Oak Tree

Eagle92, One other way that council has to "remove" a volunteer is to drop the charter of the unit - or to threaten the CO that if the CO doesn't remove the volunteer from the position, then they would drop the charter. Sure, dropping a charter would be a giant pain in practice, but it's an easy discussion to have with a COR or IH who might cave to that pressure.

That's a curious problem. Our pack accepts checks from the people who buy the popcorn, but I don't think we've ever had a parent roll up the purchases into one check. However, we do every year have a couple of people who buy popcorn with bad checks. dmillar71's suggestion of not having the pack take checks is an interesting one. I don't know if we could get away with that or not. It would be a pain - either for some of our customers, or for our parents. But it would certainly get rid of the problem. You can see why many businesses have decided not to accept checks any more. I'm thinking maybe we should start taking credit cards. The 2.75% fee probably evens out with the bad check fee. For now, all I can suggest is that you can proceed either legally or just with societal pressure. Does the dad still want his son to participate? Is he willing to work out a payment plan? Did the dad actually pay the boy's registration fees at the beginning of the year? I'd suggest that someone sit down with him and work out a plan.

I'll grant you that. It's certainly unusual for a district to have six Silver Beavers in one year.

If the COR is removed, the IH of the CO would need to appoint a new COR. The COR can only be appointed by the CO, not by the BSA. I personally find it unlikely that council would force such an issue. BSA professionals are trained to leave these things to the COs and to refer them back to the COs. They might tell the CO that the CO has an issue with leader Jim Bob, and they might even suggest that the CO investigate some of the complaints. I can't see why a council would even want to consider forcing this issue on a bunch of units at once.

Beavah's methodology for calculating Eagle percentage is correct. I think the estimate that the average Scout is in for 4 years is probably too high. Every troop is different, and the well-established troops might have a number like that, but there are a tremendous number of troops that pop into existence, struggle for a few years, and then fold. I'd guess three years is more like it. You can also get this number, roughly, by dividing the number of Boy Scouts by the number of Webelos Scouts who cross over each year. There are 837,343 Boy Scouts (as of 12/31/2010). There are 1,601,994 Cub Scouts. (In 2009 there were 633,099 Webelos Scouts, out of a total of 1,634,951 Cub Scouts). So let's say around 300,000 Cub Scouts cross over each year. That would give an average tenure of 2.8 years. So 2.8 years times 5.6%/year = 15.7% of all Scouts earn Eagle. Lots of minor caveats here, but this number is approximately correct, and also feels about right to me. From my experience, I'd say the primary difference is that there are way more adults around to help remove obstacles, and to provide advancement opportunities.

Boundaries are dictated mostly by adult fear, but also a little by adult egos. Excellent post, Eagledad. I would add a couple of more items that I've seen dictate boundaries. One is a lack of understanding of the program - some adults just don't realize that the boys are supposed to plan things. Or maybe they've mentally heard that, but they don't really understand what that means in practice. So they do things that they just don't realize could just as easily be done by the boys. The other one, and the one that directly affects me the most, is that I don't have enough time to devote to the progam. Alternatively, you could say that the boundaries are set for adult convenience. Getting the boys to plan things takes time, mentoring, coaching. Partly you might call this fear, in the sense that I'm afraid certain planning aspects just won't happen if left entirely to the boys, and I don't want to deal with problems that arise from total logistical snafus. I don't want to go for a year without an annual plan. I don't want to show up at a campground and find out we don't have a reservation. I don't want to watch dates for planned events come and go with nothing happening. I don't want to show up for a trip and find out we don't have enough drivers. I don't want to show up for a troop meeting and having no one who has a plan for the meeting. I phrased it all as "I don't want X" - but personally, I think the troop has a better experience all the way around if those things don't happen. I could just as easily say "the troop doesn't want X". And we could have the boys doing all of these things, but to make sure it happens it takes coaching and mentoring, and sometimes, with limited resources, it's easier to just do some of those things. Notice - I didn't say that the adults make sure there are enough tents, or enough food, or that the food is cooked right. We do mentor and coach on those, too, but if those things don't happen, it's good for the boys to work through the consequences. But I don't want 50 boys to suffer because one boy forgot to do something. I'd say that boys CAN plan, and they absolutely can participate in the planning process. They can also implement, but teenage boys are just not very good long-term project managers, as a general rule.

