Lisabob

Wow. That sounds so cool. Who doesn't want to learn to "play" with a blow torch. Seriously, my young man just spent a weekend helping his grandfather do some fix-it projects. I couldn't believe how much fun he was having, playing around (well-supervised, of course) with the plumbing, wiring, and drywalling. And it isn't like those are skills that will ever go out of fashion. Good for the BSA that they're introducing this MB.

Oh pack, I think my son is privately hoping that the answer is "no." I'm at a point where I'm kind of neutral. I wish he'd do it but it isn't worth arguing about or pushing further. And he has always been the sort who does exactly the opposite of whatever I might push for. So it has got to come from him, not me. In the same car ride home where this conversation occurred, he also said "Wow mom, I just realized, scouting has made me who I am! Look at all I've learned..." and started listing off stuff (much of it intangible). So even if he decides not to earn Eagle, I know and he knows how influential scouting has been for him. I'm content with that. So right now he is thinking he can finish up camping and e-prep (told me he has most of them done, anyway) and maybe do cit in community. He's a political junkie and tied in to local politics so that shouldn't actually be too hard. But it remains to be seen if he'll really do them. Not going to be my project, you know?

My son asked me about this last night. He's got one month to do 3 more Eagle-required MBs or go past the point of no return for earning Eagle. (He needs to do his Life board within that same time frame.) And...he's still waffling. Now I am at ease with whatever he ends up doing. His question is, is it even still possible to complete 3 more Eagle-requireds within that time. He already has the following: Cit in Nation Cit in World Swimming First Aid He has partials on the following: E-prep Camping Communications There are no camp outs or COHs coming up within his leftover time and he hasn't done the master of ceremonies requirement (8, I think?) for communication so we figure that's a no-go for Life in his allotted time. Whadda ya think? Still even possible?

There are a few packs round here with great Tiger programs, year after year. In almost every case, their Tiger DL is a long-term leader and not a parent from that year's crop of Tigers. I believe a couple of folks on this board (ScoutNut?) have done that, too. Seems to work. Webelos is tricky. Honestly, I had more fun with our Webelos guys than at any other rank because we could (and did) do so much more and really get into things further. The boys were also old enough to take on added responsibilities. But keeping that excitement going for 18 months is hard, and burn-out is an issue for all (boys, parents, leaders), by the end. Seattle, if I recall properly, you are retired, yes? That probably means you have a bit more freedom in your schedule than most cub leaders/parents. To be honest, as a working parent of a youngster with other obligations in our lives (school, religious orgs, other community orgs), sometimes I found it impossible to expect more time or commitment from our scouting adults. Even the ones who wanted to do it, were just stretched too thin. The few who had time tended to be unemployed/retired/home-makers.

I am amazed at the popularity of patterned/colored duct tape among scout-aged boys. Just expect to see it on everything. My son currently has his entire hat duct taped in different patterns. Hand warmers can make good stocking stuffers, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/nyregion/small-classes-unimportant-to-bloomberg-gotham.html?ref=education NYT article on Mayor Bloomberg's silly ideas about class size. Note it isn't the unions or teachers trying to argue that class size is irrelevant, here.

