belief as part of its tenants?" Well, because: that's where all his friends are he likes doing merit badges he likes to camp he likes doing all the other cool things that scouts do, strangely none of which has any overtly religious component (except for the occasional prayer and the mention of God in the oath) "I never looked at this a punishment being meated out by the BSA but rather a statment of "We believe in X, if you believe in X great, but if not why would you want to affiliate with this group"" See the above list of why they want to affiliate. Maybe you don't see it as a punishment, but what about the average teenager? Again, if they've already been in the organization for 10 years, why would he want to leave? "And what would we tell the other members of the group? That originally we said faith is a critical element in life but we were wrong and now it doesnt matter one way or the other?" Personally, I would tell them that we are more concerned actions and deeds than professions of belief. Some people get their moral code from a belief in a specific faith, other people have a moral code based on their own thoughts about right and wrong. It's how you live by that code that is important, not it's source.

erickelly writes: "Personally, I think the BSA has it right on Religion and needs to rethink its stance on sexual orientation." Eric, I was once where you are now. "The belief in a higher-power is a central and explicit part of the BSA program included in elements of both Scout Oath and Scout Law. I personally don't want the program to consider dropping the Scout Oath's "Duty to God" nor the Law's "Reverent" components. There are a plethora of youth organizations that are comletely secular in nature. Why can't the BSA retain this element of ecumenical faith without being vilified as "hate mongerers" or religated to having no-access to public resources as other youth programs that do far less good and have far less impact." As an aside, ecumenical means unity of Christian denominations. The BSA is non-sectarian. One can be reverent without being theistic. One can also feel a sense of duty to something higher than themselves without being theistic. Here's why my stance on atheists in the BSA changed. Realistically, a six-year old (Tiger age) has no real internalized concept of religion. Although he probably professes a belief in the religion of his parents due to indoctrination, he will quite likely question, and maybe even change his religious belief during his formative years. What if, at 16, he decides that there really is no God? He has been in Boy Scouts for 10 years, but suddenly, he is no longer eligible to stay a member. What changed in the young man's character from the day before his decision to be an atheist? Does he now act any differently? Does he now treat others differently? Most likely, not. But the BSA has decided that yesterday, he was acceptable, and today he is not. What an incredible blow to the self-esteem of a 16 year old. That is why I cannot in good conscience support the BSA policy on atheists.

erickelly writes: "Although I dont have a definative list of groups who are exclusionary but arent the PC presses "whipping boy", one that springs to mind immediately is Girl Scouts of America. They have no program for boys at any age, even supporting programs for male siblings. While men can technically be adult volunteers they are, in my opinion, extremely limited in role and not typically welcomed. It is also my understanding they can not hold certain leadership positions." I think that if the BSA's exclusionary policy that the public mainly objected to was about girls, then you would see a lot more flak being given to the Girl Scouts for the same reason. But when people castigate the BSA for "exclusionary policies", it is generally not over gender, but religion and sexual orientation. But, unlike the BSA, the Girl Scouts have eliminated both of those exclusions. To get back to Gunny's initial question, I think that Oak Tree and CalicoPenn have hit it pretty close. Discriminating on the basis of religion and sexual orientation, while legal for the BSA to do, is becoming less and less acceptable to society in general, and there are fewer and fewer organizations out there who still practice it. So that the BSA does is noteworthy. Which brings up another good point; why is pointing out a fact (the BSA is exclusionary) automatically a castigation of the organization? If so many people in the BSA are so darned proud of those exclusionary policies, wouldn't it be a matter of pride to bring them up? Or could it be that the policy is really the elephant in the middle of the room that no one wants to look at or acknowledge? And Lisabob's points are very valid, too. I think the BSA comes off as a bit hypocritical when they tout "diversity" and "respect of others" on the one hand, and then exclude people who would otherwise be considered part of a "protected class". Finally, I think another reason the BSA receives bad press for discriminating is that, despite the Supreme Court ruling that they are a private organization, they are still seen by much of the public as a "public" organization (public accomodation in legal terms). Joe Average Non-Scouter probably doesn't know about the Dale ruling.