Well, the good thing about the Silver Beaver is that with a quota, the council is forced to decide who their best candidates are. The council can't just say "Everyone is working hard, so they all deserve the medal." It's true that some years might have stronger candidates than other years, but it's hard to make it easy to get. You get one award for every sixty units. If a council gave out six Silver Beavers, that means that they had at least 301 units. Someone decided that out of all of those units and all the nominations, those were the six best Scouters. Unless you have evidence to the contrary (judging was rigged, or only one criteria was used, or something), I'd go with the assumption that these Scouters must be pretty good to qualify for the award.

bankruptcy happens when yah dont have da funds to pay off all of your obligations So here's the difference. Unlike any person, or any company, the US government has the ability to create money. Therefore I view it as very unlikely that the government would ever technically become bankrupt. It's true that other countries have effectively gone bankrupt, but from my understanding, that's roughly because they owed dollars and just printing more of their own currency doesn't fix that. With the US being the dominant economy on the globe and with many/most obligations stated in dollars, I think that inflation is a much more likely concern than bankruptcy. It's true that we could get to bankruptcy eventually. Other countries that hold US bonds might stop buying reissue of the debt, or they might demand that the interest be paid in Euros. But the government really can't go bankrupt just because it owes too many dollars to someone. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it's good. By definition.

In practice, our boys tend to limit themselves on how much they want to do. My general principle is that the boys lead within the framework that's set up. The framework is set up by the adults - either the National Scouting organization, or the adults in the council/district, or the troop adults. The boys are welcome to contribute to the framework, and we include them in various aspects, but we often have to prompt them with particular things that need to happen, or some of the time the adults just go ahead and plan certain things (e.g., one ASM says he can host the annual planning meeting at his house on such and such a date, and so the meeting gets put on the calendar). Yes, the adults will step in for safety items and G2SS. But the more practical boundary is the point at which things start to fall apart program-wise.

I think that it's likely that the Fed will buy bonds, creating money, and we'll inflate away at least some of the debt. I agree that this has various undesirable consequences, but they're still going to pay out something for social security (e.g., the 75% number - either in an acutal reduction, or in an inflated-away valuation, per scoutingagain's post.) Yes, not increasing the debt limit would trigger a very bad result. Hence the debt limit will increase. One thing's for sure, something's going to have to give.

Go to youtube and search on "super bowl commercials 2011". They want you to see them :-)

I liked that one too. The only this is, I've heard so much about how badly off the city is, including from those who have been there, that I find it a little bit difficult to suspend my disbelief on that one. Still, I liked the commercial. It made me think about how a car from Detroit could be a good thing. I also liked the Motorola Xoom doing the takeoff on the Apple 1984 ad, I liked the Volkswagen beetle, and I liked Faith Hill.

"The Boy Scout handbook says you should give loyalty to those whom loyalty is due, which is no answer at all." I disagree - I think it's just the right answer. Well, it's certainly not wrong :-) It's true, by definition, but it doesn't provide any actual guidance as to whom you should be loyal to. For me, it means being loyal to the people that are loyal to you. I think that's right, and it's in sync with Beavah's definition, which I really like, since it captures my instinctive understanding of where my loyalty lies: Loyalty is owed to the persons who give you service, love, or kindness. Especially if that service, love, or kindness is beyond your due. Hence normally, parents give lots of service, love, and kindness - more than their children earn. And thus I will be loyal to my parents. But if my parents didn't do those things (or even actively harmed me), then perhaps they don't deserve my loyalty. This meets Lisabob's test of when a CO might deserve some loyalty. This also explains some of the discrepancies between viewpoints. Some council level volunteers will view themselves as giving service to troops and as volunteers, they believe the service is beyond what any troop is "due" - and therefore those volunteers will think that the troops should also support the council. But the troop views the arrangement as a commercial transaction and doesn't think they owe any loyalty. The exceptional disloyalty of the ninth level of hell isn't just for those who have an absence of loyalty, but those who actively harm people who have shown them love, service, and kindness, and possibly those who have even given their word and are also therefore not trustworthy, either. Eamonn's obligation is similar to Beavah's agency (professional loyalty) or my sworn alleigiance - and this really ties back to the trustworthiness that packsaddle mentions and is certainly in play any time that you state you will be loyal to a group. And while I know the term "loyalty" can apply to this, it's more the personal loyalty that I'm thinking of. And Eamonn, when fans are loyal to a team, what they are really being loyal to seems to be laundry. Black and gold, baby!