Yes and no back at you, Beavah. Yes of course people do tend to take the best deal offered to them and there's no reason to think that unions (of any sort) would be the exception to that. (As a matter of fact, this is kinda the idea behind a lot of capitalist theory.) But sure, there might be times when short-term strategy is not good long-term policy. I'll grant that. On the flip side, if the problem is contracts that are too rich, don't blame the unions - blame the school boards that also negotiated those contracts. Contracts are a two-way street and management must have thought the deal was ok, or they wouldn't have agreed in the first place. That's particularly true in states (like mine) where management can declare something to be their "last, best offer" before mediation, and can then impose that last, best offer if mediation fails. The real power and leverage is thus in the hands of administrators - who often do a rather poor job of negotiating for a wide variety of reasons, none of which are the fault of unions. Now I don't know how things are in your part of the frozen upper midwest, but in my area, many big teacher unions (and more small ones) are looking at a period of wage freezes *and* layoffs *and* increased costs *and* declining benefits. This is not exactly "gold plated" anything, except maybe "fool's gold plated turds." Our legislature, for example, recently voted to mandate that teachers pay 20% of their insurance. OK, in principle that may be sensible. But when it is imposed legislatively rather than through contract negotiations and you end up taking an unanticipated pay cut to do it, all while being dumped on in lots of other ways, that's a problem. (actually I think it is an abuse of legislative power, but that's why I don't care much for unified government - of any stripe.) Teachers are part of our vanishing middle class, too. Or they used to be. And I think most of us agree that a vibrant middle class is a key feature in most stable capitalist democracies. And as somebody who has sat across from management in teacher contract negotiations, I'm frequently amazed that management tends to REFUSE to promise to spend any money saved on things that matter in the classroom - like smaller class sizes. If they would, they might be surprised at the number of concessions they could win from teacher unions. No, what management does, is to say "you have to take lower salaries and a decrease in benefits, but we reserve all rights to spend the savings however we please." And I hate to sound jaded, but "however we please" in the past has too often meant "on really nice administrative offices with all-new furniture, lots of fancy catering for special administrative lunch meetings, company cars for administrators and friends, and skyrocketing administrative salaries." Can't hardly blame teachers for not wanting to give up their salaries and benefits in return for no promises from administrators to spend the saved money on actual education, given this past track record! But this is all kind of a digression from the original topic. Sorry if I've led us down this road too far; education policy is something I find it hard to shut up about.

Montessori kids tend to be good advocates for themselves and their peers, and they tend to have good relationships with/communication skills with adults. (or anyway, that's my experience) So if your unit is looking to recruit from that pool, you had better make sure your unit is one that welcomes thoughtful young men who are willing to speak up (courteously, of course - they're scouts, after all) when they see things differently than the adults in your unit do. In some units that's labeled "disrespect" and is actively discouraged. Montessori kids probably wouldn't be a great fit in a troop like that.

"We have twice as many admin and support people as we do teachers, and we struggle to get fewer than 30 in a classroom. Can we fix it? No. Government unions get in the way, and then they tell their people how to vote. In the name of making things better, we continually make them worse ... how? ... by adding more people, and more layers of advisors and supervisors and specialists." As someone involved with a teacher's union, let me assure you of a couple of things from the "inside" perspective. 1. It sure isn't teacher's unions who are keeping class sizes above 30. Every teacher's union I've ever heard of acknowledges the benefits of smaller class sizes and advocates for program design and funding to allow for this. What creates bigger class sizes is budget pressures - usually decided by local and state boards & legislatures (never decided by the teacher unions, that's for darn sure). When states continually cut K-12 funding and local school boards refuse to allocate money in ways that support smaller class sizes, the end result is that more students get crammed into fewer classes to "save money" on teacher salaries/hire fewer teachers. Everybody - especially teachers and their unions - knows this is not educationally optimal and would rather see smaller classes. 2. So teacher's unions try to provide political information to their members. So what? So does every other interest group in America. Nobody forces teachers to listen to the information provided and - speaking as a union leader - I promise you, we're not frog-marching people into the voting booth and forcing them to vote one way or another. And members of teacher unions who don't agree with the political activity of their unions can receive a refund of any money that they pay in dues, which goes to supporting political activities. (just as is the case with any other unions, in most states) Teacher's unions are simply doing what ALL interest groups do. And since interest groups represent just about the only effective way for ordinary, non-bazillionaire- people to come together in groups and advocate for the things that matter to them, I don't see why this is a problem. Unless, of course, you actually prefer that individual teachers have no political voice in the decisions made by government about education policy and their workplace. (And why should teachers be the only ones without a voice, especially in a field where they're the experts!) Last thing - so you hear people complain about all their vacation, etc. Well in what field or part of your work world have you ever existed where somebody isn't complaining about something? Seems to be a fact of human existence. But really, if your complaint is "they've got it good," I'd ask you - shouldn't everybody get honest pay for honest work? A few complainers and loafers aside (and believe me, as a union leader, we don't encourage or defend slackers when they get into trouble for slacking. We do encourage due process to ensure that discipline or remediation happens fairly, but then, most people are in favor of fairness, especially when it comes to themselves) - maybe what we need is more unions, not fewer unions.