I agree that the trust fund IOUs are not "worthless". The government will in fact pay them. Exactly how they'll do this will be a matter of some concern. But for people who act like there is really a trust fund there, what are you thinking? That money's been spent. Yes, the government will try to pay it back out of operating revenues, but the idea that we're now working our way through a "trust fund" and only when that runs out will we be in trouble, that idea just strikes me as a remarkable exercise in innumeracy (and sometimes purposeful innumeracy on the part of our elected representatives.) Let's say I had a bunch of money building up in my right pocket that I was saving for retirement. I was going to pay for a car out of my left pocket, but I didn't have enough money there. So I took the money from my right pocket and moved it to my left pocket, and put a note in my right pocket saying that when I needed the money, I'd go get it from my left pocket. Then I spent all the money in my left pocket on a car. The IOU in my right pocket is not a "trust fund". Social Security will continue. It might become means tested. It might have its age eligibility requirements adjusted. It might pay out less than it has in the past. But it's not worthless, and we'll get more than zero. And I agree, it has been pretty effective at eliminating extreme poverty among the elderly. The problem with the other safety nets (family, friends, churches) is that they don't catch everyone. But when the government provides a back-up safety net, it quickly becomes the primary safety net. (I reckon it's possible that the same thing could happen with health care, but that's a whole different topic...) So in answer to the original questions: Is the trust fund real? No, the trust fund is not real. All it is is an IOU we've written to ourselves. There is no actual "fund" in the trust fund. is Social Security a Ponzi scheme? No, it's not a Ponzi scheme in the sense that all Ponzi schemes eventually suffer a dramatic catastrophic failure to pay. Social security won't do that. [or is it the case that] da money that was contributed is gone, spent on government programs, and da future obligations to an ever-larger group of retirees will be taxed (or inflated) out of an ever-smaller group of working young people[?] So this is really a bit different than an actual Ponzi scheme, but I get the analogy. The money is definitely gone. And yes, the expectations of future retirees are going to have to be reduced - by age, by amount, by inflation - or something. Taxes may or may not go up on the young people - but there's no way they can support the coming vast elderly population at the same level things are happening today. Perhaps robots will help make home health care much cheaper. [is this] thereby impoverishing the nation? Not so sure about this one. Social Security is a wealth transfer program, moving money from the young working people to the older retired folks. If we move less money from the young to the old, I'm not sure how that "impoverishes" us as a nation. If it forces people to work longer - either because they have reduced benefits in old age, or because they have higher taxes as youngsters, wouldn't that actually enrich the nation since more people are producing things? On the other hand, if we just go ahead and borrow all of the money from someone else (e.g., China), and then start transferring our earnings to the bond-holders, that might in fact impoverish us.

I think that *as a general rule* Venture Crews would not normally be appropriate - just because of the age range. However, if the crew was all under 18, what is the difference between them and an older Scout patrol (a Venture patrol, let's say, just to confuse things.) Adults often want the older youth to teach things. However, older youth don't join programs just so they can teach. They want to have fun too. If there was some version of a klondike derby that was set up just for Venturers, that would be more appropriate. But there usually isn't the critical mass to create such an event.

In the original thread, there was the question of whether a Scout should be loyal to their CO. I tend to agree that no such loyalty is really expected. Other places, people have suggested that a troop should be loyal to its council and attend the council summer camp, while others believe no such loyalty should be expected. So, to whom should you be loyal? The Boy Scout handbook says you should give loyalty to those whom loyalty is due, which is no answer at all. I find loyalty to be a hard concept to institutionalize - when should you be loyal, and when are you OK supporting someone else? Loyalty implies giving preferential treatment to someone or some group. People use "loyalty" as a club sometimes - "You should be loyal to us!" But should you, automatically? Or does loyalty have to be earned? I might say I'm a loyal fan of the Steelers, even though they didn't do much to earn it last night. Would it really be disloyal of me to change my supported team at some point in my life? Do I owe my employer any loyalty? Or am I free to jump ship at the first opportunity without being disloyal? Obviously I should be loyal to anyone that I've sworn allegiance to (the military, for example). But other than those cases, who am I really expected to be loyal to? My church? My troop? My CO? My district? My council? My high-school friends? My employer? My co-workers in this country? My co-workers in other countries (how does loyalty affect my support of off-shoring)? My neighbors? My town? My state (is there any principled reason around loyalty why I should buy from local farmers instead of farmers somewhere else)? My nation? (if so, how do you feel about people who become naturalized citizens - are they being disloyal to their home country)?

This screening was the biggest waste of time on check-in day at our camp. Stand around, waiting in line. Screener, who sees hundreds of boys, glances at kid to make sure boy is not actively throwing up, okays Scouts, moves on to next form. The value-add seemed especially minimal. It was by no means a physical.

I also expect volunteer leaders to do what they said they would do when they signed up as a leader. My district commissioner talks like this. The thing is, what he means is, I expect volunteers to do the job I think they need to do. Many people don't think they signed up to make it a high priority to email back to the district a list of troop training records, or a quality unit form, or whatever. They signed up to lead the kids. So when our DC starts going on like that, people just roll their eyes. Sure, you want volunteers to actually do their job. You especially want them to do the primary part of their job. But most volunteers, when they volunteer, are not thinking I just gave you the right to demand particular work items of me.

I'm with Beavah. Call it whatever you want, I don't think it hurts to have some brief statements of how things operate. Maybe we don't want to call them by-laws, since that brings up a notion of corporate legalese. My troop has a troop handbook that introduces new parents to the way the troop runs, and includes those kinds of things.

OGE, I'd say that the BSA doesn't ban them, but our troop does. I could also say that you could use the tool for recharging GPS batteries, or camera batteries, or flashlight batteries, or something that we do allow. I don't think the ad is a show-stopper. There are all kinds of ads in Boys Life that we don't use.

We don't have by-laws, per se, but we do have a set of general operating procedures. I think it can be a good idea to document some of these things just so that everyone knows them. It can make for smoother logistics. Somewhere you state what your dues are. That could be a by-law, I guess. The advantage of having the rules written down is that everyone has the same expectations and you don't have to make up the answer to every question on the spot. Avoids complaints of favoritism or whatever. But again, what do you want the rules to do?

My experience is exactly like Twocubdad's. The program has been pretty awful. It's slow. It's long. It's not fun. There are too many kids and some very unenthusiastic instructors. Yuck. We've taken to doing exactly as he describes - doing our own advancement and letting the kids do more fun merit badges like swimming.

Technically BSA also rejects agnosticism. There are multiple definitions of "discrimination". At the most basic it is: to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately. In this sense, the BSA is clearly discriminating as it does take note of the differences. Another definition in dictionary.com is "to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit;" In this case, when an individual is objectively measured against the criteria and found not to meet them, this would not be discrimination by this definition. I would tend to say that any group with membership criteria does discriminate. Basketball coaches discriminate against poor basketball players. But that argument is just over what the word means - not over what the BSA does. I think we all agree the BSA does officially require people to meet the membership criteria.

Ok, let's talk about the consequences of lying, then. the consequences are far less than if I find out about it through others. What are the consequences for lying? There are lots of different scenarios where lying might occur. Here's one I had. A Scout has mildly injured himself by doing something stupid. When he explains it, he substitutes a plausible alternate explanation that doesn't involve quite the level of stupidity. Later on the adults learn the truth from other Scouts and when confronted, the Scout does in fact admit that he did something pretty stupid.

I don't see that there's much reason to believe this is a troll - and especially I don't see why we should close the thread just because some people think so. You're free to let the thread die. But the posters' comments sound remarkably similar to what I would expect the real answers to be in this situation. Despite what some of Scouting's more ardent proponents suggest, it is not the case that all of the youth are engaging in deep value building and strong character enhancement. I'd say it's relatively common for Scouts to shallowly repeat the words - whether they generally agree with them or not. Most of us do not find the values of theism and heterosexuality to be a core part of our Scouting experience. They come up so rarely, in fact, that people who hold opposite values don't mind being a part of the organization. I can easily imagine people who ignore some apparently very minor aspects to the Scouting program in order to be a part of the larger set of friends and activities. I think I would answer yes, and yes.