You know what, sailingpj, I probably wouldn't have much of a problem with you doing that. The problem is that you are quite unusual (as I suspect you know), and the likelihood of councils finding a person like you is kind of low. So if the rules allow a 16 year old camp counselor to teach ATV-driving to a bunch of other 16 year olds, the risk is that the camp director assigns some kid to teach on the basis that "well he's ridden one of these things before..." and don't tell me it wouldn't happen, because we see it happen all the time with other program instruction at summer camps. On the other side of things - I don't doubt your personal credentials, sailingpj. I also don't think it is right, as a matter of policy, to intentionally put youth in positions where they will be responsible on a frequent basis for split-second judgments that can result in serious injury or death of other youth in their care. Adding motors to the matter increases the responsibility and risk involved. I just think a person should be a legal adult (at a minimum) before taking on that responsibility and risk - or having it put on them by their boss (program director). OGE - so you need to be 21 to be a waterfront director - how about range instructors? COPE directors? Any other positions where BSA dictates a somewhat higher age threshold?

Whoa whoa there, Seattle. I am a liberal. Beavah is not. Don't insult me by calling that nonsense that he just wrote, "liberal." Beavah, your example is absurd and I suspect you know it. Equating unease about the maturity level of teenagers with racism is silly (or worse). By connecting the two, as you've done, you suggest that any parent who tells their kid "no you can't do that, because you're too young." is every bit as wrong as, say, the pro-segregation parties of the 1950s. Puh-lease. Get a grip on yourself, man, before you declare parenting itself to be vile discrimination of the worst sort.

Beavah, you are just over the top. There is a world of difference between what I wrote, and the way you twisted it, and I really don't appreciate being accused of racism.

A couple of weeks ago, my usually-sensible, level-headed, and coolly analytical 17 year old son kicked a wall. It made a hole. He was totally surprised. We had a "boy was that dumb" conversation about it that revealed his momentary lack of acquaintance with the notion of cause & effect. (He has since learned the fine art of repairing holes in walls, which should prevent future wall-kicking from occurring!) Bottom line for me is that 16-17 year olds sometimes lack maturity, experience, and judgment - even the mature, responsible ones! I don't think it is appropriate for kids to be instructing other kids when it comes to motorized vehicles. The kinds of errors that could occur are so quick and so potentially devastating that there is not enough room for lack of judgment or inexperience, and really, it isn't fair to put that sort of responsibility on kids. Any of us who have been to a boy scout summer camp have probably seen examples of youth staff who are outstanding, but also youth staff who are in way over their heads and were assigned to "teach" something with almost no background knowledge or training. I get annoyed when that happens but I can still sleep at night if we're talking about, say, basketry or astronomy. Not so, when it comes to motor vehicle safety. If camps are going to have these programs, then I would expect instructional positions to be limited to some certified adults. If a camp could not promise that (and deliver on that promise) then I wouldn't allow my son to sign up for that program. I guess others might come to different conclusions about that.

In my state, kids can start driving at age 14 and 9 months. We have a graduated driver's license law that limits them for a while, but still - under 15 and driving on the road. I don't care what the law is, and I don't care how wonderful the kids are. I think 14 + 9 months is too young to be responsible for a couple thousand pounds of metal hurtling down the road at 70 mph (speed limit around here). In my view, 16-17-18 is plenty young enough to start driving and even then, I'm nervous about it. The reason we have graduated driving laws is because every year, a bunch of mid/late teens die because somebody was trying to impress his or her other teenage buddies in the car and tragically misjudged something. No way in the world am I ever, and I mean ever, going to be ok with the notion that some 16-17 year old kid is capable, not only of driving, but possibly also of instructing other teens to operate a PWC or ATV. The potential for kids to get carried away and tragically misjudge is just too great.

The thing is that liberals generally weren't the ones touting European "socialism." Perhaps, more accurately, some liberals were (and many still are) touting "social democracy," by which people typically mean that a society places more emphasis on collaborative problem solving and a strong social safety net. Social democracy tends to be more widely accepted in most - not all - European states than in the US. Then, of course, painting the varied political & economic systems of 30+ countries in an entire continent with the same brush ("European socialism!") is dangerous and prone to being wildly inaccurate. The differences between, say, the Swiss economy, the Danish economy, the French economy, the Polish economy, and the Greek economy are staggering. Same goes for their political systems. Those differences are more obvious, and more salient, these days. Just goes back to Beavah's point, though.

The banking crisis in the Eurozone isn't about socialism; it is about bad banking practices, lax oversight & regulation of financial industries, and inept government making stupid choices about budgeting, or playing roulette for short-term, personal, political gain. It is about monetary policy and who controls it, vs. fiscal policy, and who controls that. And about politicians who can't find their way out of a dark room with 2 hands and a flashlight. ETA: Uh, Greece *has* raised its tax rates. They've been going through austerity for close to 2 years. Yeah, that's working well for them. Uh huh. There is a serious argument about whether, or when, austerity works. I'm not arguing for or against it (in principle). But those on the no side aren't necessarily socialists and shouldn't be written off in such an intellectually facile manner.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

No, they don't know. "So I'm left to conclude that either these folks' educations were just phenomenally lacking and they don't know what "socialism" is, or that they're really just viscerally upset about something else about da world and President Obama in particular. " Yes, those. Heck, I've had people try to shout me down for teaching theoretical Marxism, in a class about the Soviet Union. I've had students try to tell me that it is wrong of me to ask them to read Hegel, Lenin, Gramsci, and other so-called "socialists" because "this is America." (they were unconvincing in their arguments, I might add) And that's at the college level; I can only imagine the difficulty of teaching what socialism actually is, at the high school level. I can imagine the angry parent mobs now. This semester alone, I've heard from students that they didn't care what I said, they just know Obama is a secret communist (also - that he's Muslim; that he's funded by terrorist groups; that he's Kenyan; that he was a member of the Panthers; and other unsubstantiated stories); that the EU's debt crisis is a clear sign of the failure of socialism (that one makes me snort with laughter); that the reason we are at war in Afghanistan was because the communists there were forcing Afghans to give up religion... socialism & communism are the boogey man everywhere. I don't care if people support or oppose somebody, but this all makes you wonder where some people get their "knowledge" from, doesn't it?

Well I dunno where you live, JB, but I know all sorts of self-described "values voters" who also say they vote Republican. They're sure not talking about Huntsman or Santorum. A few do talk about Paul. Beavah - fair enough. I read too quickly, misconstrued a bit. Sorry.

Yeah a bunch of you did miss my point. Of course Dems have flaws, of course we aren't going to agree on policy (I make no bones about being a liberal Democrat, thank you, and I don't expect to convert y'all.), and of course in years when they didn't already have an incumbent the Democratic field has been a wide-open mess. But this year, the Dems are pretty much settled on Obama and the circus is over on your side of town. What I don't get is why many so-called, self-described, "values voters" would ever even consider Newt, while ignoring Huntsman, Paul, and Santorum. (Yes, thanks for reminding me about Paul, BS-87) I would never vote for Paul or Santorum on policy grounds, and I also find the latter's homophobic views to be extremely offensive. I probably wouldn't vote for Huntsman either - though I can imagine him as a good VP choice (I appreciate that he can find China with two hands & a flashlight, unlike some of his colleagues). But I can see the appeal that all three hold, if what Republicans are actually looking for are "values" candidates. And let's be honest, that values stuff isn't just media hype. That's how the Republican party has tended to market itself in recent years. Beavah suggests that it is really the security-focused Republicans that like Gingrich, and I find that funny too, because there as well, Huntsman probably has the upper hand in terms of policy chops (less so for Paul & Santorum). **AND** he has the morality edge over Newt (well really, who doesn't?). By that logic, Huntsman should soon be running away with the race for the Republican nod and it is pretty plain that isn't going to happen.

Beavah: "It's best, though, if it is someone older who doesn't have a kid currently in da program. Not because young people or parents can't handle it, but because moral defects in da listeners make 'em less likely to listen to certain folks." Please expound?

Beavah, Some years back I was associated with a unit sponsored by the local Lions club. The club wanted the boys to fund raise for them outside the local grocery store. The first demand was that the boys do so in uniform (that got nixed immediately). The second was that the boys do so out of uniform, but still as a scout event. I asked our council bigwigs about this. The unanimous answer at the time was "no," that CO's cannot require their scouting units to raise money from the community to benefit the CO. I suppose this is different than the CO stating "we are doing a fund raiser and would love it if you'd come help as individuals." But what our CO was doing, and what the CO here sounds like they're doing, is making the fundraiser a scout unit event. That was a no-go according to our council. Rules and interpretations may vary elsewhere. I'm just saying what we got told here.

A troop my son was in used to have as many adult leaders as boys (in the 30s-40s). Sometimes, more registered adults than boys. There would be 20 ASMs at some events, 30+ adults attending summer camp with the troop, etc. This was a point of honor for this troop. Although it did, indeed, improve "flexibility" and ensure enough drivers to/from events, it was nigh on impossible for youth leadership to bypass that many well-intentioned adults. Some "got it" about youth leadership but most did not, or didn't care. Really, it is probably too much to expect of a 14-15-16-17 year old SPL to control the youth side of things AND keep the hordes of adults at bay. Troops like that tend to end up as adult-run, as a result. One reason my son moved on to a different troop (that, incidently, has far fewer ASMs, and double the number of boys)

lrsap: "What's funny is to think there are people that would vote for Newt to be POTUS, but wouldn't want him to be their son's SM. " Yeah! I mean, that's the point here!

Oh now come on, JoeBob (and others). I don't deny for one moment that Bill Clinton had some major moral shortcomings. I don't deny that Democrats had a hard time choosing between Hillary and Obama in '08, or that people genuinely change their minds when confronted with new info about the less-than-savory sides of a candidate's life. In other words, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the flaws of the Democratic side of life. But Democratic voters are not usually the ones shouting about moral character and values as trump cards to experience and ideology. Usually, that cry comes from the Republican side. And as for Newt, no denying the man has serious political experience. I mean, the man was Speaker of the House and as others note, he almost single-handedly championed the "contract with America" and the 1994 "Republican Revolution" that saw the R's take back control of the House for the first time in decades. But he has some serious moral issues and they are not news. The lobbying issues that are coming up now may be sort-of-news, but he's also twice-divorced with a string of salacious stories surrounding those divorces, and he flip flops with the best of them. He says outrageous, offensive, stuff just about every other day. He always has, too. I remember his comments about men being made to hunt giraffes and women being made to stay home & have babies (as an explanation for why he felt women shouldn't serve in most military roles), way back when. And that was hardly the worst thing he said! This isn't to argue about Dems vs. Reps. There are hundreds of examples of Dems with character issues, but Dem voters aren't begging for a "values" based campaign, and Dem voters are more or less settled on our guy. Rep voters - they're the ones who say they want "values" and "character" and "morality" to play a central role and it seems they're the ones hopscotching from one candidate to the next these days. What I don't get - is why are they jumping to NEWT, and why are they overlooking Santorum & Huntsman? I mean, really, Santorum seems like he's the guy with the "values" chops, and an evangelical Christian, to boot. Huntsman has the dubious quality (apparently - in the eyes of a lot of Christian conservative voters, not my judgment) of being Mormon, but he doesn't seem to have personal scandals of the same type that Newt and other front-runners do. So, what makes Newt a better values-guy to lead the party than Huntsman or Santorum? That's what I'm really curious about.

Watching the current crop of Republican contenders has certainly been entertaining. So many debates, so far in advance of the actual election, are bound to reveal thin preparation and ill-formed world views. And all that's fun for a little while. (particularly since I'm rooting for the other team!) But one thing that astonishes me is the apparent willingness of many Republican voters to serially adopt, then abandon, one Republican candidate after another. The latest is that likely R voters are disembarking from the "Cain Train" in favor of - gasp - Newt Gingrich. I can see the bumper stickers now..."Values Voters for Newt!" Seriously, I don't get it. There are a couple of Republicans who I personally wouldn't vote for if they were the last candidate standing (on political ideological grounds), but who seem to have relatively unblemished personal lives and character. People who I would think the "values" voter base might be proud to have as individual role models for our young men. For example, Rick Santorum or John Huntsman. But..no..the "values" base guys over on the R side swing from Cain to...Newt? I admit, I don't get it. Show me the light. What makes Newt (or Cain) a better role model and exemplar of "character" than these other guys? Why aren't the values voters going for these other guys, instead? Put another way, are there **any** current candidates (from any party) that you find to be worthy role models for boy scout-aged youth? I'm genuinely curious to hear what you-all will say...